Twin-Tail Aircraft Design

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Twin-Tail Aircraft Design

#16

Post by Ironmachine » 29 Aug 2014, 17:35

jaguh wrote:It still puzzles me though what was the reason for the P-38 twin-tail? Most of the other examples are crewed by more than 1 and have rear defensive armament. Maybe the Lockheed was also envisioned with more crew initially?
The reasons for adopting a twin-boom configuration in combat aircraft are well summarized in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-boom_aircraft):
The twin-boom configuration has been adopted by combat aircraft designers for several reasons:
To allow an engine to be mounted directly at the rear of a short fuselage, for pusher configuration or jet aircraft (Bell XP-52, De Havilland Vampire, Saab 21)
To give an unobstructed field of view or field of fire to the rear (Focke-Wulf Fw 189)
To accommodate twin inline engines having lengthy turbochargers in the most aerodynamically efficient and practical planform (P-38 Lightning, P-61 Black Widow)

jaguh
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 04 Feb 2011, 05:48

Re: Twin-Tail Aircraft Design

#17

Post by jaguh » 30 Aug 2014, 11:11

Ironmachine,

thanks. Explains it all.

Jaguh


User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Twin-Tail Aircraft Design

#18

Post by Attrition » 31 Aug 2014, 11:00

I wonder if it turned out to be much of a muchness? Arguments for a good field of fire from rear and dorsal positions would have lost influence when British bombers took to evasion in darkness as the principal defence, making a roomy fuselage is contradicted by the use the Stirling was designed for and the view from its rear turret, airflow from the engines might be a reason but then blanketing by the fuselage is more likely (Halifax)....

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Twin-Tail Aircraft Design

#19

Post by phylo_roadking » 02 Sep 2014, 00:47

making a roomy fuselage is contradicted by the use the Stirling was designed for
Yes - but the Stirling was badly designed in many respects, AND its design parameters constrained by various factors - like the oft-repeated need to use existing hangars at the start of the war restricting wingtip-to-wingtip length.

British bombers took to evasion as a tactic when the right bombers came along - the Stirling and the Lancaster could be flown like a fighter, but few others....but the reason WHY they did so had nothing to do with the presence (or not) of rear-firing defensive armament...

An LW nightfighter had to chase a bomber across its Kammhuber Box...and from cruising speed orbiting inside the Box overhaul a bomber...

THEN - with only maybe a few more mph in hand - they had to manage to ATTACK the target bomber! 8O Flame baffles over the exhaust ports cut power, antenna arrays for the onboard radar cut power...

So they were 99% of the time reduced to attacks from the rear because they simply didn't have the speed in hand or obtainable to get around the bomber to attack it from any other direction!

So...what was the most practical defence once a fighter was spotted to stern??? Throw the Lanc or Stirling into a diving spiral - during which the heavier bomber would accumulate speed faster...and when it came out of its dive it would have left the fighter behind :D

A nightfighter pilot COULD have decided to chase him again...but -

1/ he'd be WELL out of his own Kammhuber Box by then, and would have to get back to it;

2/ He'd have used a great deal of his limited fuel on that stern chase across the sky...and it would imapct how many more attempted interceptions he could perform on that sortie! Better to cut his losses and get back to his Box and hope for more trade!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Dili
Member
Posts: 2201
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Twin-Tail Aircraft Design

#20

Post by Dili » 02 Sep 2014, 01:11

Ironmachine wrote:
jaguh wrote: To accommodate twin inline engines having lengthy turbochargers in the most aerodynamically efficient and practical planform (P-38 Lightning, P-61 Black Widow)
I think SM-92 was slightly more aerodynamic :) but maybe not the most practical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.92

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”