AH Challenge (or WI...): A four-engined jet fighter

phx1138

While there have been notional types with more than two engines, I'm unaware of any with 4. So, how practical would it be?

Given a POD of 1939, how would you mount them? Twin pods, like the Me-262? Over-under pods, like the Lorin Me-262? Or my favorite, a pair of o/u in the fuselage, like a twinned version of the BAC Lightning.:cool:

Also, why didn't anybody do this with the first-generation jets? Given how low their thrust was...

Thoughts?
 

CarribeanViking

We nearly got one with the air defence versions of the Vulcan. Seriously, this was one of the proposed alternatives for Tornado ADV- New radar, bay fuel tank, ten Sea Dart on external pylons.

Bomber interceptor seems to be the most sensible role for such a beast, the size and weight to carry what amounts to AWACS radar fit, and a bay full of AAM's- but who, where, is under sufficient threat that such a beast would be an effective counter?
 

Just Leo

The Avro Canada TS-140 proposal had 4 Orpheus. The Bell D-188 had 8 J-85s. The German VJ101 had 6 RB145s. The British F.155T specification spawned the AW169 with 4 Gyron junior and a rocket, and the SR187 with 2 Gyron sr. and 4 rockets. Apart from the Germans, they were all paper planes, and the British ones were brought down by white paper. It would seem to be that multiple jet fighters would do better in a paperless society. Centrifugal jets were too fat for stacking, and the more German jet engines stacked, the greater the odds of catastrophic failure. By the time jets are reliable enough, they could become powerful enough not to need multiple engines, a maintenance nightmare. Besides, as Hitler would say, any aircraft with four jets would be a bomber. Just because something might be doable doesn't mean you should. Wing-tip over-under pods don't look too bad if you feel the need.
 

AdA

Yak VTOL fighters had three engines (two lift and one main). Just adding one would be easy.
 

jsb

Well I think the easiest would be to add lifting jets to any VITOL fighter :p the Dassault Balzac V had 9 engines so a fighter version get past the number 4 by a nice margin :p.

edit jumped by milliseconds by AdA
 

Just Leo

NACA was disappointed with the X-3, since the Westinghouse engines proposed, the J-46, proved duds, and were forced to make do with J-34s. Doubling down on engines provided the adequate solution. Not a fighter, though.

091014 5002.png
 

phx1138

I should have said "No liftjets"...:rolleyes::eek:

And that X-3 should be X-3-IV (X-34?:p), or something, shouldn't it?

Actually, I imagined the *Lightning with four less-powerful jets around 1945, or the Me-262 ditto.
 

SactoMan101

I think if the Nazis had held out longer, a heavy interceptor based on the Arado Ar 234C (powered by four BMW 003 turbojets) could have happened.
 

phx1138

SactoMan101 said:
I think if the Nazis had held out longer, a heavy interceptor based on the Arado Ar 234C (powered by four BMW 003 turbojets) could have happened.
Click to expand...
That sounds credible. IMO, tho, a 4-engine 262 makes more sense.
 

Delta Force

Banned
There have actually been proposals for military trijets.

North American Aviation proposed the NR-349 Retaliator, a trijet variant of the A-5 Vigilante nuclear attack aircraft, throughout the 1960s and early 1970s as a USAF interceptor. I'm not sure if the other proposals were for formal requests, but the Retaliator proposal was submitted for an official USAF advanced interceptor program in the early 1970s. There were no winners for that contract however, as the USAF decided not to procure an interceptor at that time.

I think there were also studies of trijet supersonic bombers in the United States and Soviet Union.
 
ennobee

ennobee

SactoMan101 said:
I think if the Nazis had held out longer, a heavy interceptor based on the Arado Ar 234C (powered by four BMW 003 turbojets) could have happened.
Click to expand...

My idea too. The Arado 234-C was developed as a fast light bomber, so seeing a number of bombers like the Ju-88 being used as heavy radar night fighters, the Ar234 could have ended up in the same niche.
Also, the Ar234 had a defensive armament of one fixed machine gun in the tail. Like the fixed forward gun, you aimed by pointing the whole plane not towards but this time away from the target. To do so, the pilot had something like a rearward looking periscope sticking out of the canopy. Arado' chief engineer Blume claims that he actually used the device against B17's on several occasions by just overtaking the bomber and then firing his 'defensive' gun while flying in front of him. But that was still in the 2-engined 234-A.
 

Dalriadan Archangel 21

CarribeanViking said:
We nearly got one with the air defence versions of the Vulcan. Seriously, this was one of the proposed alternatives for Tornado ADV- New radar, bay fuel tank, ten Sea Dart on external pylons.

Bomber interceptor seems to be the most sensible role for such a beast, the size and weight to carry what amounts to AWACS radar fit, and a bay full of AAM's- but who, where, is under sufficient threat that such a beast would be an effective counter?
Click to expand...

Why Sea Dart?
 

CarribeanViking

That was the proposal; only heavy anti- aircraft weapon in production in Britain at the time, most likely, relatively self contained as a naval SAM anyway, and if it can make 40nm from a standing start at sea level, it should be able to perform much better with the advantage of a 50kft, 600knot launch.
 

Dalriadan Archangel 21

CarribeanViking said:
That was the proposal; only heavy anti- aircraft weapon in production in Britain at the time, most likely, relatively self contained as a naval SAM anyway, and if it can make 40nm from a standing start at sea level, it should be able to perform much better with the advantage of a 50kft, 600knot launch.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense since the Phantoms (and Tornadoes subsequently) carried Skyflash from the 70s.

Failing that Sparrow or even Phoenix would be better suited to the Vulcan rather than what would be, in all likelihood, a lengthy and delay-filled conversion period.

I am not getting at you as I am sure your data on the proposal is correct. I am simply stunned at ever being proposed.
 

jsb

Why not if you want to shoot down long range patrol aircraft in the Atlantic ? range is everything,

AIM-7 Sparrow (E) is 510 lb range of 28 miles (RIM-7 has 10Nm range factor of just over a 1/3rd)
AIM-54 Phoenix is 1,040 lb with 100 miles range
GWS30 Sea Dart is 1,210 lb and a ramjet (so less weight for the motor) it has a range from the ground of 40 (or 80 later) Nm so from the air it will easily be longer than the Phoenix range. (may hit issues with actually being able to see to illuminate the target over the horizon for SARH)

Sea dart should have a massive range and its in production in UK why not use it ?
 

AMF

ennobee said:
My idea too. The Arado 234-C was developed as a fast light bomber, so seeing a number of bombers like the Ju-88 being used as heavy radar night fighters, the Ar234 could have ended up in the same niche.
Also, the Ar234 had a defensive armament of one fixed machine gun in the tail. Like the fixed forward gun, you aimed by pointing the whole plane not towards but this time away from the target. To do so, the pilot had something like a rearward looking periscope sticking out of the canopy. Arado' chief engineer Blume claims that he actually used the device against B17's on several occasions by just overtaking the bomber and then firing his 'defensive' gun while flying in front of him. But that was still in the 2-engined 234-A.
Click to expand...
A picture of the projected Arado Ar 234 P night fighter. I am sorry I cannot identify the sub-variant.
The wikipedia article mentions the following:

Ar 234 P-1 Two-seater with four BMW 003A-1 engines; one 20 mm MG 151/20 and one 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108.

Ar 234 P-2 Also a two-seater, with redesigned cockpit protected by a 13 mm (0.51 in) armour plate.

Ar 234 P-3 HeS 011A powered P-2, but with two cannon.

Ar 234 P-4 as P-3 but with Jumo 004D engines.

Ar 234 P-5 Three-seat version with HeS 011A engines, one 20 mm MG 151/20 and four 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannon.

Arado Ar 234 P.jpg
 

Kevin Renner

Install the radar and fire control from the Tomcat on a B-52 along with AIM-6 (?) Missiles on pylons or in a rotary laucher internally. I'll see your four engines and raise you four more :D Actually at one time weren't the B-1s considered for a role something like that to intercept potential Backfire raids in the North Atlantic. Of course it could of been somebody's wet dream
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top