Military Review

F-82 Twin Mustang - the last US piston fighter

The Second World War has become a true at times flourishing piston fighter. By the end of the war, each of the parties to the conflict had machines that were excellent in their flight characteristics and arming, which, however, very soon would have to cede the sky to their jet counterparts. One of the most advanced piston fighters of the second half of World War II as part of the United States Air Force was the North American P-51 Mustang. It was a long-range fighter, which proved to be excellent in battles, including when accompanied by armads of Allied bombers. It is not surprising that the Mustang became the basis for the development of new fighters, among which were very unusual models, for example, the F-82 Twin Mustang.

Already looking at the name of the aircraft, you can roughly imagine what this car looks like. The multi-purpose F-82 Twin Mustang fighter combines the 2 fuselage of a conventional single-engine Mustang. This double long-range fighter was the latest mass-produced piston fighter in stories US Air Force. In total, starting with the 1945 year, the X-NUMX F-272 fighter of various modifications was built. The aircraft were in service with the Air Force until the middle of the 82 year and managed to take part in the Korean War.

The first requirements for the new fighter, which then wore the designation P-82, were put forward in 1942 year. The emergence of a new fighter caused the urgent need to get a fighter, which could accompany strategic bombers during raids on objects in Germany and its allies and support in solving this problem fighter P-47 and P-51. The appearance in the US Air Force of a strategic bomber B-29 very sharply raised the question of the need to accompany him throughout the entire length of the route to the target. Even the latest models of the Mustang P-29 fighters could not always cope with providing cover for the B-51 bomber.

F-82 Twin Mustang - the last US piston fighter

In addition, the use of single-engine fighters has demonstrated that during long flights, the load on pilots greatly increases. It was quite difficult to carry out in a tight fighter cockpit before the 8 watch, while driving the machine. When the pilots returned from such flights, they often could not leave the cockpit on their own. Therefore, the idea of ​​the appearance of a long-range fighter, in which there would be a place for the co-pilot. Taking this into account, the company North American put forward the idea to create a new long-range fighter, combining the fuselages of the two "Mustangs" with a common wing. Such a solution allowed to get a double fighter of interest to the military.

It should be noted that such developments were not American know-how. Perhaps the idea of ​​building such an aircraft arose under the influence of the development of Hitler's Germany. Researchers even note the fact that the first of the serial samples of the new American fighter wore the designation P-82Z, similarly designated similar machines in Germany - Bf 109Z or Not 111Z. However, later on, the Americans changed the name, renaming it into a more concise variant for the American classification system - P-82В. At the same time, North American had its own designation of this development - NA-120.

Already 7 January 1944 of the year from the US Army Air Force received an order to build four experienced fighter aircraft, which received the designation XP-82. Externally, the fuselages of these fighters resembled the P-51H, but they also had their own characteristics. Thus, their total length was increased immediately by 145 cm, thanks to the additional insertion before the tail. At the same time, the wing of the aircraft was a completely new design, which made it possible not only to increase the take-off weight of the long-range fighter, but also to increase the reserves of fuel located in its wing tanks. The center-plane of the aircraft, which combined the 2 fuselage of a conventional P-51 fighter, had flaps and could carry the 1-2 pylon. The fighter wing consoles were reinforced and could also carry an X-NUMX pylon each. Due to the appearance of a sufficiently strong inertia of the fighter in the management of roll, the engineer had to significantly increase the area of ​​the aileron. Thus, the ailerons of the aircraft became two-section, and the hinges used in them were designed for an increased level of loads.

The fighter planned to equip the Packard Merlin V-12-1650 (right) and V-25-1650 (left) maximum power of each of them with the V-shaped 23-cylinder liquid-cooled engines (left). From each other, the engines differed in the direction of rotation of their screws. The right screw rotated counterclockwise, and the left screw clockwise. Due to this, it was possible to eliminate the unfolding and heeling moment during the operation of the aircraft engines. The fighter was equipped with propellers Aeroproducts. The main landing gear of the fighter was attached to the front spar of the wing on the outside of each of the fuselages, the landing gear were retractable, they were retracted inside the fuselage and fender of the car.

It is worth noting that the management of the fighter was kept in both cabins, but in different volumes. The cockpit lanterns were drop-shaped; they were modeled on the P-51H fighter. The pilot was located in the left cockpit of the fighter; it was here that the complete set of instrumentation for controlling the fighter and the engines was located. In the right cabin of the aircraft was located the navigator - the co-pilot, who had a reduced set of equipment that was intended only for temporary control.

The main armament of the fighter was the Browning MG 12,7-53 2 machine guns, all on the plane were 6 such machine guns. The ammunition of each of them was 300 ammunition. All machine guns were mounted in the central section of the wing of the machine. At the same time, the fighter’s armament could be easily strengthened by installing a container with 8x12,7-mm machine guns under the central wing section. In addition, the aircraft could carry a bomb load and unguided missiles for ground attack purposes.

The first XP-82 prototypes were able to take to the air only 6 July 1945, that is, too late to have time to take part in the battles of the Second World War. This was the reason that the initial order for 500 machines was reduced to 270 fighters. In the US Air Force, the Twin Mustang replaced the P-61 Black Widow fighter as the main night fighter. In addition, the fighter was also involved in solving its initial tasks - escort escort B-29, B-50 and B-36 strategic bomber.

In February, the F-1947B "Betty Joe" fighter (serial number 82-44) managed to make a nonstop flight Honolulu - New York (approximately 65168 thousands of miles). The fighter managed to make this flight in 5 hours 14 minutes. The aircraft in this flight was piloted by John Ard and Robert Tucker. This record flight range for a piston fighter has not yet been beaten by anyone.

Combat fighter application

The fighter did not have time to take part in World War II, but he took part in the Korean war that started in 1950. The war on the Korean Peninsula began on June 25 of the year 1950. F-82 Twin Mustang fighters, which were based on Japanese air bases, almost immediately began to take part in battles. It is worth noting that at that time they were the only fighters that were able, operating from air bases in Japan, to cover almost the entire combat area. Already 27 June, one F-82G fighter, part of the 68 Fighter Squadron, under the command of Lieutenant William Hudson, as well as navigator Lieutenant Kerl Fraser, shot down North Korea’s Yak-7U in air combat, according to other data, it was Yak-XUMUMNUMBER This was the first victory of the US Air Force in the Korean War. Later that day, another F-11G from the 82 Fighter Squadron under the command of Major James Little shot down the Yak-339 fighter in combat.

The Twin Mustang fighters in service with the United States Air Force were quite actively used during the hostilities in Korea until November 1951, covering strategic bombers and storming ground troops. However, this machine even compared to its predecessor, the P-51 still performed a secondary role. There were difficulties with their use, there was a shortage of spare parts. When production of the F-1948 fighter jets was stopped in 82, the United States Air Force didn’t even bother to order sets of spare parts for their subsequent operation. As a result, by February 1952, all the F-82 Twin Mustang aircraft were withdrawn from the combat units. Despite the rather limited participation in the hostilities in Korea, the F-82 fighters managed to write down their own 20 destroyed enemy aircraft (with only 4 destroyed in the air and 16 on the ground).

F-82 Twin Mustang flight performance:

Modification: F-82G.
Dimensions: wingspan - 15,62 m, length - 12,93 m, height - 4,22 m, wing area - 37,9 square. m
Empty aircraft weight - 7255 kg, maximum take-off - 11608 kg.
Powerplant - 2 PD Allison V-1710-143 / 145 power 2 x1600 l. with.
The maximum flight speed is 776 km / h (at a height of 6400 m).
Cruising speed - 451 km / h.
Practical range - 3605 km.
Practical ceiling - 11860 m.
Crew - 2 person.
Armament: 6X12,7-mm machine guns, up to 1814 kg bombs and 25x75 NURS.

Information sources:
31 comment

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Blad_21617
    Blad_21617 19 February 2014 06: 55
    American technical thought had no borders until Soviet and European scientists and designers immigrated there ... so you look until now the "General Grant" tank would be their main unit)))
    1. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 19 February 2014 08: 02
      Dear colleague Vlad, USA was originally a country of immigrants. Propaganda, and some freedoms in entrepreneurship at the turn of the XIX - XX centuries have made this country attractive for people who are entrepreneurial and adventurous in nature. It was a wise policy of statesmen ai.
      Alas, today this is history, the United States is increasingly turning into a totalitarian state. The propaganda machine in the USA still works at its full potential, but that freedom and opportunity will rise to the Olympus, alas, no longer exists.
      Now for the article. The article is redrawn, like an educational program for those who did not know about this car.
      Actually, the car was not successful. They tried to adapt it as an escort fighter, as an attack aircraft, as a night fighter, but nowhere did it take root. The plane was decommissioned earlier than its progenitor R-51. Even in Korea, it was used only at the initial stage, while American aviation was not relocated to the airfields of South Korea.
      And at the expense of supposedly downed planes in different sources, different numbers, as well as different dates of victories, as well as confusion with the pilots who won. True, in one of the books (translated) there is an interesting explanation on the discrepancy of data: Reports on the combat use of the F-82 (P-82) in Korea were not preserved.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 19 February 2014 14: 29
        Quote: Gamdlislyam
        Actually, the car was not successful.

        In this regard, there are great doubts that on this tomb, in general, something can be brought down except yourself. It is also noteworthy that the reports of the downed Yaks were lost without any fuss and panic.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 19 February 2014 08: 18
      Quote: Blad_21617
      American technical thought had no borders until Soviet and European scientists and designers immigrated there ... so you look until now the "General Grant" tank would be their main unit)))

      The United States would have been without emigrants ...
    3. klim44
      klim44 19 February 2014 17: 02
      Vyts’s colleague is wrong if there hadn’t been a designer Christie in America - there would have been no BT tanks in the USSR and, as a result, the T-34. That is the strength of the United States that talented people go there from all over the world and work miracles there. And in our country with you alone ravshans and jamshuts go. that's how we live.
  2. cobalt
    cobalt 19 February 2014 07: 26
    So this thing flew.
  3. Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 19 February 2014 08: 43
    very high production culture, everything is clearly, neatly assembled
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 19 February 2014 10: 38
      Ivan Petrovich! Again you write h..yu, found something to admire.

      It is one thing to build aircraft in a country that is not bombarded by enemy bombs, within an 8-hour working day, with the help of qualified specialists who have a "reservation" from the draft. Would they try to build airplanes "in an open field," by the efforts of 14-year-olds and women, "working hard" for 18 hours a day, hungry,
      falling from fatigue and sleeping right at the machines.
      In fact, you need to judge the build quality and production culture not by photographs, but by really comparing similar or similar samples
      1. postman
        postman 19 February 2014 12: 47
        Quote: rubin6286
        but actually comparing similar or similar samples

        So compare!
        What's the problem?
        1. Go to the nearest dealer (Chrysler, Ford, etc.), view the Boeing (MSD) at the airport
        2. Go to the nearest dealer (AvtoVAZ, UAZ, and), consider Tu (IL) at the airport
        3. Sit and fly at least to Hurghada (Better to New Zealand) to Boeing and Tu (IL)
        4. There are many photos showing the quality of welds, painting, etc. , for T-90 and Abrams
        Did I feel the difference?
        Now it seems (and for a long time) there are no bombing raids, the enterprises are not in the "open field"
        at leisure NTD, according to the code ASME B 31.8 (USA) - that de facto there is a generally accepted international standard
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 19 February 2014 16: 29
          You, my dear postman, have heard the ringing, but you do not know where he is.
          Why should I compare Boeing, TU and IL, T-90 and Abrams? We talked about a specific product - the F-82 Twin Mustang.
          And here the quality of the welds in the late 40s, when this plane was made. Then in aviation there was still no titanium, beryllium. high-alloy steels and much more. As a pilot and test engineer, I am telling you this. Look at the museum in Monino at least the post-war Yak-9, Il-10, La-11. They are no worse. I have no need to compare the quality of welds, and even from a photograph. For this, there are completely different methods. Some especially "advanced" psychics successfully "treat" people from a photograph in winter clothes and from the back.
          1. postman
            postman 19 February 2014 16: 55
            Quote: rubin6286
            You, expensive my postman

            It’s not worth it to call me familiarly and I can send a fuck!
            Try not to touch the ceiling with a high-raised nose! Spoil the plaster

            Quote: rubin6286
            , heard a ringing, but don’t know where it is.

            in your language: I not only "heard" the ringing, but also "saw" and "even generated": materials science, though in rocketry, a number of scientific publications.
            Don’t get drunk. In Monino there was a 3-month practice at Baikonur, and I visited the Dmitrovsky training ground for 4 years.
            My thought was aboutthat (according to your opinion) military, field conditions played on the qualities of assembly of products in the USSR, I explained to you how small: WAR HAS PASSED, NO FIELD CONDITIONS - COMPARE ASSEMBLY QUALITY (and welds including those with them)

            Quote: rubin6286
            I’m telling you as a pilot and test engineer.

            my brother is a cousin of the Air Force (a fan of the Air Force), and he managed to ride me a little. I saw, touched, felt
            So what?

            Quote: rubin6286
            Then in aviation there was still titanium, beryllium. high alloy steels and much more.

            Titanium: North American F-86 Saber, Republic F-84F Thunderstreak, Curtiss Wright J-65
            (about small structural elements (compressor blades) for reciprocating - I will say nothing .. you, as an "engineer - test" must know
            Beryllium from the 30s, hello example
            Quote: rubin6286
            high alloy steels
            generally joke ..

            Aircraft “Steel-2” ENERGE stainless steel: melting and forgings (Elektrostal plant), hot rolled sheets (Hammer and Sickle factory) and cold rolled foil (Electrozavod). Various grades of chromium-nickel steels from Enerzh-1 to Enerzh-6 were tried and stainless steel Enerzh-6 was finally accepted (it is also steel 18-8, i.e. 18% chromium and 8% nickel)

            Which one? in the 30s. And?
            Quote: rubin6286
            These are some especially "advanced" psychics.

            I know, but not less rarely are "advanced" engineers "(pilots - they also" treat. "And with some aplomb.
            1. rubin6286
              rubin6286 21 February 2014 19: 26
              For the Postman.

              After reading Ivan Petrovich’s comment on the high production culture and build quality of the Twin Mustang fighter, where “everything is clear, neatly assembled,” I advised him not to be enthusiastic and explained why. Since about 1947, our aircraft industry began to switch to new structural materials, which could not but affect the build quality and flight performance of the machines.
              Post-war Yak-9. IL-10 and especially La-11 are significantly different from the military
              "Perkalevo-wooden" brothers. This can be seen from the outside, and in order to compare who is better done inside, you need to remove the skin and compare specific samples. Neither Ivan Petrovich, nor you "naked" "Twin Mustang" and, for example, La-11 have not seen. How do you know about the quality of American welding? Where did you see her? It can only be assumed that some knot was probably made better by the Mustang than by the Lavochkin or Yak, although, in general, the Americans had a higher production culture, because there factories and design bureaus worked in different conditions than in the USSR. I also wrote to Ivan Petrovich about this. When the first FV-1942 was captured in the winter of 190, Stalin asked Yakovlev: "Is this plane really better than yours and Lavochkin?" and received the answer: "No, it does not have a decisive superiority, but individual structural units are interesting, nothing more." We should be proud that less than 5 years have passed since the end of the war, and our designers have created aircraft that are not inferior to foreign models. The MiG-15 performed well in Korea, the Americans stole the Yak-23 from the Bulgarians and were unpleasantly surprised by its lightness, maneuverability and rate of climb at altitudes up to 6 thousand meters, where it was very dangerous for the American Thunderjets and Shooting Stars.
              Unfortunately, there is still no voluminous work devoted to the development of our aircraft industry from 1930 to 1991, and individual publications in the press do not give a complete picture of what has been done in the country, how and by whom. I know very well about Steel-2 and other original designs, as well as what was first applied to them, but it didn’t go further into the series, for one reason or another. I am also familiar with the "stainless steel" (1X18H9T), and D-16T, AMG-6, and other structural materials.
              It is difficult to talk about the current state of production culture in the aviation industry and rocket science and compare it with the leading aviation powers, especially if we take into account the situation in the economy that has developed after the collapse of the USSR. Design and technical thought work the same way, it's about economic opportunities. To date, the combat capabilities of our Su-27, Su-30,34, MiG-31 are quite comparable to and even surpass those of American vehicles.
      2. Hug
        Hug 19 February 2014 19: 50
        Re .: rubin6286
        Ivan Petrovich! Again you write h..yu, found something to admire ...

        I cannot understand the reasons for your irritation and "righteous" anger: is it Ivan Petrovich sinned against the truth?
        Or are we on a political lesson for the younger commanders? What is the connection between engineering culture and your ideological and patriotic hysteria?
        You like pilot and test engineer I say.

        Well, and besides, insulting your opponent, you pilot and test engineer humiliate yourself. Your vocabulary is not acceptable here. Tramps on the drive speak culturally.

        As for the topic of discussion, I, although not pilot and test engineerI can just say that the car is beautiful. I think that it probably flew well - the Americans built good planes.
        1. jjj
          jjj 20 February 2014 00: 30
          Well, again about "polymers"
        2. rubin6286
          rubin6286 22 February 2014 01: 32
          I read not only this one, but also other comments by Ivan Petrovich. I advise you to do this too. I got the impression that the person does not understand what is being said. On the Voennoye Obozreniye website, one should not chat, but seriously and thoughtfully exchange opinions on a specific issue, be competent and understand the content of published articles. We, the military, evaluate such comments in the language "which led battalions into battle" - rather rudely, but very aptly. "Privoz" is in Ukraine. and we have a market or a bazaar. Now they also have a Maidan, and we have solid power, discipline and order.
          How many eyes, so many opinions. Every man to his own taste. Therefore, the comment "beautiful or ugly" does not add anything useful to the article and becomes meaningless. For some reason, no one wrote about the fact that with such a landing gear scheme, the aircraft has a poor view during takeoff and landing. The aircraft is heavy and difficult to control for one pilot. With a mass of more than 7 tons and a wing span of more than 15 meters, the absence of hydraulic boosters, it is difficult to control it. This leads to rapid fatigue of the pilot and the inability to fight on verticals, there is no protection of the rear hemisphere. Because of this, the F-82 in Korea ceased to be used to escort bombers and made a night fighter, although there were no night air battles and the radar was generally absent, and then completely removed from service.
  4. pensioner
    pensioner 19 February 2014 09: 11
    I have long been waiting for an article on the Tweenmustang topic. Very unusual plane! And further.
    The fighter was planned to be equipped with two Packard Merlin V-12-1650 (right) and V-25-1650 (left) two V-shaped liquid-cooled 23-cylinder engines with a maximum power of 1860 hp.
    Oh! Our aircraft designers had similar engines during the war! Would tear Messer fuck! And so: I had to be wise with the weak M-105 almost the entire war ...
    1. Timeout
      Timeout 19 February 2014 10: 43
      Quote: retired
      weakling M-105

      Klimov was able to squeeze out of the obviously outdated design of the Spanish-Suiza starting from the M-100, to the last drop.
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 19 February 2014 17: 50
        Well, we lagged behind in engine building not weak then. One story about how they got the chemical composition of ZhSov what it costs ... But turbochargers could not bring to the end of the war ...
        1. Timeout
          Timeout 20 February 2014 01: 57
          Quote: retired
          Well, we lagged behind in engine building not weak then.

          Of course not weak. All equipment and accessories were tailored to the production of "Ispana", so Klimov got out as best he could. There was simply no equipment for the production of precision compressor parts, mattress mats clamped it, but after the war there was a breakthrough in German equipment.
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 20 February 2014 05: 50
            Quote: Timeout
            but after the war there was a breakthrough on German equipment.

            Yes, yes! My (in the recent past ...) factory still (!!!) has German-made explosive machines from the 20s and 30s !!
            1. Timeout
              Timeout 20 February 2014 13: 16
              Quote: retired
              German-made explosive machines from the 20s and 30s !!

              Probably still Kruppovskie from the order of the Comintern? I saw a machine for boring crankshafts for the same AMO, Krupp shows off in full growth.
              1. pensioner
                pensioner 20 February 2014 17: 07
                Quote: Timeout
                Probably still Kruppovsky

                Yes. yes
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 19 February 2014 10: 55
      My father fought in Korea, shot down 2 American planes and 2 more were not credited to him. He told me that Twin Mustangs were there. They were used as a reconnaissance and artillery spotter. When our fighters appeared, they quickly left with a descent to their territory (for the 38th parallel). Except for Thunderjets, Sabers,
      Meteorov, B-25 and B-29, there were also some other enemy aircraft - American piston Mustang, Hellket, Corsair, British Seafire, American carrier-based jet Banshee, Cougar, but all of them were inferior to our MiG-15 bis in speed, rate of climb and armament power, and to our pilots in physical training, endurance, piloting technique and tactics of air combat, bravery.
      I still keep his old "Album of military planes, helicopters and rockets of the USA, Great Britain, France and Sweden".
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 19 February 2014 23: 21
        Quote: rubin6286
        My father fought in Korea

        hi hi hi hi
        Quote: rubin6286
        I still keep his old "Album of military planes, helicopters and rockets of the USA, Great Britain, France and Sweden".
        Can I put it on the site?
        1. Timeout
          Timeout 20 February 2014 01: 59
          Quote: retired
          Can I put it on the site?

          I wholeheartedly support!
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 20 February 2014 02: 04
            The book can be downloaded at
            1. pensioner
              pensioner 20 February 2014 02: 37
              Thank you, Sasha! hi Toko doesn’t work ... crying
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 20 February 2014 02: 39
                In the sense of Yur? Link? Yur understood everything for downloading tel. Demand. Now I’ll look.
                1. pensioner
                  pensioner 20 February 2014 02: 44
                  Yes, the page does not open to the end ... Why aren’t we sleeping? At work or what?
                  But right now it has opened. And really asking for a phone!
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 20 February 2014 02: 49
                    Yur will throw off the normal link now, don’t send any bodies. Here
                    1. pensioner
                      pensioner 20 February 2014 03: 07
                      Okay We will read! Thank you, Sasha!! hi
                      Well, since the card has gone ... repeat But is there anything on the topic of Mosquito (DeHaviland -?) To read (or look, by the way!) From the memories of the pilots? In Russian ... I understand that most likely not, but nonetheless ... I am not good at new technologies — a hopeless computer user ... crying
                      I just made his model in due time. Well, oh, I really liked the plane! It was not supplied to us by Lend-Lease, I know for sure.
                      1. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 03: 10
                        I’ll dig it right now, I even remember the thin film from memory.
                      2. pensioner
                        pensioner 20 February 2014 03: 14
                        I say: the suit flooded! Thank you, Sasha! Why aren’t we sleeping all the same? Job?
                      3. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 03: 17
                        He worked for the UR, took a day off. Here is a link to the book, now I’ll look for the film.
                      4. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 03: 21
                        Here is the movie "633 Squadron"
                      5. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 03: 28
                        Hamilton Airshow 2013.
                      6. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 03: 33
                      7. pensioner
                        pensioner 20 February 2014 03: 34
                        Wow!!!!!! good hi
                        Finally !!!!
                      8. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 03: 39
                        Yur have you watched Belle of Memphis?
                      9. pensioner
                        pensioner 20 February 2014 03: 55
                        Of course not! Isn't it a "flying fortress" b-17 on the cover? Or a Liberator? Their muzzles (I remember ...) seemed to be similar ... And the Mosquito is beautiful, you bastard! Our Yakovlev, I remember, also made a similar plane - Yak -2 (4). Interesting: based on Mosquito or not? Did they appear almost at the same time (in 1940, again, like ...) appeared? Our people then knew more about the Germans than about the British ...
                      10. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 04: 10
                        B-17, I'll throw off your link in a personal. Well, the Yak was called the Soviet "Mosquito"
                      11. pensioner
                        pensioner 20 February 2014 04: 18
                        I read: our pilots suffered with it. And somehow very quickly they ended in the 41st ... True, there were not many of them ...
                      12. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 04: 20
                        Yur from memory in my opinion about 200, but there were also flaws !!!!!!!!!!!!
                      13. pensioner
                        pensioner 20 February 2014 04: 28
                        In-in ... Ar-2 there was a comparable amount, but they also met in 42 ... By the way, I remember that the pilots of Ar-2 were very praised and even put higher than the Pe-2 ... But here I can confuse because I don’t remember where and when I read it ... It seems that Yakubovich’s book on aviation on the eve of the war also wrote about this ...
                      14. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 04: 31
                        According to Ar, he had problems with stability, and the propeller-driven group, while "shoveling out" the shortcomings, the Pawn was already in the series.
                      15. pensioner
                        pensioner 20 February 2014 04: 36
                        But actually (I'm certainly an amateur - fool ) In vain, after all, they did not bet on ViT-SPB. And earlier it would have appeared and the plane promised to be very good ... Ina, it would have been necessary to develop Pe, Ar, Yak-2 in such a hurry ... We would have made some planes for the war and prepared the pilots ...
                      16. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 03: 52
                        Quote: retired
                        It was not supplied to us by Lend-Lease, I know for sure.

                        By the way, one Mosquito was in the USSR, here are the materials
                      17. The comment was deleted.
                      18. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 February 2014 04: 13
                        Yur, I think I knew. But this is my personal opinion.
          2. rubin6286
            rubin6286 21 February 2014 19: 51
            Timeout and Retired.

            I fulfill your request. I shot some sheets of this album on a scanner in Photoshop, including projections of "Saber" and information about the "Twin Mustang." I just can’t figure out how to insert them into this text.
            Sorry, respectfully.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  5. oblako
    oblako 19 February 2014 12: 30
    Yes, indeed, the Americans have implemented the technical idea great. The plane is beautiful in appearance, well assembled. The car could escort bombers at a great distance from their home bases. But phrases about a "great" plane are from the realm of emotion and propaganda, cultivating American superiority or our backwardness. It would be correct to say how much the aircraft corresponded to the tasks assigned to it. And to compare correctly with airplanes solving similar problems, then we can talk about "better", "worse" or "excellent". The given facts about the downed Yak-7u, Yak-9, Yak-11 (most likely all the same La-11, Yak-11 is a combat training vehicle with an engine of 540 hp and one machine gun of 12,7 mm) Few characterize. This could indeed have happened during an ambush operation. THOSE. If the Mustang pilot had detected the enemy earlier, he had the opportunity to make one attack and exit the battle at speed. In maneuverable aerial combat, Twin had no chance against fighters to gain air superiority. Yak-7, Yak-9, and even more so La 11. Well, some comparison for correctness: Year of the first flight: Twin 1945, Yak-7- 1941, Yak-9-1942, La-11 as a development of La-9 in 1947 , but La-9 itself in 1945) The rate of climb for La is 11 - 23 m / s for Twin - 19 m / s, this means an advantage in vertical maneuver. La 11 is inferior to 30-70 km / h in maximum speed, 300-400 kilometers in flight range, somewhere 1000 m inferior in maximum flight altitude, in wing load it exceeds Twin by 100 kg per square meter, which means a significant advantage in a horizontal maneuver. In addition, it is physically smaller, which increases the likelihood of surviving in a maneuverable battle, as well as 2,5 times lighter, which means a faster reaction to pilot's control actions. "Throttle response" Finally, armament: in terms of efficiency 3-4 La-9-11 cannons were superior in efficiency to 6-12,7 mm machine guns, this was recognized by all pilots. It can be compared in terms of the total weight of the salvo, it is approximately equal, but the effectiveness of the guns was much better. A 12,7 mm bullet perforated the plane, and a 23 mm projectile tore off planes. I'm not saying that our "hurray is better !!!" I want to be objective without self-destruction. And then to judge how well our designers solved the problem, it is also necessary to judge in what conditions they were and what resources they had. According to the criterion "cost - efficiency on the battlefield - manufacturability in production" they simply had no equal, which was confirmed by the outcome of World War II. We have no reason for self-deprecation, and even more so for exalted enthusiasm about Western technologies. You just have to work.
    1. Argon
      Argon 19 February 2014 22: 00
      This machine was created in a hurry, as all the planned projects to replace the veteran P-38 were deemed unsuccessful. The engineers of North American followed the path of the least risks and in the shortest possible time created a product that meets the requirements of the military. As for the "success" of the machine, then "Tween" was unlucky to the extent that we were all lucky. Its "finest hour" (given its main purpose) fell on the "hottest" period of the COLD War, when the USSR did not yet have a nuclear shield and passed ingloriously. there was nothing to oppose the "Twin Mustang" to us. Those calculations that oblako leads are not objective, since neither the ASh-82 nor the VK-107 of the nominal value at 8000 meters was issued, and the MiG-9 was essentially a prototype machine in the series. it was not possible to attach a "veteran" during the era of the second generation of jet aircraft, which in general is not an ingeniously universal, piston, high-altitude platform, it lost to more specialized, but to frequent and young competitors. By the way, such a fate did not fall only F-82, P-63 comes to mind; F-8.
      1. jjj
        jjj 20 February 2014 00: 33
        Was "Lighting" worse that it was so much that "Mustang" had to be duplicated?
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 22 February 2014 01: 57
      "Twin Mustang" does not surpass Yak-9 and La-11 in vertical maneuver at altitudes up to 6 thousand meters. it is almost 2 times heavier. As an escort fighter, he did not justify himself. With such a deployment of pilots, it was difficult for him to fight, but war is war and anything happens. Both sides suffer losses and at the same time underestimate their own, the enemy overestimates. The Koreans had only Yak-9 and Il-10 in service, the Americans knocked out almost all of them at the airfields. Later, the Chinese began to help. They had our Yak-9, Yak-18, Po-2, Tu-2, La-11 and later the MiG-15. They got the modified MiGs when our troops left China.
  6. ramsi
    ramsi 19 February 2014 15: 48
    visually, the cockpits are the same as on the P-51, which means that there is no need to talk about comparable living conditions with the escorted bombers. Further, the whole idea looks simply ridiculous ... If we simply increased and strengthened the "donor" by making a two-seater cabin and installing two engines, it would probably have been better
  7. ya.seliwerstov2013
    ya.seliwerstov2013 20 February 2014 03: 46
    Cool little thing! I haven’t seen it earlier. Rad for the connoisseurs who are in the topic. The approach itself is not usual,. Did something else fly? To as many as two nose screws? In the photo, too, Spark?
  8. Robertos
    Robertos 22 February 2014 17: 08
    Flew fast. Of our none, the line of 700 km / h was not overcome during the war.