Some questions about He 119 like aircraft.

JAG88

Banned
What do you mean?:eek:

The Germans did go from the 30,5cm to the 38cm, the original design for the 1913 Grosse Kreuzer even had 6x38cm, only when it was confirmed that the RN was going for the slow "R" instead of more QEs that the KM requested a different design with 8x35cm, which is why you have the 1913 BBs with 38cm, the 1913 GK replaced by an additional Derfflinger (Hindenburg), and the 1914 GK equipped with the new 35cm gun times eight.

So the KM went from the 30,5cm to the 38cm, and then later to the 35cm, but just for the GKs. You can see the design dates on the same link form warships, check both and you will see.
 
The Germans did go from the 30,5cm to the 38cm, the original design for the 1913 Grosse Kreuzer even had 6x38cm, only when it was confirmed that the RN was going for the slow "R" instead of more QEs that the KM requested a different design with 8x35cm, which is why you have the 1913 BBs with 38cm, the 1913 GK replaced by an additional Derfflinger (Hindenburg), and the 1914 GK equipped with the new 35cm gun times eight.

So the KM went from the 30,5cm to the 38cm, and then later to the 35cm, but just for the GKs. You can see the design dates on the same link form warships, check both and you will see.

Thank you, we are in agreement, Sir! I had a previous thread, Here, too discuss alternative responses to the HMS Dreadnought, and it all started with Post #40 and then Reply, post 41 Occurred, and that led to my Rebuttal, post 42 which didn’t apparently merit reading, which led to More of the same, post 47 And then posts 48-50 pretty much tell the sorry tale...

So that is the story of Shadow Master’s signature, lol.

Back on topic, any thought on the concept of twin ‘in-fuselage’ engine aircraft as potential alternative fighters and/or carrier aircraft (in any role)?
 
Last edited:
I guess what I am really interested in is, if the FW 187 can be a 'good fighter', then could having the engines in the fuselage possibly make for a better one?
Possibly, but the resulting aircraft would be contrary to everything the FW187 was designed to be, and would not even look like one. From what I have read, the Fw187 was designed to be the sleekest thing one could build with two engines on it. Burrying two engines in the back of the fuselage might make for an overall better plane, but it would also take away all of the straightforward simplicity that was the Fw187's main feature. Even if the kinks in the new technology would be smaller then expected and could be ironed out without much trouble, it would still add to the development time and therefore take the 'quick' out of the main selling argument of the plane, namely "Powerful, quick and simple".
 
Possibly, but the resulting aircraft would be contrary to everything the FW187 was designed to be, and would not even look like one. From what I have read, the Fw187 was designed to be the sleekest thing one could build with two engines on it. Burrying two engines in the back of the fuselage might make for an overall better plane, but it would also take away all of the straightforward simplicity that was the Fw187's main feature. Even if the kinks in the new technology would be smaller then expected and could be ironed out without much trouble, it would still add to the development time and therefore take the 'quick' out of the main selling argument of the plane, namely "Powerful, quick and simple".

And it would be such a massive redesign that it would effectively be a different plane. Worth remembering that these two aircraft only had 25% parts commonality, although they had the same basic designation.
German_F-86K_JG_74_on_runway_1965.jpg

F-86_Sabre.jpg


The three versions of the F-35 are at about that level too. For the He 119 you would be changing the wings, fuselage, undercarriage...

I think the pilot's cup holder could stay the same.
 
I guess I am still failing to explain what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

I am not interested in the historical HE 119, but rather, WI the concept of a twin engine aircraft had shared the 'in-fuselage' layout, in its original design?

So, NOT WI they had decided to attempt to re-design the OTL HE 119, but more, WI instead/along with the HE119 historical aircraft, concepts had led to prototypes of fighters, bombers, torpedo planes, and maybe even, dive bombers, with appropriate carrier versions considered. Also, I use the German aircraft as a base, because they historically had both, but let’s not limit our thinking here to just Germany being the one to look into these type of aircraft (as that pretty well locks out any carrier aircraft). Also, although I did indeed fail to put a date in the OP, lets restrict ourselves to 1935-1945, as jets make this a rather moot point.
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Banned


Thank you, we are in agreement, Sir! I had a previous thread, Here, too discuss alternative responses to the HMS Dreadnought, and it all started with Post #40 and then Reply, post 41 Occurred, and that led to my Rebuttal, post 42 which didn’t apparently merit reading, which led to More of the same, post 47 And then posts 48-50 pretty much tell the sorry tale...

So that is the story of Shadow Master’s signature, lol.

Back on topic, any thought on the concept of twin ‘in-fuselage’ engine aircraft as potential alternative fighters and/or carrier aircraft (in any role)?

Utterly funny, I will take the time to read the whole thing, seems interesting.
 
I guess I am still failing to explain what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

I am not interested in the historical HE 119, but rather, WI the concept of a twin engine aircraft had shared the 'in-fuselage' layout, in its original design?

Well, I think that the Heinkel 119 proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was both possible and had certain aerodynamic advantages. We explored this to some extent in my Blackburn Behemoth thread. As to why it was never proceeded with by the Germans, there are many answers.

The He 119 was only a technology prover, and was never considered a practical war plane.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a practical contra prop aircraft the Germans built. It may have just never occured to them, or maybe they didn't fancy it.

Part of its amazing performance was bought with surface evaporation which was expensive, complex and vulnerable to enemy fire. A bigger development would probably have inherited this.

The Lw had such high hopes for the Ju88 and the Ju288 that it was never considered necessary (this was apparently Udet's reaction when first shown the Heinkel 280 prototype - piston engine fighters are winning the war. Why would we need this?)

If you wanted to make it a bomber, and have the engines in the fuselage on the centre of gravity, where would you put the bomb bay? The Brits in the late 30s would have put small bomb cells in the wings, but Germany was already using much larger bombs. Carry them externally and you lose your performance edge.

It would be possible to make a Zerstörer out of it. It would be fast and more manouvrable than a normal twin. However, with the streamlined nose the pilot's visibility backwards would be non existant, and putting a gunner's cupola in the slipstream would increase drag considerably. Remotely controlled guns were less than succesful in German aircraft of 1941-43. Then there's the question of where you'd put the forward firing armarment. OTL the Germans prefered it on the centre line. The He119 had a four bladed propeller to absorb all that power. This would have complicated syncronisation. Contra rotating props would have made it impossible.

However, if they'd wanted a dedicated unarmed recce aircraft, it would have been perfect with cameras in the rear cabin.

On a more practical level, buried engines would have been a nightmare to service in the field. Witness the He177 with its engines buried in the wings. Reltivey minor servicing meant removing the engine. In normal operation oil residue collected at the bottom of the engine bay and was a major source of fire.

Then of course there's politics. Messerschmitt was a great salesman, knew exactly whose arse to kiss and the RLM bought the Me210 off the drawing board. Heinkel had a sllightly more difficult relationship with TPTB, and it didn't help that he tended to build aircraft that were overcomplicated and expensive (He177, He100, He219). Given the 177 debacle, it's only fair to assume that a Super 119 would have been... problematic.
 
If you wanted to make it a bomber, and have the engines in the fuselage on the centre of gravity, where would you put the bomb bay? The Brits in the late 30s would have put small bomb cells in the wings, but Germany was already using much larger bombs. Carry them externally and you lose your performance edge.
Now, this is still all about the historical HE 119, but it is good information, thanks.:) I found this in the wiki article:
wiki said:
On 22 November 1937, the fourth prototype (V4) made a world class record flight in which it recorded an airspeed of 505 km/h (314 mph), with a payload of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), over a distance of 1,000 km (620 mi).
While it doesn't come right out and say, bomb-load, in my limited understanding, payload generally refers to bombs (or torpedoes). Either way, that still tells me nothing of what the payload was, nor where it was attached to the aircraft, unfortunately. So either it did have a Bombay, or achieved that speed with it externally attached.
 
Now, this is still all about the historical HE 119, but it is good information, thanks.:) I found this in the wiki article:

While it doesn't come right out and say, bomb-load, in my limited understanding, payload generally refers to bombs (or torpedoes). Either way, that still tells me nothing of what the payload was, nor where it was attached to the aircraft, unfortunately. So either it did have a Bombay, or achieved that speed with it externally attached.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the Italian aircraft that broke the Henkel's distance with payload records soon after. The Breda 88 Lynx. It became famous for not being able to gain enough altitude on its first mission to turn back to base. It proudly served as a decoy on Italian bases, to waste allied ammunition. Apparently, military equipment weighs an aircraft down a bit.
 
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Italian aircraft that broke the Henkel's distance with payload records soon after. The Breda 88 Lynx. It became famous for not being able to gain enough altitude on its first mission to turn back to base. It proudly served as a decoy on Italian bases, to waste allied ammunition. Apparently, military equipment weighs an aircraft down a bit.
Ye GODS!:D

I went and checked that plane out, thinking that you had to be kidding, lol.
 
Back on topic, any thought on the concept of twin ‘in-fuselage’ engine aircraft as potential alternative fighters and/or carrier aircraft (in any role)?

Allow me to speak for twin-engined fighters in general: You discover there is a market for a heavy fighter with twice the horsepower of its predecessor. ...and the race is on.

On one side the aircraft designers take two of the predecessors engines and try to build a fighter around it with superior speed and firepower, yet still nimble enough to take on said predecessor in a dogfight.

...While....

On the other side the engine manufacturer is already developing a success for said engine that actually has twice the horsepower.

Who will be first?

OTL: Grumman bet on both horses and followed up on the approximately 1100hp F4F Wildcat with the F5F Skyrocket that used two of said 1100hp engines while also designing the F6F Hellcat around a 2000hp engine still being developed as well. The F5F flew first but was tied up in development and testing so that the F6F and its 2000hp engine were both ready for production before the F5F was ready for field testing.

So yes, even if hurrying both engine in the fuselage were to be a better solution then hanging them under the wings, the main question is whether you can get the cowling, coupling and transmission to work satisfactory before someone else develops one engine with just as much horsepower as your two combined.
 
Allow me to speak for twin-engined fighters in general: You discover there is a market for a heavy fighter with twice the horsepower of its predecessor. ...and the race is on.
On one side the aircraft designers take two of the predecessors engines and try to build a fighter around it with superior speed and firepower, yet still nimble enough to take on said predecessor in a dogfight.

...While....

On the other side the engine manufacturer is already developing a success for said engine that actually has twice the horsepower.

Who will be first?

OTL: Grumman bet on both horses and followed up on the approximately 1100hp F4F Wildcat with the F5F Skyrocket that used two of said 1100hp engines while also designing the F6F Hellcat around a 2000hp engine still being developed as well. The F5F flew first but was tied up in development and testing so that the F6F and its 2000hp engine were both ready for production before the F5F was ready for field testing.

So yes, even if hurrying both engine in the fuselage were to be a better solution then hanging them under the wings, the main question is whether you can get the cowling, coupling and transmission to work satisfactory before someone else develops one engine with just as much horsepower as your two combined.
This is a pretty good example here, and though I have not ever heard of the F5F Skyrocket (I'll wiki it in a second), the premise in the last paragraph I have to take issue with, and here is why.

So, instead of going with the older model engine, which to me would make the F5F an under achiever unless the new engine is a flop, in which would this type of development scheme be a good way of getting a better fighter, one way or another, in either case, id actually does not show that twin engines are bad, but rather the limited scope and thinking of the developers. Instead of building two aircraft, build three. The two you mentioned, and a third, that is a twin engined F6F (designed around the same engine), and then we could see which is best. So say:

Skyrocket
Hellcat
Hellcat twin

This then would have given us a really good ground for comparison, and great research potentials, too actually develop, right from the start, 1 and 2 engined versions of the newer fighter. Could Grumman have done this? Of course! Did they, no. Why? They just wanted something, anything, that would give them better performance than the F4F, rather than exploring the concept fully.

Now, as it turns out: The F5F Skyrocket is just a twin engined fighter lain out in the traditional format, that has none of the advantages of in-fuselage aircraft, would take up way to much hanger space on a carrier (unless the wings fold inside of the engines, that is) and basically must have been designed as a fallback designed, just in case the improved F6F should be a flop.

Now the question should be, as a first time project, where you developed both a 1 and 2 engined (in fuselage) versions of the Hellcat, would the 2 engined version be enough of an advantage to warrant parallel production?

The next question after that, would be, if as a matter of course one designed both version types, how much less involved, simpler, faster, and more streamlined could the process become? If a developer routinely developed both types, I rather suspect that we would still see the penny pinchers deny the deployment of the more expensive 2 engined version, unless, of course, their children were going to be drafted to fly the new fighters, and then I would expect that the debate would suddenly become all about performance and not cost, lol.
 
Last edited:
The OP is quite correct that such a plane could be built. The Royal Navy flew one very successfully into the 1970s. The Fairey Gannet.

800px-Fairey_Gannet_AS6_%285781128625%29.jpg
 
On the same wiki site is a link to the Breguet Alize, which served until 2000, when the carrier Foch retired. It was powered by a single R-R Dart.
 
Top