A nice Warbird fix: XP-82 Twin Mustang in flight at Oshkosh a few days ago

[K Frame]

Yep, basically two He-111s fused together with a fifth engine thrown in for good measure.
What happens when a German engineer says hold my beer.

Actually, more like the Luftwaffe going HEY! We have this wonderful new ME 321 glider.... that... nothing... can get off the ground...

And Heinkel saying "Have we got a solution for you!"

They'd been working on a similar concept for some time as part of an effort to develop a heavy bomber, and it transitioned well. Apparently German pilots said they were quite handy to fly.

[Hawkmoon]

What I said above about about the design of the P-38 is similar to what happened with the F-4 Phantom II and to some extent the F-14. The F-4 was design as a pure interceptor that was later pressed into the fighter/bomber role. One shortcoming with the F-4 is that it originally didn't have a gun at all so later they  added guns as pods and then internally in later models after they got the message that if you're going to use it as fighter it really needs a gun. The F-14 while being designed as an interceptor as well did have some fighter elements incorporated in the design from the start such as having an internal gun.
The F-105 was design as a tactical nuclear strike aircraft and then was pressed into the fighter/bomber role with, shall we say, poor results.  

What's the distinction between "interceptor" and "fighter"?

[K Frame]

In the old days, an interceptor was optimized to go after bombers, while a fighter could take on bombers as well as other fighters, but were intended primarily to exert air superiority.

Interceptors tended to be less maneuverable but fast so as to intercept bombers as far away from the intended target as possible.

The F-4 Phantom is a good example of an aircraft that was originally designed as an interceptor. It was never intended to be a front line fighter aircraft, but during Vietnam it was pressed into that role more and more because the Navy and Marine Corps didn't have any other aircraft that could counter some of the newer Mig fighters that were showing up in Vietnam.

[WLJ]

What's the distinction between "interceptor" and "fighter"?

Fighter design priorities
* High speed
* High degree of maneuverability
* Close in weapons more suited for taking on highly maneuverable aircraft


Interceptor are designed specifically to attack bomber and other similarly large aircraft before they can release. Especially important in the missile and nuclear age. They usually prioritize
* High climb rate
* High speed
* Usually heavier longer ranged weapons more suited for taking out larger aircraft such as bombers
* Often have longer range sensors
* Often, but not always, a second crew member to deal with the weapon and sensor systems
* Often larger because of all the above
Basically firepower and time to intercept is the priority

Think of the different between an F-14 and an F-16

Example of Interceptors off the top of my head
P-38
Bf-110.210.410
F-4
F-14
Su-15
Mig 31
English Electric Lightning
G3 Tornado


  

[WLJ]

Many people don't know that the SR-71 was developed from an interceptor. the YF-12

[K Frame]

"Bf-110.210.410"

I wouldn't consider any of the 10s to be interceptors at all.

They were designed primarily as combined role aircraft, intended to serve as heavy fighters and also as fighter/bombers/ground attack aircraft. They were pressed into the role of anti-bomber night fighters because they fared quite poorly at their initial intended role (especially the 110, was was intended as a long-range bomber escort to counter British fighters but which itself needed fighter support to protect it).

They were better at the night fighter role because they were large enough to carry radar and a heavy cannon armament and also had good linger time.

[WLJ]

"Bf-110.210.410"

I wouldn't consider any of the 10s to be interceptors at all.

They were designed primarily as combined role aircraft, intended to serve as heavy fighters and also as fighter/bombers/ground attack aircraft. They were pressed into the role of anti-bomber night fighters because they fared quite poorly at their initial intended role (especially the 110, was was intended as a long-range bomber escort to counter British fighters but which itself needed fighter support to protect it).

They were better at the night fighter role because they were large enough to carry radar and a heavy cannon armament and also had good linger time.

It's not a hard line between the two and many types blur that line more than others. In it's original intended role of the 110 the German referred to it as a "Destroyer" as in Bomber Destroyer which is basically what a heavy fighter is (again not a hard line) but it was also designed with an eye toward LR escort and some limited ground attack, thus the blurred lines in this case. But once the Germans found it to be too vulnerable to newer modern single engine fighters it was largely relegated to areas less contested by those fighters either as a FB on the eastern front or as a bomber interceptor over Germany.

Always have had a soft spot for the 110 for some reason.

[K Frame]

"In it's original intended role of the 110 the German referred to it as a "Destroyer" as in Bomber Destroyer which is basically what a heavy fighter is (again not a hard line) but it was also designed with an eye toward LR escort and some limited ground attack, thus the blurred lines in this case."

Not sure what your source is on that, but the Germans never intended the Bf 110 to be a bomber interceptor. The Germans were quite smug (and to a large degree correct early in the war) that their location and their fighter aircraft could largely keep German skies clear of British and French bombers.

When the British adopted night bombing out of desperation the 110 proved itself more than capable of adapting to that role; again, one for which it was never really intended.

By extension the 210 and 410 also slotted into this role. The 410 was the only one that was really late enough on the planning boards that it could be considered to be "planned" as a night bomber interceptor.

But as originally both planned and developed per the initial specifications, the Germans were looking for a long-range bomber escort with the ability to linger with the bombers over the target and protect them from enemy fighters, something that the Fw 190 and Me 109 largely couldn't do during the Battle of Britain because of their short legs.

[WLJ]

"In it's original intended role of the 110 the German referred to it as a "Destroyer" as in Bomber Destroyer which is basically what a heavy fighter is (again not a hard line) but it was also designed with an eye toward LR escort and some limited ground attack, thus the blurred lines in this case."

Not sure what your source is on that, but the Germans never intended the Bf 110 to be a bomber interceptor. The Germans were quite smug (and to a large degree correct early in the war) that their location and their fighter aircraft could largely keep German skies clear of British and French bombers.

When the British adopted night bombing out of desperation the 110 proved itself more than capable of adapting to that role; again, one for which it was never really intended.

By extension the 210 and 410 also slotted into this role. The 410 was the only one that was really late enough on the planning boards that it could be considered to be "planned" as a night bomber interceptor.

But as originally both planned and developed per the initial specifications, the Germans were looking for a long-range bomber escort with the ability to linger with the bombers over the target and protect them from enemy fighters, something that the Fw 190 and Me 109 largely couldn't do during the Battle of Britain because of their short legs.

You're right, got my memories cross up. Happens when I'm distracted and/or are too lazy to recheck them. And I just realized my brain went off the rails there on the subject. It helps to not post when I'm not trying to do 50 things at once.
Memory is the 2nd thing to go, can't remember what the 1st is.

[Andiron]

Designed for totally different roles. The 38 was designed as an interceptor with high speed, high rate of climb, and a weapons layout meant for taking out bombers being the primary goals. The fact that it was later used as an escort and fighter/bomber was more of matter of need than design. The 82 was designed as a two seat long range fighter escort which enabled two pilots to share the work burden since it was recognized that the long range of the 51 was already pushing the endurance of it's single pilot to the limit. The 82's design later proved useful as a radar equipped night interceptor.

I know, my post was meant tongue in cheek but I appreciate the rest of that,  Didn't know anything about the 82.


The wikipedia wander led me to this guy via an article on 105's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_K._Thorsness

Big brass ones on that man. 


For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. As pilot of an F- 105 aircraft, Lt. Col. Thorsness was on a surface-to-air missile suppression mission over North Vietnam. Lt. Col. Thorsness and his wingman attacked and silenced a surface-to-air missile site with air-to-ground missiles, and then destroyed a second surface-to-air missile site with bombs. In the attack on the second missile site, Lt. Col. Thorsness' wingman was shot down by intensive antiaircraft fire, and the 2 crewmembers abandoned their aircraft. Lt. Col. Thorsness circled the descending parachutes to keep the crewmembers in sight and relay their position to the Search and Rescue Center. During this maneuver, a MIG-17 was sighted in the area. Lt. Col. Thorsness immediately initiated an attack and destroyed the MIG. Because his aircraft was low on fuel, he was forced to depart the area in search of a tanker. Upon being advised that 2 helicopters were orbiting over the downed crew's position and that there were hostile MlGs in the area posing a serious threat to the helicopters, Lt. Col. Thorsness, despite his low fuel condition, decided to return alone through a hostile environment of surface-to-air missile and antiaircraft defenses to the downed crew's position. As he approached the area, he spotted 4 MIG-17 aircraft and immediately initiated an attack on the MlGs, damaging 1 and driving the others away from the rescue scene. When it became apparent that an aircraft in the area was critically low on fuel and the crew would have to abandon the aircraft unless they could reach a tanker, Lt. Col. Thorsness, although critically short on fuel himself, helped to avert further possible loss of life and a friendly aircraft by recovering at a forward operating base, thus allowing the aircraft in emergency fuel condition to refuel safely. Lt. Col. Thorsness' extraordinary heroism, self-sacrifice, and personal bravery involving conspicuous risk of life were in the highest traditions of the military service, and have reflected great credit upon himself and the U.S. Air Force.

[HankB]

Many people don't know that the SR-71 was developed from an interceptor. the YF-12

I've read that the SR-71 was originally supposed to be designated RS-71 (for "Recon/Strike") but LBJ inadvertently transposed the letters in a speech, so - to conceal the gaffe - the designation was changed.

[WLJ]

I've read that the SR-71 was originally supposed to be designated RS-71 (for "Recon/Strike") but LBJ inadvertently transposed the letters in a speech, so - to conceal the gaffe - the designation was changed.

SR-71… or RS-71? How the legendary Blackbird got her designation
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/sr-71-or-rs-71-how-the-legendary-blackbird-got-her-designation/