Pusher/puller Spitfire

[FAR148]

I've been playing with this idea for some time now. Finally got time to play around in photoshop and made a quick profile.



The rear merlin would be inverted to fit the tailplane. As it is a work in progress, have no idea about landing gear  But if I ever got around to building one, I think I would build it gear up and not worry about it. It just look cool gear up.




Until later,
Steven L 

[TallEng]

That's strange,  I've got a build like that in progress now, but I am having trouble with the
Position of the main planes. When I get home I'll put some pictures up (if that's ok?)
It involves 2 Airfix PR 19's.

Regards
Keith

[Weaver]

The wing would have to be placed much further back on that, because the CoG wouold be much further back. One way to improve, but not eliminate the problem (and also avoid inverting the rear Merlin) would be to mount the rear engine further forward and have a short shaft driving the rear prop in the manner of the Do335. Speaking of engines BTW, isn't the profile of a Griffon-engined Spit?

I had an idea ages ago for a British push-pull aircraft with two Merlins. It pretty much followed the Do335 layout, but it had a tailwheel undercarriage and inverted gull wings to shorten the main gear length. It looked more like a "Dornier Firefly" than anything else.

[FAR148]

The wing would have to be placed much further back on that, because the CoG wouold be much further back. One way to improve, but not eliminate the problem (and also avoid inverting the rear Merlin) would be to mount the rear engine further forward and have a short shaft driving the rear prop in the manner of the Do335. Speaking of engines BTW, isn't the profile of a Griffon-engined Spit?

If you do all of that, it losses it's "Cool Factor" real quick. Griffon, merlin... it does not matter, it's just an idea at this point.



Steven L 

[eatthis]

[Runway ? ...]

Sweet

May need an IFR capability though.

[FAR148]

Great model  but it does not "look" like a spitfire. It's a very iconic shape that is easily recognized.  Once you start playing around with the proportions of the spit.... it starts to look strange. I'm not trying figure out what would it takes to make a real pusher/puller spit. I'm just trying(AOL keyword: trying) to make a pusher/puller spitfire and keep those classy lines.

Hope that make sense....
Steven L

[Weaver]

Well, I don't think you can have it both ways. The Merlin in the spit is pretty closely cowled, so if you want another one behind the cockpit, then that area has to have the same cross section as the front fuselage, and that's inevitably going to change the proportions of the fuselage.

Eatthis's model is pretty much on the money. The only thing I'd say is that if it was real, the rear fuselage would proabably fair into the rear prop  more smoothly.

[TallEng]

Well, this is where my attempt at a push-me-pull you Spitfire stopped,
It didn't look 'right'



The Mk 22 fuselage underneath is providing the enlarged Fin, and I'd rather thought the enlarged tailplanes
Too, which would fit roughly where the exhausts are on the rear most Griffon, and the exhausts moved forward
To the mid-engine position. It was trying to move the wing back a bit but not to far as it effects the essential
'Spitfireness' of it. If you see what I mean ,
but I haven't found the right position yet. (Or how to fasten it all together)

Regards
Keith

[FAR148]

The Merlin in the spit is pretty closely cowled, so if you want another one behind the cockpit, then that area has to have the same cross section as the front fuselage, and that's inevitably going to change the proportions of the fuselage.

That is true in plan view but its the side view that I feel is more important. Again... it's just an idea I'm playing with.

Cheers,
Steven L

[Weaver]

Funnily enough, the most "Spitfire-like" push-pull concept I've ever come up with a twin-boom one. You basically have a Spitfire cockpit section between two Spitfire engine sections, with Vampire-like tailbooms holding the fins and tailplane. Because the booms don't have to accomodate the rear engine or prop, they can have whatever "Spitfire-looking" taper you like, and the fins can be perfect copies of the Spitfire one.

[FAR148]

'Spitfireness' of it. If you see what I mean Grin,
but I haven't found the right position yet. (Or how to fasten it all together)

Keith,
Great start   Keep going! Don't be afraid to use a razor saw and super glue bonds to all types of plastic 


Steven L 

[jcf]

Funnily enough, the most "Spitfire-like" push-pull concept I've ever come up with a twin-boom one. You basically have a Spitfire cockpit section between two Spitfire engine sections, with Vampire-like tailbooms holding the fins and tailplane. Because the booms don't have to accomodate the rear engine or prop, they can have whatever "Spitfire-looking" taper you like, and the fins can be perfect copies of the Spitfire one.

Yeah, going S-65 style makes sense, heck go all the way and put it on floats. 

[Weaver]

Funny you should say that: a variation of it had a single float with the pylon forming a thrust-generating radiator duct and the T-shaped tail surfaces mounted on a single "boom" on the back of the float. The wings held fuel inboard, gund mid-wing and retractable floats at the tips.

[kerick]

Keep plugging away at this. It has serious potential. I myself lean toward the mid engine layout. It makes the tail arraignment easier in my mind. A tricycle gear would work for keeping the two props out of the dirt. In the pic of the silver one, if the cockpit was moved forward a bit the pilot would have better downward visibility.
Its your project so build what moves you!