1935-45 WI: no 2-engined (day) fighters

As it says on the tin: for reasons of, say, high price, there is not a singe 2-engined day fighter designed as such in the specified decade. No Bf 110, no Airacuda, no P-38, no Whirlwind, no Beaufighter, no Fw 187, no Ki-45 etc.
What are alternatives and workarounds (2 engines were mostly used if/when extra carrying capacity was sought), who will be better off once shooting started, what are gains/losses for the sides involved.

Please note that 2-engined aircraft that were not designed as fighters, like A-20 or Mosquito, can still be employed in day fighter role, however that might be a questionable proposal.
 

DougM

Donor
First off I don’t see why you would not have them. The logic of the creation when engines were not as powerful and or range was needed is hard to get past.
Second if you can convert something else then someone will try to build a dedicated airplane for the job.
And the big difference if this happened is a certain Japanese Admiral probably lived longer.
I also not you say day fighter. So you get a night fighter cut down then redesigned to eliminate the extra crew and the radar and such and “poof” dedicated 2 engine fighter.

It is just two hard to stop two engine fighters from happening.
 
First off I don’t see why you would not have them.

Coverd in post #1: "for reasons of, say, high price".

The logic of the creation when engines were not as powerful and or range was needed is hard to get past.
Second if you can convert something else then someone will try to build a dedicated airplane for the job.

I've never suggested converting an originally 2-engined bomber or recon.

And the big difference if this happened is a certain Japanese Admiral probably lived longer.

Having Yamamoto alive past 1943 does not mean he still has Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, a host of other ships and servicemen (that US/Allies historically destroyed) under his command.

I also not you say day fighter. So you get a night fighter cut down then redesigned to eliminate the extra crew and the radar and such and “poof” dedicated 2 engine fighter.

It is just two hard to stop two engine fighters from happening.

"two hard" is actually "too hard"?
The 1st sentence is a bit hard to understand, too.
A night fighter employed as an ad-hoc fighter when nothing better is available is one thing. Having a night fighter to endure blowtorches, cutters, saws, rivet guns and whatnot so we have a dedicated night fighters is something else.
 
As it says on the tin: for reasons of, say, high price, there is not a singe 2-engined day fighter designed as such in the specified decade. No Bf 110, no Airacuda, no P-38, no Whirlwind, no Beaufighter, no Fw 187, no Ki-45 etc.
What are alternatives and workarounds (2 engines were mostly used if/when extra carrying capacity was sought), who will be better off once shooting started, what are gains/losses for the sides involved.

Please note that 2-engined aircraft that were not designed as fighters, like A-20 or Mosquito, can still be employed in day fighter role, however that might be a questionable proposal.
I seem to recall there was a certain degree of competition for the better aircraft engines in Germany so I suspect not building the Bf110 would free up engines for something else. (Maybe higher performance bomber aircraft ?)
 
I seem to recall there was a certain degree of competition for the better aircraft engines in Germany so I suspect not building the Bf110 would free up engines for something else. (Maybe higher performance bomber aircraft ?)

For each Bf 110s not produced there are two DB 601/605 engines free. So perhaps He 100 enters service, or the Daimlerized He 112 at least. Easiest job - make more Bf 109s? Or, ship them to Italy so they can upgrade their fighter fleet sooner?
Per this thread, there is also no Me 210s nor 410s - that again gives more engines to play with Bf 109s/Fw 190s/He 100s.

As for the British - Beaufighter is conceived as a Beaufort on steroids (= has a bomb bay, 3 crew at least), mimicking perhaps Ju 88 roles and appearances?
 
As for the British - Beaufighter is conceived as a Beaufort on steroids (= has a bomb bay, 3 crew at least), mimicking perhaps Ju 88 roles and appearances?
Op says converted bombers are OK. The new Bristol fighter comes from the Blenheim IVF. Remove useless top turret and gunner, add solid nose with MG's and cannon so bomb bay isn't blocked, and upgrade the engines from Mercury to either Hercules or Merlin.
 
For the USA: no contract issued for multiplace fighter might put the newly born Bell aviation out of business, or having them licence producing other design? P-36/P-40 produced at Bell gives Curtiss enough of elbow room to make P-40H (otherwise the unbuilt design with turbo).
A powerful fighter with turboed engine and heavy firepower designed instead of P-38 - we might see Lockheed trying to make do with R-2600 + turbo, later upgrading to R-2800 + turbo? Best case gives the USAAF the ALT 'P-47 minus' a couple of years earlier. This in return probably means no P-43, with Republic licence producing Lockheed's design.
 
Peg Leg Pom, has just described the Bristol Bisley.

1434592299266.jpg
 
More YB-40s?

I am curious on where the OP stands on pusher/pullers? The concept seems to have been barely explored?
 

DougM

Donor
I just don’t get this. What POD will result in Twin Engined Night fighters, Twin engined bombers and twin engine bomber conversions to day and or night fighters but NO dedicated twin engine long range fighters....
The only difference is the dedicated design.
So you spend as much building these converted things. You spend as much maintaining and operating them (frankly probably more as converted twin bombers tend to be a bit larger). And you spend part of the cost of designing them as it takes some design work to convert a bomber into a long range day/night fighter.
So you are doing this all to save maybe 75 of the design costs? But you end up odds on with a plan that is not as good at the fighter roll. Thus they will get shot down more so you will need more of them and more pilots ultimately so in the end the cost in planes and pilots will more then offset the savings in design costs. Thus this whole concept just does not work.
Twin fighters were built very a very good reason at the time they were the only practical method to get the job done. Remember that the P38 was not built to a twin engine design by request it was given twin engines to meat the requirements of the contract when a single engine would not. This has not been changed so you still have that problem.
in truth this sounds like the OP wanted to eliminate a handful of aircraft and this was the best he could come up with. The problem is while it is easy to eliminate any given fighter such as the P38 from history it is much harder to eliminate its need and the technology level that resulted in its design. So if you take the P38 away you will odds on end up with something very similar because the need exists and the technology is such that you are pretty much stuck with something like the P38.
 
For the USA: no contract issued for multiplace fighter might put the newly born Bell aviation out of business, or having them licence producing other design?
The Airacuda was a tiny contract, only 13 planes, when he leased the old Consolidated aircraft plant in Buffalo,NY. Also had 56 employees.
Larry Bell started hiring a lot of workers for the new

Circular Proposal X-609
Single engine fighter with supercharged and/or Turbocharged engine, up to 1000 pounds of armament for high altitude interception, issued February 1937.
  • Bell Model 3 Engine on aircrafts CG, with pilot behind, almost like the XP-37.Design only
  • Bell Model 4 XP-39 Airacobra
  • Curtiss Hawk 75-I XP-37
  • Curtiss Hawk 80 GE B-1 Turbo
  • Curtiss Hawk 81 YP-37 different B-2 Turbo
  • Seversky AP-3, a proposal for Allison powered P-35. Design only
That Model 3 proposal was odd
3133198_orig.jpg

bell_model_3_0.jpg

25mm Cannon with two .50s up front, or four .50s
 
Bell Model 3 could have been shortened considerably by mounting the 25 mm cannon on top of the engine, like successful French, German and Russian motorman is.
 
More YB-40s?

I am curious on where the OP stands on pusher/pullers? The concept seems to have been barely explored?

Just a puller or just a pusher is just fine - still one engine aboard.

I just don’t get this. What POD will result in Twin Engined Night fighters, Twin engined bombers and twin engine bomber conversions to day and or night fighters but NO dedicated twin engine long range fighters....

POD for twin engined night fighters is same as historical - we have a suitable 2-engined bomber, so let's make a 2-engined night fighter since. Twin engined bombers don't need a POD - they were being made as early as ww1 (unlike 2-engined fighters) since their payload was much greater than of 1-engined bombers.
Nobody said anything about long range fighters (regardless to the number of engines), number of engines is not a certain clue about the range (Zero vs. Whirlwind, for example). I've stipulated one possible reason to stick with 1 engine per fighter, namely the one of cost.

The only difference is the dedicated design.
So you spend as much building these converted things. You spend as much maintaining and operating them (frankly probably more as converted twin bombers tend to be a bit larger). And you spend part of the cost of designing them as it takes some design work to convert a bomber into a long range day/night fighter.
So you are doing this all to save maybe 75 of the design costs? But you end up odds on with a plan that is not as good at the fighter roll. Thus they will get shot down more so you will need more of them and more pilots ultimately so in the end the cost in planes and pilots will more then offset the savings in design costs. Thus this whole concept just does not work.

I don't favor converting 2-engined bombers into day fighters either.

Twin fighters were built very a very good reason at the time they were the only practical method to get the job done. Remember that the P38 was not built to a twin engine design by request it was given twin engines to meat the requirements of the contract when a single engine would not. This has not been changed so you still have that problem.
in truth this sounds like the OP wanted to eliminate a handful of aircraft and this was the best he could come up with. The problem is while it is easy to eliminate any given fighter such as the P38 from history it is much harder to eliminate its need and the technology level that resulted in its design. So if you take the P38 away you will odds on end up with something very similar because the need exists and the technology is such that you are pretty much stuck with something like the P38.

My intention is not just to eleiminate a hndful of aircraft from history, but rather to explore other avenues of meeting the needs/requirements without resorting to two engines on a fighter. As you can note, I've already gave suggestions for Germany and USA.

Bell Model 3 could have been shortened considerably by mounting the 25 mm cannon on top of the engine, like successful French, German and Russian motorman is.

French, Gemans and Soviets were installing their cannons through the middle of engines, not atop of them. V-1710 (or Merlin, for that matter) were not constructed for engine prop.
 
Bell Model 3 could have been shortened considerably by mounting the 25 mm cannon on top of the engine, like successful French, German and Russian motorman is.
The goal seemed to have been to get most of the heaviest items closet to the CoG point, the engine, the breechblock/receiver and ammo for the armament, along with the turbo-- with the fuel tanks in the wings, so no guns there

That reduces trim changes in flight, and most of the mass at the CoG gives the potential for very good maneuverability, too.

Keeps the size of the fighter down, as well, the P-47 was so large for the proper sized ducting for the turbo in the rear fuselage up to the engine.
06.jpg

The Model 3 was very compact for a Fighter with an intercooled Turbo setup.
 
Last edited:
Just a thought but the OP as stated means that the only Jet fighters in WWII are the De Havilland Vampire and Heinkel He 162 Volksjager.
 
Top