"Zeb" Twin-Engined Zero

[sequoiaranger]

>Nice concept but I think the nose is just too blunt - too draggy.<

The nose came directly from another twin-engined aircraft---the Douglas A-26. The radar Mossie seemed to do OK with its blunt nose, as well as the gunship B-25, too (even larger). The twin-engined Grumman G-50 had a blunt nose, and then a more pointy nose that found its way into the F7F. Admittedly, all the above had more engine power to overcome the drag, but then again "we" are talking about a pre-war aircraft of experimental design.

The nose I'm using for the "Zeb" was originally intended for a "Twin-engined P-40", but that will have the more pointy nose of the P-38.

[The Wooksta!]

What about the solid nose that comes with the stepped canopy Dinah?  LS did the entire family and I know you'll have at least one in your stash somewhere?  It's perhaps a tad slim but a bit of plastic card and filler  - or a shim stuck between the two halves - would do the trick.

[Brian da Basher]

To my eye, the nose seemed a bit blunt at first look, but I think that somehow lends a Japanese flavor to this bird and when the paint and Hinomorus go on, it will all fit and I bet many will think the Zeb was real!

Brian da Basher

[sequoiaranger]

In truth, the twin-engined, single-seat fighter (or two-seat, for that matter) was a "failed" concept that seemed promising pre-WW II. The FW-187, Westland Whirlwind, etc were "good ideas" that just failed to deliver to their expectations. The Bf-110 was a marvelous and dutiful aircraft, but NOT as a "fighter". The only twin that really "paid off" was the Lockheed P-38 in the Pacific (in Europe it was of limited usefulness). But the concept needed to be tested in war to "disprove" it.

I have always wondered WHY the twin-engined fighter would be longer-ranged. With *TWO* engines to feed fuel to, one needs TWICE the space and weight for fuel. This means a larger, heavier aircraft that would obviously not be so nimble as a single-engined one (as the Zerstorer pilots found out in the Battle of Britain). Though seemingly OBVIOUS, the solution would be to equip a nimble single-engined aircraft with beaucoup fuel, as was ultimately done with the Mustang (and Zeroes).

And of course a single engine with double the horsepower would be better than twin engines, but the Japanese really didn't have an 1800-2000hp engine on tap until the very end of the war, so "twins" it had to be!

So I am not presenting the "Zeb" as the ultimate fighter to wreak havoc in the Pacific, but a fun concept that would have been likely to have "failed" as the other twins did. Indeed, the backstory will show the Zeb as a possible long-range alternative to the single-engined Zero, but the Zero "wins" with additional fuel. The "A" nose would be the pointy four-gun one of the "original" drawing, and my blunt one will be the "B" nose for added punch. Indeed, the frontal area drag vis-a-vis the Zero would have nearly tripled with the twin engines and blunt armament nose, with only "double" the engine power. I may have the "Zeb"s intercept and shoot down an Allied leader's aircraft (like the Yamamoto shoot-down).

[The Wooksta!]

The Fw 187 a failure?  No it wasn't - it was the RLM that failed it.  And as for a failed concept... Tigercat and Hornet?  Both superb performers.  Whirlwind wasn't a failure either, it was let down by the engines because RR wouldn't develop them further as they didn't have the capacity - something about a war being needed to be won and more Merlins being needed.

The Bf 110 probably could have done with more tail area to improve it's manouverability, something along the lines adopted by the 210/410.

[sequoiaranger]

>The Fw 187 a failure?  No it wasn't - it was the RLM that failed it.  And as for a failed concept... Tigercat and Hornet?  Both superb performers.<

Ahem! Just exactly HOW MANY aircraft did those three, COMBINED, shoot down in WW II?? I thought so.

>Whirlwind wasn't a failure either, it was let down by the engines because RR wouldn't develop them further as they didn't have the capacity - something about a war being needed to be won and more Merlins being needed.<

I guess the Whirlwinds FAILED to prove their worth, or they WOULD HAVE BEEN equipped!

>The Bf 110 probably could have done with more tail area to improve it's manouverability, something along the lines adopted by the 210/410.<

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but the Me-410's were BLASTED from German skies by Allied single-engined fighters.

Q.E.D.

[oz rb fan]

>Whirlwind wasn't a failure either, it was let down by the engines because RR wouldn't develop them further as they didn't have the capacity - something about a war being needed to be won and more Merlins being needed.<

I guess the Whirlwinds FAILED to prove their worth, or they WOULD HAVE BEEN equipped!

the whirlwinds biggest problem(other than the lack of power..and even it's designer wanted merlin's) was the raf(well the head of the raf) didnt,air chief Marshall douglas even offered them(fitted with a 40mm cannon ) as an anti tank weapon.btw it was as much the air ministry as r.r that stopped the peregrine development(roll's had already tested the mk2 peregrine at 1010hp)


[/quote]

[NARSES2]

>The Fw 187 a failure?  No it wasn't - it was the RLM that failed it.  And as for a failed concept... Tigercat and Hornet?  Both superb performers.<

Ahem! Just exactly HOW MANY aircraft did those three, COMBINED, shoot down in WW II?? I thought so.

Whoa there ! You have to take into account that 2 of those aircraft were actually to late for active service in WWII, so you cannot make a serious judgement on whether they would have been serious contender in the air to air role.

[sequoiaranger]

>Whoa there ! You have to take into account that 2 of those aircraft were actually to late for active service in WWII, so you cannot make a serious judgement on whether they would have been serious contender in the air to air role.<

Sure I can (and remember, I consider all this an ardent but FRIENDLY discussion!). If one CLAIMS these aircraft are "superb performers" then let's see the "proof"! Their "specs" say they would be fine aircraft, but they are also fine aircraft in a "post-war" environment in conditions quite unlike the WW II of my "Zeb", Fw-189's, or Westland Whirlwinds. The F7F, for instance was a TWENTY THOUSAND POUND fighter with FOUR THOUSAND horsepower. That is Beaufighter/Mosquito territory. Same with the Hornet (ok--not quite so heavy). These are not the "light-weight twins" envisioned in the thirties as "air superiority" fighters. How many Mosquito fighters were sent over Europe to escort DAY bombers against German single-engined fighters?? Sure, Mossies, Beaufighters, and Bf-110's made good NIGHT fighters, where nimbleness against enemy single-engined fighters was NOT an issue. That is, in the DETERIORATING state of German or Japanese air defense in 1945/46, or some other scene of paltry opposition, they might have excelled (like the Zerstorers did over Poland and Holland in 39/40). My contention is that such twins would NOT be able to stand up to high-quality, contemporary single-engined oppostion in an environment thick with aircraft. Think F7F Tigercat going up against F8F Bearcat, or Hornet against Sea Fury. I don't think it would have been much of a contest.

Skip ahead to the Korean War, and what kind of single-engined propellor-driven fighter opposition did the Hornet or Tigercat face??  Nothing of consequence. So to me, they are not "proven performers" and really don't belong in the class of fighter *I* am talking about in the late 30's/early 40's.

[NARSES2]

(and remember, I consider all this an ardent but FRIENDLY discussion!).

Right apologies I took your reply out of context.

I can understand your argument and you are probably correct in asserting that in a single engined v twin engined fighter contest where the 2 types are "current" then the single engined type would probably win 9 times out of 10 given other things being equal. In my view the twins would have been best used in pre-emptive strikes against enemy air bases immediately prior to raids. Catching the enemy either on the ground or in the process of taking off. Perhaps tactics would have been developed to enable a better chance in air to air encounters but thankfully they didn't have to be developed.

Whats your take on the large single engined fighters under development at the wars end, such as the Boeing XF8 ?

Also does anyone know if the USN did any comparative dogfights between the Bearcat and Tigercat ?

[rickshaw]

Twin engined fighters are most useful offensively - they allowed their users to carry the battle deep into the enemy's territory.  It was not until single-engined aircraft were capable of lifting large quantities of fuel that they could match the twins' ranges.  If you're on the defensive as the Luftwaffe was in 1944-45, twins are less useful as they are less manoeuvrable.  If the Mustang and the Thunderbolt had not been developed and the Allies had to rely upon P-38s and Whirlwinds, as they had earlier in the war, then the Luftwaffe's twins would have been on a more equal footing than they were against the Allied singles.   You'll note that the RAF didn't attempt to employ twin-engined fighters during the Battle of Britain but when they started their Rhubarbs found the extended range of the Whirlwinds & Beaufighters & Mosquitoes particularly useful.

The Japanese OTOH never really took to the twin-engined fighter concept as they had the superlative Zero from the start with its very long range.

[Burncycle]

I think a twin would be a nice carrier borne aircraft.  It would take up slightly more square footage but it could make up for it in being more flexible in it's use.

Early on when engines were weaker, a twin would allow a torpedo bomber more margin for error while carrying it's load, it wouldn't make it quite as lumbering.... and more importantly, it should be fast enough to get away after it's ordnance is dropped.

[sequoiaranger]

>I think a twin would be a nice carrier borne aircraft.  It would take up slightly more square footage but it could make up for it in being more flexible in it's use.<

The final backstory on my "Zeb" will include carrier operations trials, but ultimate rejection. Remember that twin-engined aircraft have TWO engines to maintain and provide fuel for, are heavier, take up more room in a VERY crowded hangar deck environment, and may not be "more flexible" in use. Truly, it would have to be TWICE as good as its single-engined match to be worth the trouble. I don't think they were.

>The Japanese OTOH never really took to the twin-engined fighter concept as they had the superlative Zero from the start with its very long range.<

The Japanese Army had the superlative twin-engined Ki-45 Toryu (supposedly more manuverable than our P-38 Lightning), and their Navy had the J1N1 "Gekko". Still, the Japanese military was never enamored with the twin-engined heavy fighter like Europe was, and never found a good niche for them.

Re: Boeing XF8B--I think of it as a "fast Skyraider", but not as a particularly good escort fighter. The Boeing fighter had HALF the climb rate of the F8F Bearcat, so I don't see it being a superlative "interceptor". I think the Boeing fighter was just one of those "because we can do it" experiments that a "rich" nation could afford. It was also unfortunate to be built just as we were transitioning to jet power. It may have been better than the very first jets, but the future was leaving piston-engined aircraft behind (save for the venerable "workhorse" Skyraider).

I find it strange that the "Dinah", from which I base my "Zeb", had a very fast top speed, but only a mediocre climb rate, something I would have thought the Zeb should have had in spades (but maybe not!). In another week or so I will start work on the Zeb again. I think the model will go quickly.

[sequoiaranger]

Back to the workbench from my self-imposed hiatus! No pics, as what I have now looks just like the "mock-up" photo a few posts down, only this time all is cemented, squared-up, etc. Cockpit "tub" from the Hasegawa Zero is in, plastic card is stuffed in "cracks" and smoothed, but some minimal PSR is in the future to seal up the disparate parts of the fuselage. This is a "small" aircraft for a twin, having L/W dimensions like a Hellcat, or a Tempest.

As an aside, I think I will "designate" this aircraft as an MA6M for the Navy (corresponding to the A6M for the Zero---the prefix "M" denotes a special aircraft not in the "normal" designations, like the Aichi M6A Seiran), and the Ki. 39 (actual designation for a proposed twin-engined fighter that Mitsubishi dropped) for the Army.  Yeah, I know that the Army and Navy didn't get along very well, and at least at the beginning of the war wouldn't deign to use each other's aircraft---cut to the fabulous "Hiryu" bomber late in the war when both services used it.

The Japanese name will be "Misago" ("Osprey", the name given by the Navy, but not objectionable to the Army.) I think I will put in two projecting 20mm cannon as the top two guns (ammo drums needing the extra space), with six 7.7's underneath. Drop tanks in wing roots. I eliminated the "folding wings" and arrestor hook for my Thai IJAAF version, but the backstory will have carrier capability and limited usage.

[sequoiaranger]

Here are some in-progress shots: first of the top nose trying to blend in the Zero fuselage top with the Dinah, and building up putty and plastic card to conform to the Zero canopy I will use:

Then, the underside where one can see the spacing (white) to widen the fuselage, the sealing-up of the underside window, and the half-moon spacers to integrate the nose piece:

Then here is a pic of the first primer coat, of course exposing the "flaws" in the PSR to which I must attend before priming for the ultimate paint job:

But I like the look. It will have two protruding 20mm cannon in the gun holes you can just see, and of course landing gear and propellers, but the build is entering its most exciting phase---the decoration!