Twin engine Avro Shackleton

[McColm]

I've reading some of the topics referring two twin engine aircraft derived from four engined bomber/patrol aircraft.
I don't know if this has been whiffed before, but a twin engined Shackleton seems feasible based on the Avro Manchester layout or twin engined Lancaster or Lincoln . Both can be fitted with after market resin parts.
I have an idea for a twin engined B-17, but changing the wing with an Airfix Canberra to jet propelled.
The airliner version I proposed in another topic, might look better with two engines.The weapons bay could contain a speed pack or parts from the Halifax conversion kit.

[wuzak]

I wondered about a twin engined B-17 using R-2800s or R-3350s.

I figured that the problem would be swinging the larger propellor required by th emore powerful motor, particularly if you used the standard inner mounts. Maybe need contra-props.

[kerick]

Or insanely long landing gear! Paints quite a mental image.

[McColm]

The Lockheed Constellation has the longest landing that I know.

[rickshaw]

The Lockheed Constellation has the longest landing that I know.

Compared to a B-36?  A Tu-95?

[McColm]

Never thought of those

[PR19_Kit]

A Stirling has some pretty tall main gear legs too, and it wasn't for prop clearance issues either. They built it like that so that the stupidly small wing could generate enough lift for take-off with the hefty bomb load it was designed for.

A Vulcan has pretty tall legs too, certainly compared to its stable-mate, the Victor.

[NARSES2]

They built it like that so that the stupidly small wing could generate enough lift for take-off with the hefty bomb load it was designed for.

Blame the standard RAF hangar. Sterling was designed to fit the existing hangars or so I've read

[Knightflyer]

Blame the standard RAF hangar. Sterling was designed to fit the existing hangars or so I've read

I'd always thought that ....but I thought I'd read somewhere recently that it wasn't the complete story ?

[kitnut617]

Blame the standard RAF hangar. Sterling was designed to fit the existing hangars or so I've read

I'd always thought that ....but I thought I'd read somewhere recently that it wasn't the complete story ?

I've read something like that too Knightflyer, not long ago either.  I think it might have been in an Air-Britain magazine --

[Captain Canada]

A twin engine Shak would be a B-25 

I always wondered why the Sterling was so tall !

[kitnut617]

The Sterling was also ear-marked for just two very powerful engines (for those days), so a large diameter propeller was to be used, same as the Manchester and Halifax.  Something like 16 to 17 feet diameter (which is comparable to the props on an A400M [or a Hughes Hercules])

[McColm]

I never knew that the B-25 was powered by Griffon engines, sounds like a whiff to me although there were plans to lengthen the wing for two more engines .
Avro Canada built the B-25 during WW2.

[Captain Canada]

I just think they'd look really similar 

[McColm]

Yes they do. I wonder if the nose section of the B-25 will fit on the shack and the shack wings fit on the Mitchell, I'll have to buy one and find out. Unless you guys know?