The left and right banks of Fairey P.24 Monarch H-24 engine could be run independently.
The right bank drove the aft propeller and the left bank drove the fwd propeller.

Fairey P.24

Hm, like two vertical flat-12s linked together?

Very ingenious. 

A very cool engine design for sure 👌

Now I'm wondering what aircraft it was used in ..or was it ever used 🤔

Kit - great project... but I have a question: Are the wings long enough?

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'

   

Nope. Henschel built various other companies types and the designations didn't change. Blohm and Voss themselves built Fw 200 Condors but the FW designation remained.

It's still going to be a 148..................

The wings COULD be longer I guess, but the proportions are just about right on the drawing I think.

The crew nacelle is together now, and very neat it is too. Plus I've got one wing assembly sort of 'assembled', but it needs some sawing and gluing as yet. Not started on the fuselage so far, only in my head.................

Quote from: Wardukw on July 10, 2023, 12:23:40 PMA very cool engine design for sure 👌

Now I'm wondering what aircraft it was used in ..or was it ever used 🤔

Tested in a Battle. Photos in the Old Machine Press story I linked.

Perhaps the ludicrously overcomplicated BMW 803 as an engine choice?
You cannot view this attachment.

If ya complicate the absolute hell out of something then where's the fun in that ...that I guess is still BMWs way if thinking.

Jon that's a interesting read but mate that's a ugly install on that Battle ...but as Fairey didn't have a massive choice of aircraft to play with you can see why.

Fairey Battle test bed?

🤔

Fairey Monarch engine, perchance?

EDIT: ah, had I read earlier posts I'd have seen that reference had already been made to the Monarch.

Quote from: kitbasher on July 11, 2023, 12:15:19 AMFairey Battle test bed?

🤔

Fairey Monarch engine, perchance?

Yeah the Battle..definitely not my first choice for a complicated engine test bed that's for sure.

I had thought about the 803, but it's almost twice as powerful as the 148 would need..

A DB 603 or similarly rayed Jumo would work OK, but as the only visible bit will be the exhaust stubs, it can be anything I say it is.   

Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 10, 2023, 05:50:45 AM

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.

Thanks Kit.  I had forgotten about the Gannet.

All sorts of sawing, filling and hacking going on. Fuselage, cockpit and wings all in progress at the same time as each bit depends on the others.

One thing's only too clear, the Airfix styrene differs radically with each colour change, the dark green stuff is like concrete and the pale blue stuff is as soft as a marshmallow! Quite surprising really.

The port wing is a lot easier to lengthen than the starboard one as the required extension is exactly the length of the inboard, flat bit, but that's how I drew it up anyway! The starboard side will needs lots more surgery. Both will need some serious work on the main gear bays because, as Thomas pointed out, the thing would end up with an IMMENSELY wide track otherwise. Hardly required for a recce platform operating from forward based landing strips......

Here's the results so far, LOTS more to come.

You cannot view this attachment.