Twins Bombers

[Pablo1965]

Today I have a discusion over how to get strategic bombers easily. During Spanish Civil War there wasn't  this kind of bombers, and I suggested this:
Take the old Potez 540

And convert it to a... Potez 1080


Then, think of what would be the most suitable aircraft in general, and by design, my friends pointed out the Hampdem. What do you think about it. Have you  more ideas about it, I am thinking to do something similar with a 1/72 kit.

[beowulf]

first thing i thought of was a 3 engined  (or 4 engines since 3 would be underpowered but 3 would look cooler) twin Wellington.................or even Blenheim

[jcf]

There was indeed a "strategic" bomber in existence during the period of the Spanish Civil War ... the B-17.

[Pablo1965]

first thing i thought of was a 3 engined  (or 4 engines since 3 would be underpowered but 3 would look cooler) twin Wellington.................or even Blenheim

Aesthetically yes but not very feasible, 3 engined It isn´t a strategical bomber think in the italian one and 
You will notice that it is inappropriate.

There was indeed a "strategic" bomber in existence during the period of the Spanish Civil War ... the B-17.

Of course, but  I ask about the posibility to do one, easily, making a union of two previous medium bombers. Like the He111 Zweiling (5 engined)
Really I think the Hampdem could be a good candidate.

[Pablo1965]

to what I meant with the Hampden...


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Or this one..


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[NARSES2]

That pusher Hampden looks like something the Soviet Union could have come up with in the 1930's 

[The Wooksta!]

Except that the whole twinning concept is all nonsense anyway and a cliche for lazy whiffers.  As I've stated ad bleeding nausem, twins ONLY came into existence to get the Germans out of the hole they'd dug for themselves with regard to heavy aircraft capable of pulling the Me 321 and their lack of a credible strategic bomber.  The British, the French, the Russians and the US didn't have the same myopia or the lack of industrial capacity.  We'd have simply designed a bigger aircraft and built it.  The requirement for a twin in the German sense would never have existed and simply is not credible nor believable.

End of rant.

[Pablo1965]

 Thanks Narses2, I remember the Hampdem serverd in soviet air force... You give me some ideas.

Except that the whole twinning concept is all nonsense anyway and a cliche for lazy whiffers.  As I've stated ad bleeding nausem, twins ONLY came into existence to get the Germans out of the hole they'd dug for themselves with regard to heavy aircraft capable of pulling the Me 321 and their lack of a credible strategic bomber.  The British, the French, the Russians and the US didn't have the same myopia or the lack of industrial capacity.  We'd have simply designed a bigger aircraft and built it.  The requirement for a twin in the German sense would never have existed and simply is not credible nor believable.

End of rant.

 Here, there isn´t any rant. If you read my thread, my idea is exactly, the same you have about it. A  poor industry need a way to reach the enemy, and the "twin planes" could be a system to get it. It is not a proposal to make a better plane, it is a measure of subsistence. If you don´t like the twins models, I understand, I never have build one, but that is not the case, and remember the specialized planes, like the Burt Routan desing for example:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Hobbes]

Those photos of White Knight 2 are odd, with the blackened sections of the wing. I wonder what happened there.

[kitnut617]

Despite what Lee says, I think it's a solution to a problem that was around then.  I don't disagree with Lee's reasoning that the Allie's had all the manufacturing capability, but from what I've read in articles written by people like Phil Butler, a very heavy, very long range bombers were a good 3 to 5 years from becoming reality during conferences held in 1944.  It's all about 'when' the bomber was needed which back then was 'right now'. An example is the Vickers Windsor which although a prototype was flying in 1945, was years away from going into service.  And the Very Heavy Bomber that was to follow that (Vickers Type 'c') was projected to be ten years later.

The RAF wanted to get into the Pacific War after Germany was defeated, but they didn't have a bomber to compete there, we've all seen the efforts of trying to get a Lancaster to go further with that really ungainly saddle tank, which also made the Lanc very tricky to fly according to transcripts I've read in Air-Britain's magazine.

Here's an excert of a backstory in a thread I started a couple of years ago I think (see here -- http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20781.0/highlight,chadderton.html ), I called it an Avro Chadderton

In early 1944, Chadwick had been to a meeting at Kingston to discuss the new Air Ministry requirements for the Pacific theatre, where the A.M. needed new bombers and fighters to deal with the huge distances involved with operations there.  

Everyone there came to the conclusion that new designs would take a minimum three years to develop as the A.M. wanted a very heavy, very long range bomber.  While at the meeting he met up with other people in the industry, like the people from RR, where they showed him details of the new engines they were working on, one being the 24 cylinder H engine (later known as the Eagle) which was already putting out decent hp.  So with this knowledge Chadwick saw an in-trim solution which could produce a bomber as the A.M. needed, much sooner.  His idea was to step back and produce a better Manchester only using these new Eagle engines and the wing he was designing for the Lancaster Mk.IV & V (later renamed Lincolns). He figured he could add large drop tanks where the outer engines had been which almost doubles the fuel load and range.  While this did increase the range the bomb load was still the same, so his solution to double the bomb load was to use two fuselages joined by a new center wing section that was wide enough for a sixteen foot contra-propeller (fortunately the Manchester/Lancaster/Lincoln inner wings were all the same, with the different outer wings for the three aircraft joining just outside the inner nacelles and could accommodate a sixteen foot diameter prop). The gem to the idea was being able to use existing production jigs and to not disrupt current production of Lancasters.

[Pablo1965]

Those photos of White Knight 2 are odd, with the blackened sections of the wing. I wonder what happened there.

No,it is a drawing of the space.

[Pablo1965]

In early 1944, Chadwick had been to a meeting at Kingston to discuss the new Air Ministry requirements for the Pacific theatre, where the A.M. needed new bombers and fighters to deal with the huge distances involved with operations there. 

Everyone there came to the conclusion that new designs would take a minimum three years to develop as the A.M. wanted a very heavy, very long range bomber.  While at the meeting he met up with other people in the industry, like the people from RR, where they showed him details of the new engines they were working on, one being the 24 cylinder H engine (later known as the Eagle) which was already putting out decent hp.  So with this knowledge Chadwick saw an in-trim solution which could produce a bomber as the A.M. needed, much sooner.  His idea was to step back and produce a better Manchester only using these new Eagle engines and the wing he was designing for the Lancaster Mk.IV & V (later renamed Lincolns). He figured he could add large drop tanks where the outer engines had been which almost doubles the fuel load and range.  While this did increase the range the bomb load was still the same, so his solution to double the bomb load was to use two fuselages joined by a new center wing section that was wide enough for a sixteen foot contra-propeller (fortunately the Manchester/Lancaster/Lincoln inner wings were all the same, with the different outer wings for the three aircraft joining just outside the inner nacelles and could accommodate a sixteen foot diameter prop). The gem to the idea was being able to use existing production jigs and to not disrupt current production of Lancasters.

Then, the "Twin solution" was  seriously raised in those years. Thanks Kinut617, I knew nothing about it.

[Hobbes]

Those photos of White Knight 2 are odd, with the blackened sections of the wing. I wonder what happened there.

No,it is a drawing of the space.

Ah, I see now.

Found a bigger picture of that drawing. It's a variation on Virgin Galactic's logo.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Galactic/Scaled-Composites-348/1725630/L/

[kitnut617]

In early 1944, Chadwick had been to a meeting at Kingston to discuss the new Air Ministry requirements for the Pacific theatre, where the A.M. needed new bombers and fighters to deal with the huge distances involved with operations there.  

Everyone there came to the conclusion that new designs would take a minimum three years to develop as the A.M. wanted a very heavy, very long range bomber.  While at the meeting he met up with other people in the industry, like the people from RR, where they showed him details of the new engines they were working on, one being the 24 cylinder H engine (later known as the Eagle) which was already putting out decent hp.  So with this knowledge Chadwick saw an in-trim solution which could produce a bomber as the A.M. needed, much sooner.  His idea was to step back and produce a better Manchester only using these new Eagle engines and the wing he was designing for the Lancaster Mk.IV & V (later renamed Lincolns). He figured he could add large drop tanks where the outer engines had been which almost doubles the fuel load and range.  While this did increase the range the bomb load was still the same, so his solution to double the bomb load was to use two fuselages joined by a new center wing section that was wide enough for a sixteen foot contra-propeller (fortunately the Manchester/Lancaster/Lincoln inner wings were all the same, with the different outer wings for the three aircraft joining just outside the inner nacelles and could accommodate a sixteen foot diameter prop). The gem to the idea was being able to use existing production jigs and to not disrupt current production of Lancasters.

Then, the "Twin solution" was  seriously raised in those years. Thanks Kinut617, I knew nothing about it.

Whoops!! You've got the wrong end of the handle Pablo, this is my solution in an alternative history (my story must sound convincing then ---  ).  But the problem that the RAF had was real as they had no very heavy and very long range bombers.

[sequoiaranger]

I think the "problem" of "very long range"  and "heavy" loads some of "us" are discussing is that they are strictly late-war phenomenon. That is, when the war stared in 1939, the Vickers Wellington *WAS* deemed a "heavy bomber". So the CRITERION for "heavy" and "long-range" kept creeping up during the war. I think a "Potez 1080", a twinned Potez 540, is a REASONABLE idea for getting an INTERIM "heavy" bomber in service. I think that the He-111 Zwilling was a "success" and showed the ingenious possibilities of what could be done using extant components, despite the obvious peculiarities.

The He-111Z, the Bf-109Z, and even the Twin Mustang show us that "twinning" *IS*feasible, but not the BEST solution.