The Twelve-Gun "Twin-Engine Spitfires" | Supermarine 324, 325, 327

Today we're taking a look at some Supermarine twin engine fighter concepts designed in the late 1930s.
Want to support the channel? I have a Patreon here - patreon.com/rexshangar
Want to join the community? Visit our Discord - / discord
Recommended Reading:
Andrews.C.F & Morgan.E.B (1989), Supermarine Aircraft Since 1914
Butler.T (2004), British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950

[@RexsHangar]

F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.

[@user-og1ux8nr3i]

Why not just use the Mosquito?

[@iatsd]

Japanese flying boats. you know you want to. (In about 20 years once you've got through everything else already on the list)

[@heinzaballoo3278]

1. Are you planning to cover the Pe-2? 2. Is a video on the B-29 in the works? There's a suprising lack of high quality videos on its development. I sense an opportunity..

[@darrellcook8253]

It's not easy is it? I often wonder what's in certain peoples attics, history lost or hoarded by selfish certain people. I hate British pathe, they ruin the images by putting on that stupid watermark. Thank you for the effort and not using watermarks.

[@RexsHangar]

@@heinzaballoo3278 1. Yes. 2. Definitely, yes!

[@abyssaljam441]

Splitfire...

[@gabrielneves6602]

That's it. Everyone get out

[@robertdragoff6909]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@davidcarr7436]

I think it would be slightly disconcerting to bail out of a twin engine aircraft with pusher configuration.

[@IntrospectorGeneral]

Twin Spitfire = Twitfire?

[@prfwrx2497]

Shut up and take my money.

[@geoffkeeys6946]

Just when you think you know heaps about WW2 aircraft, Rex goes "here's one"and you realise that he's done it again. Well done, sir. Love these videos of "what might have been".

[@bigblue6917]

Having had an interest in military aviation for many years now one thing I have learned is the similarity between it and an iceberg. What you see is a fraction of what you don't see.

[@derrickstorm6976]

Well technically it's not a ww2 aircraft

[@markfryer9880]

​????? Why it was designed just prior to WWII??

[@geoffkeeys6946]

I mean around the WW2 era, especially when closely related to aircraft that would become iconic a few years later. Even the Spitfire could be classed as "pre-WW2"as it was introduced in about 1938. However these designs still fascinate me,

[@milosmevzelj5205]

@geoffkeeys6946 if you are interested in design and prototype projects, than get midland secret projects books. They are very in detail stories about german, british, soviet and projects from japan. All in all 13 great .books.

[@digitaal_boog]

When a mummy spitfire and a daddy mosquito love each other very much…

[@drstevenrey]

I thought I was a walking aerospace dictionary, but you Chris, put me right in my tiny little corner of the lot. This one, seriously, never heard of it, totally missed it. You so rock.

[@npc.no1]

Pov: When the "um actually" guy meets a bigger "un actually" guy

[@tmike_tc]

You probably are a walking aerospace dictionary. And there are probably things you know that he doesn’t. You’re still the life of any party you attend, I am sure.

[@FinsburyPhil]

A couple of observations: eventually the DH Hornet would prove the concept correct and was a fabulous aircraft; the model you have a picture of looks a little like a piston engine Meteor!

[@goddepersonno3782]

as we know from the march of history, the benefits of extra power from two engines are most often outweighed by...the weight (and drag) penalty it incurs so even though the mosquito and meteor are incredible aircraft, it's certainly not difficult to make something faster and more manoeuvrable with engines that are inline with the fuselage

[@davidelliott5843]

Mosquito was accepted purely because DH had the resources to build a prototype and the contacts to get the engines. They literally embarrassed the War Office into accepting the aircraft. If’s only real downside was not using contra rotating propellers.

[@MrT67]

Yes, the Hornet was ultimately proven, although too late for WWII. Given this info regarding the Twinfire and that discussions for a twin engine fighter originated that early on, it's a shame and slightly surprising that the Hornet kept getting delayed. What a buzz it would have been to see the Hornet engaged with the Luftwaffe.

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

That made me think of the German "arrow", if you know what I mean

[@JMurph2015]

​@@goddepersonno3782both the F-15 and F-22 are twin engine jets. The US Navy up to the F-35 considered two engines a mandatory thing for their jets (Tomcat, Hornet, Super Hornet, etc). The Su-35 Flanker-E aircraft from the Russians are also twin engine. Almost every air superiority jet ever since WW2 has been a twin engine setup. What are you on about? Additionally, in recent years, twin engine has become even more of an advantage because thrust vectoring can be used to generate roll forces with two engines, improving maneuverability.

[@jkorshak]

Interesting that between the 324 and 325 it appears the overhead ellipse of the wing has been essentially turned 180 degrees.

[@Vespuchian]

I assume it has something to do with where the main wing spar has to go to mount the engines.

[@clementpoon120]

i'd love to see a match between the 324/325 and the fw 187

[@ronfullerton3162]

A miniature Mosquito!

[@darkiee69]

Makes me wonder if someone at Westland knew someone at Supermarine. My first thought when I saw the concept drawings was "Hey, that's a whirlwind"

[@elennapointer701]

Supermarine basically brainstormed both the Bristol Beaufighter and the DH Mosquito.

[@iffracem]

Beaufighter was much larger, and both that and the Mosquito were multi-crew... this is more like the DH Hornet.. the "single seat Mosquito"

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

I think this is the same idea as the Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke and both would have been a great addition to the fighters of each side. A number if this planes during the battle of Britain, especially with 2cm cannons, would have shredded the German bombers. Comparing this with the Defiant that was accepted and put into production makes me scratching my head. Also the idea to place the guns at the outer part of the wing is kind of strange compared to everybody else who was trying to concentrate the guns in the center if possible at the same time (P38, Me110)

[@brucebaxter6923]

Hornet not mosquito

[@allangibson8494]

@@Ulrich.BierwischAnd heavy fighters failed “hard” in WW2. The lighter single engined ones consistently beat them anywhere they could reach - and the P-51 made that everywhere in Europe. Twin engined / two crewed night fighters did have an application until the radar systems shrank towards the end of WW2.

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

@@allangibson8494 The P38 was pretty successful and I'm sure a heavy single seater would have been devastating during the battle of Britain. Especially in the areas the 109 couldn't reach but also in situation where the Spitfire and hurricane could help to fight the 109's while the heavy fighter attacks the bombers. The 110 and 410 was also pretty good against the US-bombers until escort fighters got the range. I'm sure if the British had the 109 and 110 and the Germans the Hurricane and Spitfire, the battle of Britain would have been be over much sooner.

[@donaldduff-mccracken448]

Rex, I love where the vids are going these days! These “paper plane” vids are great! I love these crazy Supermarine aircraft and always wanted to learn more. Thanks! The original gun location was crazy and not why there were not mounted central in the first designs. I did not know they fixed this with the 327.

[@MrHws5mp]

There was an earlier Supermarine "twin-Spitfire" design called the Type 313. It was designed to the same requirement that led to the Whirlwind, so it had two small engines: RR Kestrels or, oddly, Hispano 12Ys (there was a UK company that had a licence to make 12Ys in the late 1930s). Armament was 4 x 20mm Hispanos in the nose, with the option of _six_ if two more were mounted in the engine Vs of the 12Ys. It also had the option of a small bomb bay or a fuel tank behind the pilot, and of replacing the nose guns with cameras.

[@AndrewGivens]

I actually love the new respect that both the Whirlwind and the thinking behind its specification are receiving. Thanks mainly to the final dispelment of the old 'under-powered / troublesome engines' myth.

[@MrHws5mp]

@@AndrewGivens My understanding is that the Peregrine wasn't underpowered (the aircraft concept was a "split single" so 2x800-odd bhp engines was fine for 1940), and it was a _bit_ troublesome, but no more than any other new engine with teething problems. The real issue was that Rolls-Royce's drawing office was overloaded, so they were ordered to drop all Peregrine and Vulture work in order to concentrate on the Merlin and the Griffon. Since the Peregrine had no other application, getting back to it was WAY down on the list of priorities, so it was easier to just order no more Whirlwinds and replace them with Typhoons when they ran out of spares.

[@AndrewGivens]

@@MrHws5mp Yes, the cancellation of Peregrine spelled its end as a serious fighter acquisition. By all accounts, the prototype with intended (as designed) Rotol propellers and constant-speed mechanism worked great at high altitude, but the thicker-chord prop as fitted to production models (De Havilland prop?) had big issues with mach at high altitudes and this is what led to the stories of 'engine' problems and diminished performance. A pity really - Petter's work seems to have been right on the nose. It's incredible how long the few Whirlwinds served - three full years without major changes.

[@towgod7985]

Yet another outstanding video on an aircraft that very few people probably knew about! Regarding getting things back to normal after your move, don't worry about it! Every adult knows knows how much work that is. Cheers from Toronto.

[@bhumiriady]

Great video as always, Rex! This series of videos, starting with the Boeing 759 made me aware of various paper projects in the world of aviation.^^

[@marklittle8805]

Rex, I have read so much about the Spitfire, but never knew about this. Thank you!

[@bigblue6917]

Thanks, Rex. A rarity with this one as it is one I've not heard of before. I have long thought the the Spitfire, great aircraft though it was, was something of a fluke. Interesting that whereas the Supermarine Spitfire was a one everyone remembers Hawker was much more consistent. Yes there were problems with the Typhoon but that had more to do with being rushed into service.

[@MrLBPug]

A fluke, eh? Over 20,000 aircraft built in 24 main variants and a number of 'limited editions' would say you're at least somewhat incorrect 😏

[@davidjones332]

The other issue was that, compared to a Hurricane, the Spitfire was a hugely complex aircraft whose construction was enormously labour-intensive -it required the equivalent of two men spending their whole working life to build one aircraft, I believe the figure was something like 200,000 man-hours. If Supermarine's twin had been anything like that, we wouldn't have had the industrial capacity to make it. And you are right, Hawker were much more consistent in turning out practical and affordable aircraft all through the 'thirties and 'forties, whereas Supermarine managed just a handful of flying boats and the Spitfire, albeit in several variants.

[@AbelMcTalisker]

@@MrLBPug But how many of those were built by Supermarine? A lot were built in shadow factories established just before the war started.

[@user-yt8gu1cl5x]

@@davidjones332 True. Using miniature rivets was madness.

[@bigblue6917]

@@MrLBPug What would you call it if that was the only design they came up with. Unlike Hawker who had a record of building frontline aircraft and would go on to build the Hunter and the world first VTOL aircraft with the Harrier. So no I am correct.

[@rolanddutton]

I love learning about these concept aircraft. The Supermarine Type 391 (a RR Eagle H-24 powered monster) may be an interesting one to cover.

[@MrPendraeg]

Excellent as always

[@Kevv554]

Hey Rex, thanks for a very interesting piece! Nice to see you back!

[@davidpeters6536]

Great stuff, I'm looking forward to the Typhoon/Tempest.

[@ModelMinutes]

That was fascinating! Thanks Rex! I just need a model of these now . . .

[@RexsHangar]

I think there are some DIY kits lurking about out there, would be a fun challenge to build!

[@ModelMinutes]

@@RexsHangar definitely!

[@alannilsson6509]

Thank you, Rex. I had never heard of this interesting project with Supermarine.

[@CamRHYM3S]

Great video as always Rex! Hope your move-in with your partner is going well.

[@controllerpleb6568]

Love the videos Rex, keep them coming!

[@Aettaro]

I do love concept and prototype planes. They are often so fascinating and fun.

[@tomsmith2209]

Excellent presentation. Thanks.

[@jefftuckercfii]

Interesting parallel between the "Twinfire" and the XF5F-1 and later XP-50 Grumman twin engine fighters (the Skyrockets). The Grumman twins made it to a single prototype each, though the XP-50 was lost to a turbocharger explosion early in testing. The USN would never have considered inline engines or a pusher configuration, although the XP-50 did have tricycle landing gear. Lessons learned were applied to the F7F Tigercat later on.

[@williamscoggin1509]

You're my favorite aircraft Channel on KZbin Rex.! Just giving some feedback that I enjoy a good 15 to 30 minute video and the extra long ones only once in a great while. But those are just my viewing habits for what it's worth. I hope you are able to keep up your outstanding work for a long long time. ✈️🛩️🚁🛸

[@nigecracknell8139]

Interesting! Thanks for posting

[@danyel80be40]

I want it on WT as a gift plane, now!!! So beautiful! Thanks for the video.

[@Sacto1654]

Fortunately, the availability of the more powerful Griffon engine meant Supermarine didn't have to develop this twin-engined design. The Spitfire Mk. XIV had a top speed of 447 mph and very good climb performance, so....

[@SAHBfan]

But what would have happened if the 324 was built and fitted with two Griffon engines?

[@ianbell5611]

Thank you for posting. Another great video. Always with these concept aircraft that never went into production. I can't help thinking would it have been a disaster or a legendary aircraft that would be still receiving praise for its outstanding performance. The plan view of the pusher configuration swept back wing reminds of the ME262. The fuselage being completely different though

[@jasonz7788]

Thanks Rex great job

[@richardnicklin654]

The concept aircraft stuff is great.

[@jirihamersky6152]

Very interesting video. I updated my knowledge, thanks.

[@PNH750]

Vickers, who acquired Supermarine, did eventually build a prototype twin Merlin engined fighter called the type 432. Like the Supermarine 324 the wing of the Vicker's design was eliptical.

[@ratofvengence]

Very interesting as always, thanks :)

[@michaeljacobsen94]

Thanks!

[@mpersad]

Another model design I knew nothing about, and I think I'm fairly well informed on WW2 types. How wrong I was! Terrific video Rex, outstanding.

[@relwalretep]

Yay, new Rex!

[@user-tu7yi5yw9x]

Very interesting, look forward to more.

[@keithmoore5306]

the mosquito and bofighter before they came along!!! wonder how much these played into those designs?

[@johnforsyth7987]

Thank you for the wonderful video. More aircraft that I did not know existed. I am looking forward to your video on the Beechcraft Model18.

[@Kevin-mx1vi]

Not sure I'd fancy the idea of baling out of a pusher with its props behind the cockpit.

[@Rtu776]

A bit of a sticky wicket bailing out of the pusher model.

[@samswift1718]

Great vid!

[@jjohnsonTX]

Glad that you're gonna pursue this subject matter.

[@XXfea]

Well done sir 👍

[@michaelfrench3396]

Good lord! It's been up 2 minutes and I'm like number 20

[@Vespuchian]

Looks like a British FW 187. Now there’s an interesting ‘what if’ versus matchup!

[@DaveSCameron]

Cheers Rex. 👍

[@robleary3353]

Nice one!... Nuff said.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Great video.

[@angusmotorsports4715]

"We have a P-38 at home."

[@tankertom3243]

Very interesting!

[@ABWEndon]

Thank you for producing this video. It is extremely interesting! When I looked at the blueprints I immediately thought that it looked like the DH Mosquito. With that in mind, I'm not surprised that "Twinfire" (not the best of names) didn't go into production, because the Mosquito was probably better in most, if not all respects (especially with guns in the nose). Similarly, although not a British design, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning was probably what the "Twinfire" could have looked like if the designers had gone down the road of a twin nacelle configuration instead. The P-38 was an incredibly versatile aircraft, especially in the Pacific arena of war. It's twin Allison engines gave it quite an advantage, not least that if one engine was destroyed or malfunctioned, the pilot could still get back to base. Neverthless, the "Twinfire" was an interesting concept, but somehow it was obsolete before it even got off the ground. Many thanks again for an excellent video.

[@TheLateBird7]

phew, the 327 ... love at first sight 😍

[@JohnHill-qo3hb]

Interesting video, thank you. Makes you wonder how many designs were squashed in the concept stage and how many designs made on to paper but got no further than the incinerator.

[@basilreid257]

Heh I only was previously aware of theses proposals from the book : Interceptor. Cool to see this further exploration.

[@robbierobinson8819]

I had never even heard of this proposed aircraft! Thank you very much for an interesting video - more like this please. It was a pretty aircraft, but not quite up to matching the looks of the Mosquito.

[@George-ez4qc]

I'm a simple man, I see spitfire in the title, I click

[@mrjockt]

As well as the Type 327 Supermarine also put forward the Spitfire Mk.IV, the first Spitfire with the Griffon engine, to fulfil the 'cannon armed fighter' role with the aircraft carrying six 20mm cannon in the wings. In a way the Air Ministry were right when it came to Supermarine's record for building fighters, outside of the Spitfire they never really produced another successful fighter design.

[@chrissmith2114]

Reg Mitchell the designer of the Spitfire died of cancer before the Spitfire actually flew properly, so Supermarine lost their brains....

[@mrjockt]

@@chrissmith2114 Joe Smith, Mitchell’s assistant, took over and managed to keep the design relevant as a front line fighter for the entirety of the war, apparently once he’d finished designing it and the prototype was well under way Mitchell kind of lost interest in the Spitfire and had moved onto other designs prior to his death.

[@michaeldy3157]

never heard of these!

[@rob5944]

What an extremely interesting video, all about a design I've never even heard of. It seems to me that obstacles were purposely being put in the way of this one.

[@CrusaderSports250]

When I was at college during the late seventies we did an unmade aircraft project, mine was rhe four engined Blenhiem, it would be an interesting one for you as I appear to be the only one who has ever heard of it.

[@SmedleyDouwright]

"Mad Max" Spitfire!

[@AndrewGivens]

"First world problems" - except, we've been forced to become so reliant on tech packages to handle every aspect of our daily dealings that we're hostage to it. Locked out of your Patreon one day... shut out of your financial applications the next... it's frankly terrifying. As was the location of those outer-wing guns! My jaw dropped and I wasn't happy at all when I saw those. The less said about the idea of bailing out of a twin pusher fighter the better. Edit: I've recently become fascinated by how relatively small the Whirlwind was too. Apart from those quite long wings (45 feet compared to the Spitfire's 37 feet), it was pretty compact: very thin and with just less than two-and-a-half feet greater length than the Spit. The prop issues are now, thanks to some truly heroic modern research, well known and I can't help thinking that it's one of the handful of early war period aircraft which really got its name & rep unfairly dragged backwards through the mud for the longest time. It's hard to imagine exactly how a flying prototype of these Supermarine twins would have compared, with their higher power; would they have just been superior, or would they have been horrible and tricky?

[@captaindouchebag1703]

Yeah I'm keen on more videos about "what if" aircraft.

[@vintagecapgunsatyourmomshouse]

Gotta catch em all

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks again my friend..... Shoe🇺🇸

[@kennedysingh3916]

Watched from Old Harour Jamaica.

[@johnreep5798]

I did not see that coming!

[@GleichUmDieEcke]

Would love to see a video on the Bugatti 100P. I got to visit the guys who were rebuilding one in Tulsa before the crash, and it's fascinated me ever since.

[@stevetournay6103]

The original 100P, against all odds, survives today in the EAA museum. It was powered by two modified Bugatti T50B car engines (straight-eights). The airframe was designed by Belgian Louis deMonge for Bugatti. A fighter variant (the 100R) was envisioned.

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

Having the same wing as the Spit makes perfect sense, a lot of these "concepts" were based on existing airframes to help with manufacturing (lots of the same Die's and jigs could be used) and Wings are like property rights or their signature and the thing that the Company would base it's next gen on (until Jets). The wing was probably the part they put the most work and R&D into. And the Spit carried two Floats originally and still won the speed record so it was proven to be able to have more drag and still perform. I think heavy guns in the pusher pods would have been the best Idea, and maybe a few 303's closer to the cockpit, but they were not really intercepting bombers after 1942 and as you say, the Spit ended up being able to do it all.

[@jlvfr]

The UK had a real love afair with their .303 MGs. By then everyone else as starting to build aircraft with 12,7mm or even various cannons (or at least testing them). The UK before 1940? "Moar MGs!!1"

[@katywalker8322]

Uk wanted cannons but didn’t have anything suitable in time. They had a prototype cannon armed Spitfire prior (just!) to the war, and a batch testing in combat use it in 1940, but reliability was poor at this stage. This was sorted by late 1940.

[@silverjohn6037]

As an idea for a future video maybe one on the pro's and con's of tractor vs pusher propellor configuration and why the tractor succeeded.

[@thewatcher5271]

Good Video & Never Heard Of That One! You Know What Would've Made An Interesting Sight? What About A Twin-Spitfire? You Know, Like The F-82 Twin Mustang. Thank You.

[@321-Gone]

You might consider using text graphics when talking about side by side comparisons. Like climb rates between engines.

[@kennethjackson7574]

I have one book on the Spitfire that I bought just because it has a photo of one of the Float Spits. Already carrying one of the highest wing loading in pounds per square foot, the floats are nearly the size of the fuselage. The shift of aerodynamic center of pressure must have dropped down a lot, making it fly much differently than a normal Spit.

[@imbok]

The twin engine heavy fighter is a concept that every design office of that time considered. Many interesting examples resulted. I'd never seen this one. I'm sure it would have been one hell of an airplane.

[@cmdrflake]

The DeHavilland Mosquito effectively killed this proposal. Just as well…

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

The overall outline of the three designs seems like supermarine's inspiration for the meteor

[@jamyers1971]

I can hear the DeHavilland guys gnashing their teeth when the Air Ministry ignores the Mosquito while wanting this.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Except for the fact that de Havilland didn't start on the work that would eventually lead to the Mosquito bomber until April 1938.

[@raymondyee2008]

Damn didn’t know this even came to the drawing board and never went any further.

[@johnchettleburgh6055]

Stuff I didn't know again! I did find myself wondering about a 4 engined Mosquito the other day. They must have considered it

[@jeffslade1892]

This Air Ministry specification for this culminated in the Beaufighter which was a development of the Beaufort (bomber) and the Whirlwind (bit of a flop). It boasted 8 rifle guns and four canon and was the Warthog of its day, ideal for devastating ground attack, not so much a dog fighter; easily bombed-up or rockets too. You may be thinking Mosquito but that was a medium bomber and rather poor as a fighter (low roll rate, too big), but could lift the ton of radar needed as a night fighter, and could lift as much as a B-17. Counter rotating engines sounds like a good idea but Merlins got modified so often that two sets of mirrored tooling would have been too time consuming, unmatched, and did not catch on until after the war e.g. Hornet (the mini super-Mosquito, just in time for jets). Beaufighter used Hercules engines

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

I'd be curious to know what the projected range was on these various projections. The Spitfire was notably short-legged- add another engine and it's accessories, now less space in the wings for fuel tanks. I think Westland had the concept right with the central nose armaments (ala, P-38) being more effective despite utilizing a lesser number of guns. Anyways, a great video to cover these interesting experimental planes.

[@builder396]

Id wager that the wings actually had substantially more space for fuel given their outright incredible thickness on the inner ends. The originally Spitfire had incredibly thin wings, meaning all fuel was in the fuselage, IIRC the main tank was in front of the pilot. The Twinfire could easily store more fuel per engine in the inboard wing section alone, people really tend to underestimate just how much volume wings have. Plus engine-related stuff in the wing mostly boils down to instruments and control linkage for throttle. In terms of space its not much. Funnily enough, if you look at the Typhoon it has an incredibly thick wing profile. But the wing stores only a marginal amount of fuel, and when they redesigned it into the Tempest it got a much more Spitfire-esque wing.

[@duncanhamilton5841]

Thankfully for all concerned, the Whirlwind came along and showed that whilst it had potential in a wartime/emergency situation where engines are the most expensive component of a fighter plane, two single engine fighters is worth more than a single twin engine one. In fact, apart from the P-38 and Bf-110, I can't think of any other twin engine fighter that did see combat in numbers during the war?

[@PatrickTyrrell-jd5zy]

And the 110 was a total failure as a day fighter. It had to be escorted by 109s.

[@Schlipperschlopper]

This one vs Focke Wulf Falke would be interesting!

[@otakubancho6655]

It would be impressive if someone out there would build one,I'd love to see it.

[@flavortown3781]

Small twin engines are my jam

[@iansneddon2956]

My first impression from the thumbnail is some German pilot saying "Wonderful, the Mosquito is turning to fight us!"

[@cwie2968]

Good show old chap

[@michaelmacdonell4834]

Utterly terrifying - coming to the attention of a BoB-era RAF pilot flying one of these. Mind you, we had the equally terrifying Mosquito, so it's not all bad!!!

[@johnladuke6475]

Looking at that wacky gun convergence drawing for the 324/325, I can't imagine why they wouldn't have had at least _some_ of the _twelve_ guns mounted in the nose.

[@user-yc2oz8kc5k]

Guess this is like what Geoffrey DeHavilland built, and called the Mosquito. And he then had Hermann Göring drooling over it.

[@Chiller11]

Fascinating might have been. The Supermarine Mosquito

[@roelantverhoeven371]

good looking, like a mixture of mosquito and P38

[@crazypetec-130fe7]

Rex, I'd like to know more about Hornets and Whirlwinds, if those interest you.

[@danpatterson8009]

The note about fewer rivets got me thinking- were any of the many design changes in the evolution of the Spitfire aimed specifically at reducing construction costs?

[@apenza4304]

Also less rivets is less drag.

[@pvt.bushmann5903]

The fact that two of the concepts use two different engines is the most WWII British thing ever behind the construction of the Sherman Firefly.

[@ZealothPL]

Thats a bit more of a Sherman thing overall, isn't it? They came with almost any kind of engine that could be stuffed into the back of one, including radials or even paired up smaller engines