Three-engined twin boom fighters?

Er... that's a Gloster Meteor fitted out to test the RR Trent turboprop?

Yes, the photo is a Trent Meteor.

Also, from the secret files comes the proposed Dutch four-engined fighter from Fokker. The German invasion occured just in time.

Fokker DXXIV.jpg
 
It is a matter of the Weight-Power v Fuel Ratios.
The Ford Trimoter, was a Cargo plane. The third engine need to get heavier cargo off the ground. But once in Flight, some Pilots would turn off the nose Engine to save Fuel.

Using a third engine in a fighter, gives the disadvantage of extra weight, while the added Horsepower doesn't give a speed advantage, greater that the Fuel/Distance costs.
 
The Lockheed XP-58 was a two/double-engined twin boom heavy escort fighter, which illustrates that there's no limit to what people will do to get desired horsepower. If the needed power couldn't be obtained with one available engine, as in the P-38, you use two. If two isn't enough??????

Lockheed_XP-58_Chain_Lightning_in_flight_061024-F-1234P-012.jpg
 
Kelly Johnson referred to the XP-58 as a "ten engined" plane as the design went through 5 different engine proposals due to the USAAF mandated design changes.
The Lockheed XP-58 was a two/double-engined twin boom heavy escort fighter, which illustrates that there's no limit to what people will do to get desired horsepower. If the needed power couldn't be obtained with one available engine, as in the P-38, you use two. If two isn't enough??????
 
Kelly Johnson referred to the XP-58 as a "ten engined" plane as the design went through 5 different engine proposals due to the USAAF mandated design changes.

I agree with his assessment. What's even more amusing is that Lockheed were coerced into developing the XP-49 and XP-58 to obtain the right to sell Lightnings to the British.
 
Why using three engines at all, where the standard requirements for fighteraircraft normally inclusde agility, which is limiting the number of external obstructing structures, such as additional engines. Single engined fighters always are superior to multi-engined fighters and other multi engined airframes, as they can outturn and often outrun a multi engined design.

Twin engined fighters only could be seen as a sort of hybrid, mostly due to the lack of availablity of a single engine powerfull enough to propel the aircraft for its intended role. Once larger and more powerfull engines emerged, these quickly replaced the preceding twin engined aircraft in the frontline role (like the Bf-110 being replaced as long ranged escort fighter by the FW-190 with external droptanks in Europe, forcing the Bf-110 into other uses, mostly nightfighter roles. Simmilarly the P-38 was a stobgab untill enough P-51's came around to escort the bombers of the USAAF into Europe, leaving the P-38 mostly relegated to groundattack roles.)

A three engined fighter is basically as manouvreble as a three, or four engined bomber, so only of any use in a straight on flight, simmilar to the Mig-25 Foxbatt fighter in the former USSR, as it cannot do anything else, but flying in a straight line only. Therefore it is a very weak aircraft, as it is always predictable when and where it goes, once spotted. (Defensive gunners on bombers will quickly discover this too and can react to this easily. Single engined fighters can both outturn any three engined fighter and get on its blind spot easily and take it down with little or no risk to the attacking fighter.)
 

Sior

Banned
Why using three engines at all, where the standard requirements for fighteraircraft normally inclusde agility, which is limiting the number of external obstructing structures, such as additional engines. Single engined fighters always are superior to multi-engined fighters and other multi engined airframes, as they can outturn and often outrun a multi engined design.

Twin engined fighters only could be seen as a sort of hybrid, mostly due to the lack of availablity of a single engine powerfull enough to propel the aircraft for its intended role. Once larger and more powerfull engines emerged, these quickly replaced the preceding twin engined aircraft in the frontline role (like the Bf-110 being replaced as long ranged escort fighter by the FW-190 with external droptanks in Europe, forcing the Bf-110 into other uses, mostly nightfighter roles. Simmilarly the P-38 was a stobgab untill enough P-51's came around to escort the bombers of the USAAF into Europe, leaving the P-38 mostly relegated to groundattack roles.)

A three engined fighter is basically as manouvreble as a three, or four engined bomber, so only of any use in a straight on flight, simmilar to the Mig-25 Foxbatt fighter in the former USSR, as it cannot do anything else, but flying in a straight line only. Therefore it is a very weak aircraft, as it is always predictable when and where it goes, once spotted. (Defensive gunners on bombers will quickly discover this too and can react to this easily. Single engined fighters can both outturn any three engined fighter and get on its blind spot easily and take it down with little or no risk to the attacking fighter.)

You forget the mossy!
 
Why using three engines at all, where the standard requirements for fighteraircraft normally inclusde agility, which is limiting the number of external obstructing structures, such as additional engines. Single engined fighters always are superior to multi-engined fighters and other multi engined airframes, as they can outturn and often outrun a multi engined design.

Twin engined fighters only could be seen as a sort of hybrid, mostly due to the lack of availablity of a single engine powerfull enough to propel the aircraft for its intended role. Once larger and more powerfull engines emerged, these quickly replaced the preceding twin engined aircraft in the frontline role (like the Bf-110 being replaced as long ranged escort fighter by the FW-190 with external droptanks in Europe, forcing the Bf-110 into other uses, mostly nightfighter roles. Simmilarly the P-38 was a stobgab untill enough P-51's came around to escort the bombers of the USAAF into Europe, leaving the P-38 mostly relegated to groundattack roles.)

A three engined fighter is basically as manouvreble as a three, or four engined bomber, so only of any use in a straight on flight, simmilar to the Mig-25 Foxbatt fighter in the former USSR, as it cannot do anything else, but flying in a straight line only. Therefore it is a very weak aircraft, as it is always predictable when and where it goes, once spotted. (Defensive gunners on bombers will quickly discover this too and can react to this easily. Single engined fighters can both outturn any three engined fighter and get on its blind spot easily and take it down with little or no risk to the attacking fighter.)


The P-38 was the most desired American fighter in 1942 and into 1943. It was a superb dogfighter and the US's two top fighter aces flew them. The hypothetical three-engined fighter must possess some characteristic to warrant it's production, and presuming it is slow or incapable of turning is presumptuous. One advantage of twin engined prop fighters was the concentration of heavy armament in the nose. Another is visibility over the nose.

If the P-51 rendered multi-engined fighters superfluous, I suppose the P-82 was just a joke.
 
Damn, they're ever crazier than I thought; the interference from those overlapping props would have rendered the pilot deaf!

Yeah - and they'd probably discover that putting the rear props partially in the wash from the forward engine reduces efficiency so much as to make the third engine pointless. I'd give them at least one propeller span lengthwise separation.
 
Top