4 or 3 Engine Fighters??

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Were there any FOUR or THREE engined fighter planes in WWII, to anyone's knowledge?

I know there were many twos.
 
Were there any FOUR or THREE engined fighter planes in WWII, to anyone's knowledge?

I know there were many twos.

I can't recall many off the top of my head, but even if there were any there couldn't have been all that popular or useful. For one, the size and mass of the plane required to have three or four engines would negate a lot of maneuverability. And as far as three-engine fighters go, I'm not sure if that could work or not. Seems to me like it'd be a bit unbalancing to the airframe.
 
I think those are considered bombers, not fighters, or atleast thats what I think the TC's asking for.

Those planes can't carry any bombs, they carry a lot of .50 cal ammo. Maybe those planes aren't considered fighters, but they aren't bombers neither, perhaps we should call them gunships or even flying battleship.:D
 
Those planes can't carry any bombs, they carry a lot of .50 cal ammo. Maybe those planes aren't considered fighters, but they aren't bombers neither, perhaps we should call them gunships or even flying battleship.:D

From what I understand, "gunships" were the official designations for those planes.
 
Both Germany and the US tried Dual Pusher-Puller setups.
I Believe there was a experimental Plane with two sets of both pusher and puller Props, each run by separate engines on the wings.

I think for a three engine design, you would place the third Engine in the tail [Pusher].

In most cases the extra HP from the extra engines doesn't give enuff extra speed to make up for the extra weight of the Engines.
 
Think you should checkout this website:

http://www.luft46.com/

for likely 3-4 engined fighters, such as the

Blohm& Voss P170.01

http://www.luft46.com/bv/bvp170.html

http://www.luft46.com/kwart/kwp170.html

But if you look at the information provided on the luf '46 site, that is described as a fighter-bomber. I think Nappy is looking for 3 or 4 engine dedicated fighters.

On the other hand, NapoleonXIV, if you're prepared to go with bizarre proposed/prototype fighters instead of those actually deployed, then take a look at this, the Focke-Wulf Triebflugel:
Focke_Wulf_Triebflugel_5.jpg

This was supposed to be a point-defence fighter - this is before SAMs were widely available...:rolleyes:
The basic idea was that the three engines spun the rotor/wing assembly round providing lift, or (when it turned over for horizontal flight) thrust. Truly bizarre, even compared to other German secret aircraft projects at the time.

More info here, and here.

Focke_Wulf_Triebflugel_5.jpg
 
Precisely roast, IIRC they were meant for use to attack airfields, I could be wrong however.

The YB-40 was based on the Flying Fortress bomber, but adapted to be a fighter. They were meant to accompany bomber steams, in order to provide more firepower to deal with enemy fighters. Aerial combat was their intended purpose.

They weren't successful, for various reasons, but that's a different matter...
 
The YB-40 was based on the Flying Fortress bomber, but adapted to be a fighter. They were meant to accompany bomber steams, in order to provide more firepower to deal with enemy fighters. Aerial combat was their intended purpose.

They weren't successful, for various reasons, but that's a different matter...

But can you really call it a 'fighter' though? Surely a fighter is the airborne equivalent of a destroyer - fast, lightly armoured, helps protect the big guns from a threat they can't easily deal with themselves - whereas the YB-40 was more the equivalent of an AA cruiser?

Maybe not. It's probably a bad analogy...
 
Top