Twin-Whirlwind & Catalina…

[Tophe]

on the single-seater basis, with a prone pilot and without the nose passenger of the P-38L Droop-Snoot version

Doctor, I am not a million miles away from Reality, just slightly improving: look, a Droop Snoot single-seater would have been rather bad, no?

[Tophe]

I would do something better: Zwilling Go 244Z !

The final Go-444 was slightly different from the Go-244Z (RLM-coded Go-344 at last): more power, and loads closer to the centerline:

[Tophe]

The final Go-444 was slightly different from the Go-344

Reading books, the Go244 family seems very different from the Me109 family, never reaching 544, 644, etc. Wrong: I have actually seen a Go 544 and a Go 644 (see below), even if the Zwillings from them came later (after falling asleep) thus rather dubious...

[Tophe]

I must explain: it was for a night fighter version: no need of 2 engines, but need of a giant free room to hold this mysterious secret device called airborne radar. (After knowing the actual dimensions, this weird asymmetric project was cancelled)

Following my Westland SingleWind topic, here are the Mustangized equivalents: P-51W WhirlStang, P-51Wa SingleStang, P-51Wb DwarfStang, P-51Wc FarStang... I will post the zwillinged ones on the twin-tail forum.

Here are some of the Zwillinged Twin-WhirlStangs, Mk.1 to 3. Dozens of other combinations are possible.

[Tophe]

maked me think of building a wee single podded whirlwind type twin boom thingy !

Don't you remember Martin H made a great one, how your one would be different? single-engined?

After the NorthAmerican/Westland TW-1 to 3 came the NorthCanadian/Toadland TW-4, flown by Captain Pom (soon general or above that rank).

[Tophe]

The Northrop P-61 Black Widow is well known as a mass-produced 3-seater twin-boomer. What is less known is that the initial project was a 4-seater (justifying its very big size), while the final version was a 2-seater (keeping the same big size). For this last part, let us imagine the steps:
- a modified XP-61H without upper/rear seats, just tandem seats in front, was the simplest adaptation
- a simplified XP-61S would have bring total vision and decreased weight thus higher performances, but the lateral view would have been bad
- the XP-61T (top?), lately included in the XP-61E program brought perfect vision all around...
- a single-seat XP-61U (un-double-piloted?) was considered but soon rejected as no need of a so big aircraft for a single pilot (and if the extra room is for fuel and very long range, a second pilot would be required when the main one is sleeping... electronic auto-pilots were not reliable enough in the early 1940s).

[Tophe]

Here is the He-662 PhotoShoped (Canadian-way: PhotoPainted), from the plastic He-362 of mine... (see the workbench forum)

[Tophe]

The Me 362 was an actual project of 3-engined airliner!

maybe the 362 was an Heinkel-Messerschmitt Zwilling: 162+262=362, 3-jet project, yes: Heinsserschmitt HMe-362...
with windows and a panoramic room ahead: Messerschkel MHe-362...

from the He-362 topic, added here to the twin-tail gallery

[Tophe]

Here is the He-662 from the He-362

... and between the Me 462 (262Z) and He 662 was... the HMe 562, of course: 462+162! Not 3-tails, as this was a tailless 162 there (and without canard, as there would be 3-tails again, while 362+462=762...)

[Tophe]

Thanks to the old Vickers-Armstong Ltd and to
http://www.blueangel.org.uk/BA/I/1000/BA1759.JPG
I can explain now that double-planes were not far-too-big to be welcome on carriers. Just use folding wings, classical, and there is room enough... See the Twin-Seafire below:

What? To take off and fly? No need... I am an enthusiast modeller, not a pilot soldier...

[Tophe]

Thanks to http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/images/Aircr...craft/C97-b.jpg
I can present the 1944 project of Boeing XC-97Z Twin-Stratofreighter, kind of Cargo B-29Z.

Note the wise intermeshing propellers on the centerline... for the thrill of danger to prevent the pilots from falling routinely asleep.

And I have imagined a preliminary He 111Z-0 (before the well-known Z-1), with a better rear post to check the tugged gliders are right, and with a single glazed nose (why 2 forward?).

[Tophe]

I can also handle properly the Arado –40 family... What a shame: the Ar 440 was not a double Ar 240! of course it was rejected! but the Arado team did not understand, and failed to propose the right Ar 840: double 440... (below):

(thanks to
http://www.makettinfo.hu/index.php?jobb=an...oria/ar-440.htm )

[Tophe]

- the XP-61T (top?), lately included in the XP-61E program brought perfect vision all around...
- a single-seat XP-61U (un-double-piloted?) was considered but soon rejected as no need of a so big aircraft for a single pilot (and if the extra room is for fuel and very long range, a second pilot would be required when the main one is sleeping... electronic auto-pilots were not reliable enough in the early 1940s).

The single seat P-61U being not correct for long range, the rear pilot having a very bad view on the P-61T, a second cockpit was installed in the starboard boom : P-61V. However, the USAAF asked the reason for the central pod drag if there was room enough in the booms. Northrop answered with the P-61W design, and the Army concluded: "very good, and we have it already, as Twin-Mustang"...

[Tophe]

Completing the plastic Double-Spitfires, picture of a (forthcoming in plastic?) Double-Spiteful – with laminar wing so very close to a Twin-Mustang, British way... No linking tailplane, just external tailplanes, to tug a bunch of fun gliders on the centreline, maybe, as the war was over late in 1945.

(thanks to http://jnpassieux.chez.tiscali.fr/html/Spiteful.php )

[Tophe]

would make a cool twin hulled flying boat.

Yes, but twin-hull flying-boats were so common in the early 1940s, as catamarans needing no external floats. Remember the Twin-Sunderland and all related ones... Not what-if enough, alas.