The British P-38

[PhilKearny]

You could licence the Fokker G1. Even in it's Dutch configuration it's got a fair turn of speed, replace the Mercury with a more modern engine and you could be looking at a real winner. Mind you convincing the Air Ministry to buy from Fokker could be a bit of a challenge.

The Fokker G.I did have the advantage of making use of some non-strategic material.

The problems with the Fokker G.I is that it is really more of a zerstrorer than a fighter. It was more akin to the Beaufighter than the Me-110, let alone the P-38. It could not pull the sort of G's that a true fighter could pull, for example. It would have trouble in battling single seat fighters just as the Me-110 did.

 

[wietze]

The Fokker G.I did have the advantage of making use of some non-strategic material.

The problems with the Fokker G.I is that it is really more of a zerstrorer than a fighter. It was more akin to the Beaufighter than the Me-110, let alone the P-38. It could not pull the sort of G's that a true fighter could pull, for example. It would have trouble in battling single seat fighters just as the Me-110 did.

Don't think that would have been a major issue, as the OP said long-range fighter with offensive capabilities. And usually you can't have the capabilities of a fighter and offensive capabilities (bombing) without sacrificing something.
And not to forget this plane would have been available much earlier than the p-38. As i said give it droptanks and better armament (6 20mm would be best in my opinion) and you have a good longrange plane that fits most of the requirements. (now imagine said modifications in a Merlin-G powered G-1)

(and as a afterthought, i wonder how much inspiration Kelly Johnson got from the G1 when he designed the P-38)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Fokker G.I did have the advantage of making use of some non-strategic material.

The problems with the Fokker G.I is that it is really more of a zerstrorer than a fighter. It was more akin to the Beaufighter than the Me-110, let alone the P-38. It could not pull the sort of G's that a true fighter could pull, for example. It would have trouble in battling single seat fighters just as the Me-110 did.

To be fair the G1 was an older design than the P38, first flying in 1937 two years earlier than the Lockheed. Two years may not seem that long to us, but the pace of change was a lot quicker back then.

No sensible pilot of a twin engine fighter should be dogfighting with single engine types. Just the size of the aircraft would put it at a disadvantage in that situation as they'll almost certainly roll slower and have a larger turning circle. Given the right circumstances and tactics these disadvantages can be overcome but it's always best to stay away from the fighters if at all possible.

 

[PhilKearny]

To be fair the G1 was an older design than the P38, first flying in 1937 two years earlier than the Lockheed. Two years may not seem that long to us, but the pace of change was a lot quicker back then.

No sensible pilot of a twin engine fighter should be dogfighting with single engine types. Just the size of the aircraft would put it at a disadvantage in that situation as they'll almost certainly roll slower and have a larger turning circle. Given the right circumstances and tactics these disadvantages can be overcome but it's always best to stay away from the fighters if at all possible.

I grant you that the 2 year difference was significant. Undoubtedly, the P-38 was also a much more expensive airplane. It was at the cutting edge of the era's technology--400 mph out of the box.

As to a twin fighting a single, the P-38 was more than capable of doing this. It was extremely maneuverable at speed. The Lightning actually had a tighter turning radius than any other Allied fighter except for the Spitfire. The handed engines gave it a unique ability for a WW II single seater to turn in either direction equally well. Once the P-38 started rolling and was past 10 degrees, it would roll very well. The later models would roll even more quickly as these planes had boosted aileron. The P-38 acceleration was unmatched which makes sense given the power from two propellers. Also, its high altitude horse power was unmatched by another fighter due to the twin turbos.

The biggest problem with the P-38 for most pilots was its complexity. The plane had twin engines and had the turbo boosts. Twins, of course, are inherently more complicated to fly. Many pilots did not get enough training time with to get the most out of the Lightning.

You might want to a take a look at this, a very interesting and enlightening discussion of the P-38. This is a summary of a bunch threads from the old usenet days discussing the P-38. Some of the contributors were actual P-38 pilots. It goes into the virtues of the P-38 and also looks at its vices. Its conclusions definitely favor the P-38 but it backs these conclusions up.

 

[Just Leo]

The Fokker G.1 was cursed by being developed without a great engine, in a country about to be over-run.

The P-38 was cursed with being too popular to stop production to fix.

Why does everything have to be cursed?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Yes the G1 had a lot of potential. If and it's a big if it had been produced under license there's a lot it could have been used for. Beef up the armament and add Twin Wasp engines (or equivilant).

Night Fighter.
Intruder.
Coastal strikes. (No need for Hudsons)
Light Bomber. (Replacement for both the Battle and the Blenheim)
Photo Reconnaissance
Courier.
Tank killer (under floor 40mm guns able to be reloaded by second crew member).

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

There's another Dutch fighter that could, with better engines have filled the P.38 niche. The Fokker D.XXIII. Rework it to use two Merlins and give some way for the pilot to get out without getting minced by the rear prop, could be usefull.

On second thoughts Merlins might be too much. Late model Kestrals or Peregrins would be better. It's follow up though Merlins would be just what was needed.

 

[Garrison]

There's another Dutch fighter that could, with better engines have filled the P.38 niche. The Fokker D.XXIII. Rework it to use two Merlins and give some way for the pilot to get out without getting minced by the rear prop, could be usefull.

On second thoughts Merlins might be too much. Late model Kestrals or Peregrins would be better. It's follow up though Merlins would be just what was needed.

Interesting; the only other plane I've seen with that config is the Do335. That would be a great contender but for the small issues of being too late and on the wrong side...

 

[PhilKearny]

There's another Dutch fighter that could, with better engines have filled the P.38 niche. The Fokker D.XXIII. Rework it to use two Merlins and give some way for the pilot to get out without getting minced by the rear prop, could be usefull.

On second thoughts Merlins might be too much. Late model Kestrals or Peregrins would be better. It's follow up though Merlins would be just what was needed.

In theory, an elegant design. It certainly is closer in sized and weight to a true fighter. However, it does sound as if considerable development was needed. Apparently, the prototype only a few hours of flying time.

Several of the online references state that cooling the rear engine, which is not surprising. The Cessna 337, which had a similar twin boom "huff and puff" layout, had a history of rear engine cooling issues.

The Dornier Do 335 used explosive bolts for blowing off the rear propeller and part of epennage for bailing out. I think some the experimental US pusher fighters also used explosive bolts on the rear prop.

ETA: A possible point of departure is that apparently the the Rolls Royce Kestrel was considered as the engines for the D XXIII. Perhaps one of the airframes and the planes could be in the UK for work with RR. The prototype also did not have the final wing design.

 

[PMN1]

Interesting; the only other plane I've seen with that config is the Do335. That would be a great contender but for the small issues of being too late and on the wrong side...

One of the Gloster F18/37 designs had a single Sabre in the rear and 5 20mm cannon in the nose, cooling came from radiators in the front of the twin booms.

 

[usertron2020]

No sensible pilot of a twin engine fighter should be dogfighting with single engine types. Just the size of the aircraft would put it at a disadvantage in that situation as they'll almost certainly roll slower and have a larger turning circle. Given the right circumstances and tactics these disadvantages can be overcome but it's always best to stay away from the fighters if at all possible.

OK

Your Hawker Hurricane Mark I against my Republic P-82 Twin Mustang

Your Defiant against my F7F Tigercat?

 

[Serenissima]

I think having them as being of the same era is implicit in that statement, given that nobody was suggesting a Fokker Dr.I would best a De Havilland Mosquito.

 

[Just Leo]

The P-38 could out-turn an Me-109. The P-61 was an excellent turner as well. The long span mitigated against quick roll rate, but late model P-38s with boosted ailerons also out-rolled the 109. The use of the combat-flap setting on the fowler flaps of the Lightning made a huge difference. The lack of P-factor from the handed engines also meant that it could turn equally well in both directions.

While the general lay-out of the Fokker D-XXIII may have been worth development, the original engines were puny, and the wings had too high an aspect ratio for a fighter. Funny, because the G.1's wings seem quite well proportioned, similar to the Lightning.

 

[Landshark]

The P-38 could out-turn an Me-109. The P-61 was an excellent turner as well. The long span mitigated against quick roll rate, but late model P-38s with boosted ailerons also out-rolled the 109. The use of the combat-flap setting on the fowler flaps of the Lightning made a huge difference. The lack of P-factor from the handed engines also meant that it could turn equally well in both directions.

What about the De Haviland Hornet? I remember one source describing it's roll rate as remarkable for a twin.

 

[Just Leo]

What about the De Haviland Hornet? I remember one source describing it's roll rate as remarkable for a twin.

Good broad-chord thin wing, with light loading, super speed, super engines, excellent range, good standard armament with good external stores capability.

The downside is the hybrid construction which rotted in Malaya, and the lack of a fighter vs fighter combat record, since it was post-war, like the Sturgeon, P-82 and F7F. After the Hornets rotted away, the RAF got some use out of the also-ran Centaurus-powered Bristol Brigands, which were good enough to battle insurgents, and were all metal. The Brigands were actually war-time, but their performance, with the thick wing, was an embarrassment in comparison to the earlier, less powerful Mossies. But they didn't rot in the tropics.

 

[wietze]

There's another Dutch fighter that could, with better engines have filled the P.38 niche. The Fokker D.XXIII. Rework it to use two Merlins and give some way for the pilot to get out without getting minced by the rear prop, could be usefull.

On second thoughts Merlins might be too much. Late model Kestrals or Peregrins would be better. It's follow up though Merlins would be just what was needed.

when jets get introduced i could see it outfitted with a jet just like the swedish did with the saab 21

 

[Just Leo]

when jets get introduced i could see it outfitted with a jet just like the swedish did with the saab 21

And just like with the Saab, they would have been unhappy with the product. The Saab J29 prototype had flown before the bugs were out of the J21.

 

[oldironside]

The Brigands were actually war-time, but their performance, with the thick wing, was an embarrassment in comparison to the earlier, less powerful Mossies. But they didn't rot in the tropics.

... but, IIRC, they did have an issue with the leather bellows that operated the dive brakes. They did rot in the tropics.

 

[oldironside]

My favorite example of failure, a plane that belongs up there in the pantheon of bad design--if not above--with the Welkin and the 432, was the Bell YFM-1. This plane was weirdness with wings. Apparently, the YFM1 was a horror according to test pilot Eric Schilling.

I've always thought of the YFM1 as a near perfect combination of "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time" moments. If we could only add in the Defiant's gunner's escape hatch, the DB610's fire safety record, the Betty's ability to withstand damage and the Barracuda's irritating tendency to spray ether directly into the pilot's face, we could really come up with something special.

 

[wietze]

thats the kind of plane i would expect in the timeline of the rocketeer.