Here's the mandatory pre-build pic of the kits(s).

You cannot view this attachment.

As you can see there are in three different colours, which should make for some 'interesting' build pics.

And this is how it's intended to look, but of course there's many a slip twixt cup and lip..............

You cannot view this attachment.

See, no booms, no asymmetry and only one engine. 

Great design , the original asymmetric is not my cup of tea   

And the propeller design is very good,  could also be very nice on the backside of the wings ?


mmmmhhhh okay, doesn't work with the tailsitter design   

Yes, I tried it like that, but it'd need a nose wheel.

It's a contraprop to absorb the engine power, and because it looks good of course..............

So that is three kits to get this underway.. Awesome   

May only need two of them, but a spare is always handy. 

That's cool dude 😎
Reminds me of the Blohm und Voss P192.01.
Propeller behind the cockpit ..but the difference between yours and the drawing is that there are small wings connected to the cockpit but their also joined to the fareings around the wing mounted cannons...proposed as a ground attack aircraft. 😀

Bold plan! Curious about the landing gear - might have a rather wide stance? 

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on July 09, 2023, 11:17:05 PMBold plan! Curious about the landing gear - might have a rather wide stance? 

It would do if I left it stock, but I'm working on it.

Who'd ever put a dihedral break right in the middle of the main gear leg, eh? ONLY Dr. Vogt! 

You could just say that the number was reallocated to Blohm & Voss because the notion of using an
unlucky number appealed to Vogt's sense of the ridiculous.


 

That could well be true! 

Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 09, 2023, 07:08:30 AM

Quote from: Vostoc7 on July 09, 2023, 06:41:10 AMA massive long winged glider version?     

I repeat '.........only ONE engine...............' but it will have longer wings of course. 

iffed M'box Bv 141 if I built one OOB but used the different parts and didn't paint it! 

sorry missed that bit    one engine works for me, it's going to be a great looking build       

Thinking out loud here.
What if you had two engines?  One in front of the props driving the front blades and another behind them driving the rear blades.
So not a contra-rotating propeller but two closely located (but not geared together) props turning in opposite directions.
Would there be issues if the rpm of the two engines wasn't sufficiently synchronised?
Could you feather one prop and idle its engine and then cruise on only one engine and prop?

Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 09, 2023, 12:51:34 PM

Quote from: jcf on July 09, 2023, 11:12:50 AMThe "8-" number was assigned by the RLM rather than the manufacturer.
8-148 was issued to Gotha, supposedly it wasn't used because 1+4+8=13.

RLM 8- Numbers

I KNEW there'd be some darn reason why I can't use it, but...........

Kit's 2nd Rle applies, and.................

'The production 148s were built by Gotha as Blohm & Voss were too heavily involved with the massive Bv 238 flying boat'

   

I note that 2+3+8 also equals 13.

I look forward to seeing this one built, it has sufficient quirk to be interesting, even if it had nothing else going for it (it does, by the way, have lots going for it).  

Quote from: zenrat on July 10, 2023, 04:45:28 AMThinking out loud here.
What if you had two engines?  One in front of the props driving the front blades and another behind them driving the rear blades.
So not a contra-rotating propeller but two closely located (but not geared together) props turning in opposite directions.
Would there be issues if the rpm of the two engines wasn't sufficiently synchronised?
Could you feather one prop and idle its engine and then cruise on only one engine and prop?

That's the same philosophy that the Gannet had, two engines driving a prop each. I've never read any issues of Gannet's engines going 'out of phase', and I flew in one once, but I wasn't taking THAT much notice of the engine rpms. 

But I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work, the engine's mass would be distributed further along the fuselage and might, or might not, give CG issues though.

The Gannet did exactly what you're taking about with the prop feathering, especially with the AEW3 version as they cruised at altitude on one engine, thus maximising their endurance.

That's going to look good Kit    Slightly Arado'ish to my mind ?

There were a couple of Italian types which had twin fuselage mounted engines where the prop shafts were offset and drove twin mounted, rather than contr-props. I've an idea at least one was built, though if it flew I know not.

Looks like those props might just be big enough ?