Would like some assistance with possible He 162 whif

[maxmwill]

A few days ago, someone gifted me with a couple He 162 kits, one a Trimark, and  they both look identical, although different brands.

I'm not talking about two 1/48 scale models which are of the same type, that kind of identical, but the parts look identical, from the same mold, identical appearing pe parts, but the Trimark kit also has white metal parts, so there is that.

As both also have the same butterfly tail alternative parts, I have been trying to think if something could be done, beyond simply building oob, or similar.

What I had begun to look at was a possible He 162Z, but with the butterfly tails.

While a lot of Zwilling mods were with piston engine aircraft, with constant chord center section, and a common stab/elevator, I had begun to think about how a butterfly tail mod(or even possible one wing of the butterfly per fuselage, which would give it an appearance similar to certain modern high performance fighters, but I digress) could be controlled, as it is my understanding that while FBW had been examined(I think just the FW 191 was the only type, although there may have been others I've forgotten about), the German jets had either push rod or wires with pulleys type controls. And what I was beginning to envision was that one fuselage had the cockpit removed, although perhaps two pilots could've been more logical.

So, would the center section have to be cc? That would be the simplest and most expedient, but other configurations?

But, what I would like to have help with is if anyone might be willing to plot it out. I'm a bit hazy on techniques like photoshop, but if and when push comes to shove, I can just play with the silly thing with a few Xerox copies, pencils, and everything else associated with that.

But, along with the model, I have also been thinking of what kind of possible history this could have, that with FBW, then the possibility of an updated autopilot/control movement synchronizer or similar.

And then there was the problem with range, ordinance, landing gear configuration, and other points that can add up.

And besides which, if anyone else likes the idea of what I began with, perhaps they might get inspired to something similar, but different, and I could get some more ideas, along with everyone else.

[jcf]

Fouga CM.88 Gemeaux.

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/cm88.html

[sandiego89]

So, would the center section have to be cc? That would be the simplest and most expedient, but other configurations?

And then there was the problem with range, ordinance, landing gear configuration, and other points that can add up.

I like joncar's link.  Thta would work for a twin fuselage 162.  

As for constant cord, it does not have to be, but I think it looks the best.  There have been some W shaped wings, but I think they look awkward. Even if the outer sections are swept, a straight middle section between the fuselages looks better- but again just my opinion.

The 162 is tiny- so you would have to come up with a reason for a second pilot or fuselage.  Reasons that make sense are (1) a night fighter with a radar and radar operator in the second fuselage (2) one pilot on one side and more fuel or weapons in the other fuselage or (3) a trainer- give thsoe Hitler Youth pilots some jet experince before they are sent off in glorious defense of the Fatherland.  Otherwise I can't think of the need for two pilots on such a short range/endurance aircraft.    

[maxmwill]

So, would the center section have to be cc? That would be the simplest and most expedient, but other configurations?

And then there was the problem with range, ordinance, landing gear configuration, and other points that can add up.

I like joncar's link.  Thta would work for a twin fuselage 162.  

As for constant cord, it does not have to be, but I think it looks the best.  There have been some W shaped wings, but I think they look awkward. Even if the outer sections are swept, a straight middle section between the fuselages looks better- but again just my opinion.

The 162 is tiny- so you would have to come up with a reason for a second pilot or fuselage.  Reasons that make sense are (1) a night fighter with a radar and radar operator in the second fuselage (2) one pilot on one side and more fuel or weapons in the other fuselage or (3) a trainer- give thsoe Hitler Youth pilots some jet experince before they are sent off in glorious defense of the Fatherland.  Otherwise I can't think of the need for two pilots on such a short range/endurance aircraft.    

Well, the points you bring up, short range fighter, would be part of it, the other fuselage could carry additional fuel,  such as where the cockpit section would be, even without the possible additional volume of the canopy, that area could be a fuel cell.

And, while two 003s might be nice, something a little more developed, such as the HeS 011, or even some further developments of that(I think that there was an 012 or a bit beyond being proposed or studied, so, being a whif, those, and maybe some a tad further along could be used for both engines).

And yes, a Hitler Youth trainer or a radar operator or other kind of wizzo could be in the other fuselage.'

But yes, there would be need for only the one pilot, which was why I mentioned the FBW system, which was studied in one or more previous designs by other manufacturers, along with some sort of further developed autopilot, with would also have the aft control surface mixing for the ruddervators.

And then, if anyone else were interested, because there have been a few additional twin fuse whifs recently, and I have never heard of anyone thinking it done with the 162, probably considering the problems you listed.

And then, there were the various proposals for additional tankage, such as a fuel tank glider towed behind, which might be transformed into something else in addition to the tankage.

I dunno. I'm just starting to kick the idea some, inspired by the two kits I now have.

Perhaps if Heinkle used the expertise of the Gunter brothers(they of 70, 111, 119, and others fame), or even stole the Brothers Horten away from Gotha, and perhaps a possible BWB, or similar might've been possible.

[The Wooksta!]

Keep the all plastic kit and sell on the Trimaster kit.  Personally, I'd keep the latter for a real one (and I actually have two Trimaster He 162s) and the former for whiffing.

FBW?  Not worth it on an He 162.  Too basic and wouldn't have the electrical capacity.  That sort of stuff tends to be designed in and they'd have invested in a proper prototype.

[maxmwill]

Ok.

BTW, I said that I did not know of anyone who'd even consider it, not that I've known that anyone wouldn't, absolutely. But, that is nice, though, and something I had in mind, only with one cockpit, the other faired over.

However, as to the suggestion about side mounted engines, no, my thought train on this hunt(after all, isn't freethoughting, or brainstorming like this actually is, the hunt for ideas and possibly workable answers, or even more? For me, my personal term is freethoughting, as I kinda let a thought wander free to see what it either points to, or even finds a different path to follow which might lead to a solution or more, or even more questions, which I find is better than finding an answer, because more answers might result that had nothing to do with the original, but might even be a better solution to the original. But, it works for me, anyone else can steal any inspiration from it, though) had been trying to see what something further could come with the basic(butterfly tails?) airframe with some mods, as well as assuming that the power problems for the FBW could've been solved(a Riedel two-cycle engine one of the airframes driving a generator?), as well as another mod that I just occurred to me a few hours ago, although perhaps someone may have already considered it.

One very important aspect of any aircraft, whether being designed, or operational, is the fact of weight, whether in conjunction with center of gravity issues(such as when a more powerful but lighter powerplant replaces an installed one(an example coming to mind because I have experience with this is the Twin Beech modified to be the Westwind. What this was was to replace the (985 radials with PT6s, which were more powerful and considerably more fuel efficient. However, the 985s were heavier than the PTs, so in order to bring the CG back to an acceptable range. And yes, it travelled a bit faster, and was fuel efficient, and could carry more freight, especially since it had to have an additional two meters added to the nose, with at least a hundred pounds of lead in the very point of the nose. However, one thing that was not even anticipated was that it was a ground looping fool, very tricky to rotate off the runway. The reason I know this is because I worked at the air service which was the first one to have the Westwinds, and, even though they have three of them, in addition to the other Beech 18s, the Westwinds sit in back of the hangar, gathering dust, because no other outfit wants to buy them, unless they have since been converted back, or someone got a really good deal, its being a while since last I talked to someone over there. But I digress), but also use a landing gear arrangement which could save weight, hence the skid type landing gear on types such as the Me 163 or the early models of the Ar 234, to name a few.

Well, on the 162Z model, perhaps only the outer mains of the landing gear could be retained, which could save some weight, although they might have to be strengnthened a bit, still there might be a net savings.

And(see what I mean about the afore-mentioned freethoughting?), perhaps to even same more weight(tempered by some weight adding for the resulting CG shift), couldn't the fuselages be brought a bit closer together and, not only the inner fins of the butterfly be eliminated, but also the stub center wing shortened however much is needed, which would also reduce a certain amount of strain on the airframe(aerodynamic forces do exhibit stresses), and, yes, the side-mounted engines would be workable, but even more to consider, as there might still be space between the fuses, a third engine? If straight across, then the strain on the airframe could be kept to a relative minimum, although there might still be some).

[sandiego89]

Uhh, bit of a tough read max ^^^^ 

More than once I have found that someone has already built what I had in mind, and undoubedly many more have thought about it. Us WHIFFERs are a like minded and strange bunch. 

Recommend you account for engine out characteristics and trim for a zwilling 262.  I would guess the engine out performance of the model presented by salt6 above with such widely spaced engines would be attrocious.  Fuselages closer together would help, but would reduce your lift. All a tradeoff.   Reducing tail to the outside butterflys alone would likely make handling worse, and single engine handling impossible.  A butterfly already has reduced latteral stability, and you would be halfing it. Would also likely be a trim heavy aircraft with the center of thrust so high up.  You need lots of tail IMO.     

[pyro-manic]

What about an X-tail? All surfaces pointing outwards, one high and one low on each side? That would look pretty nifty. Single wheel main gear legs centrally in each fuselage, keep both nose gear for a four-point u/c. Remove one cockpit, and add either radar or a big gunpack in the nose of the unmanned fuselage, with a pod containing the other part under the centre wing section. Or perhaps one big air-to-surface missile/glide bomb (Fritz-X, Henschel 293, BV 246 etc) under-wing?

[maxmwill]

As to accounting for engine out and the rest, I'll have to reiterate that this is still in the kicking around stage, and not a formal commitment, which even then, as the build would progress, changes might still be made, sometimes even to the point of just about starting over, because something that had been overlooked in the beginning, rares its ugly head to roar like King Kong(and someone else is beating on something or other).

And that's why I began this in the first place, to see the inputs of others, or perhaps an earlier build, and to get new ideas, while perhaps some or someones else might get an idea or more from what say.

And apologies for the tough read, unless the result of the situation was tough, but sometimes I feel it incumbent upon me to add a bit more flesh, and sometimes that flesh takes on the characteristics of a tumour(without the harm done to a person).

And on top of this, I found a Ju87 whif that looks fascinating enough to attempt on my own without ordering the mode kit, because I want to try it in 1/48, and the mode kit is in 1/72, A Ju 87 modded to take a BMW 801, so I'm trying to think of the advantage over the JUMO 211.

[pyro-manic]

Advantage: Radials don't need radiators, so are less vulnerable to damage from ground fire (see P-47s over Europe). A good choice for a ground-attack aircraft.

[maxmwill]

I know, but, before I try to dig up my slim volume on aircraft engines of wartime Germany(which is a lot more informative than one might think), what are the weights, JUMO compared to BMW, then, there has to be taken into consideration the advantages of drag of each(the reason a lot of liquid cooled engines tended to be chosen over the radial, except in instances of institutional preference, such as the US Navy's insistence on radials, or the RAF preference for inline, at least early on in the war, was because they could be fairly tightly cowled which would give a theoretical reduction in drag, with the drag of the radiator being kind of ignored).

And the 801 offered something like 1600 hp or so(I might be off a bit), whilst the 211 was approximately 1400 hp or so.

I'm not disputing you, and to me, it looks like it should have a fairly nice result, but I'm simply trying to see if there might be some sort of advantage of the one over the other, as well as the fact that the Ju 87D(I've got a 1/48 D model)V105(or some such fictive experimental designation, or even possibly in the field(a really rough field mod, perhaps? Taking, say one of the engines off a Do 217E series hangar queen and grafting onto a D model that had the engine shot up, and while the rest of the airframe was relatively intact, mebbe Someone was in a relative panic to get it back in the air).

Or maybe I'm trying to think this too much.

[zenrat]

Yes you are.

Just build it and worry about justification later.
If it looks right it is right...

[pyro-manic]

Indeed. Just build it!