Twin-Whirlwind & Catalina…

[Tophe]

the right Ar 840: double 440...

As well, the official history of the Ju-88 family twin-engine transformed into Ju-188/288/388/488 is all wrong. The Ju-188 was zwillinged into Ju-288 V0 = Ju-188Z and this Ju-288 V0 was zwillinged into Ju-488 V0 = Ju-288Z, keeping only 2-tails though, otherwise it would have fallen out of my (grand-father's) collection!

(thanks to http://www.beuliland.com/html/camo/ejemplo...lm/PINTURAS.HTM )

[Tophe]

I ear the laugters: "Hey, what was the Ju 88 then?!"  
My answer: an asymmetric simplified derivative of the 188 (below left)
"And the 388?!"
As well, from a 488 basis (below center)
"And a 588 as well?!"
It's more like a completed 488 (below right)

[Tophe]

After the Westland Twin-Whirlwind came the Westland Twin-Welkin...

(thanks to http://www.aircraftscalemodeling.com/image...land_Welkin.jpg )

[Tophe]

The built Arado 240 is well known, the built Gotha 242 & 244 are well known, but what-about 241/243/245? According to Historians: there were projects Gotha 241 (twin-engine for communications), Me 243 (unknown), Go 245 (unknown). Wrong - I tell you: all were secret twin-boomers from Gotha:
- Go241 was a railroad truck with 1 central wing stump before receiving 2 actual wings (port/starboard) to become Go 242. I will build it in plastic, it is started!
- Go243 was an asymmetric  single-engine intermediate between the mass-produced zero-engined 242 and two-engined 244B.
- Go245 was a Pack-Plane with a removable container (rearward) and lateral main-landing-gears from the booms.

[Tophe]

Other forthcoming model: GP-38W. As I had a P-38 kit available, I wondered what what-ifing I could do:
- 1/ removing the tailplane, into a flying wing P-38W – booms could support fins&rudders only.
- 2/ removing propeller blades, into a glider: GP-38, so GP-38W
- 3/ as the span is too big for me, once more: remove the external wings, even if this is awful for a glider, turned into a stone...
Well, maybe look at it as a SpaceShip Zero project gliding from stratosphere 1945 in a supersonic way (expected...)
Or, see it as a little boat, floating twin-boomly in my bath-tub: as a little boy, I would have loved it.

[Tophe]

from a workbench topic, added here to my 1939-45 gathered collection update:

I needed to edit this old topic, bring something again to explain the Fw 119 twin-boom mystery...
Fw 119 is a very old RLM code, far before the Fw 189 project of 1937... so before my 1939-45 window. Well, this could have been a pre-189, for instance without engines yet. A reco glider...
It was rejected, of course: as reconnaissance is needed over the enemy territory or battlefield, where to land? and how to escape from the opponent fighters? Closed file, 1937, leading to the powered 189.
Though, with the progress in rockets (early 1940s), this Fw 119 came to life again, as Fw 119U: take off as an airplane with 2 rockets working among the 8 below the wing, then climbing again and again firing the other rockets, 2 by 2, up to 20 miles altitude (32 000m), out of reach for any fighter 1943... then gliding quietly over Russia, Siberia,  taking pictures, to land safely in Japan... A change in detail was requested, and it was mass-produced as Fw 119U-2 and the Soviet developed missiles to reach this spy... and they developed the Myasishchev Stratosfera with the same twin-boom & huge-span. Or... do my ill brains mix several stories?

PS. This topic would be better moved to the twin-tail forum, yes?

[Tophe]

The Fw 189 and Bv 141 layouts had an advantage: if the pilot is dying, the aft observer could take his post and take the controls, trying to land safely. This was appropriate in a bloody war where fighters were trying to shoot observation aircraft (to prevent the organisation of further attacks, I understand), but in my naive dreams, engineers would have designed peaceful reco planes for Army observation of threatening volcanoes... As a pilot heart-attack happens almost never, the goal was to have the observer secondaryly educated not as pilot but as a Mechanic: if the engine is in a jam, there would be in-flight rescue from aboard: Bv 241M, with the corresponding Zwilling Bv 241Z...

[Tophe]

At first, the TsAGI LS was a glider, testing the laminar wing (LS-1 below). Then it used a little engine and tiny propeller (LS-2), but this design is so pleasant: What-if it had been turned into a high-speed airplane (LS-3)? Reduced span, retractable landing-gear, 2 coupled-engines (fed by a ventral air intake), double-big-propeller... Keeping its free nose, great aerodynamism, perfect view forward for pilots, and twin-booms for myself...

[Tophe]

As well, the little test-planes Skoda-Kauba V-6 and SL-6 could have become high-speed machines with retractable landing gears:
- J-6 would have been a V-6 with coupled radial engines driving a big double propeller
- J-6B would have been a SL-6 with a jet (+ rocket below?) avoiding any risk to burn the tail

[Tophe]

(From http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...t=0&#entry87050 )
Here is the 1945 project Twin-Shooting-Star TP-80 (source: http://www.xs4all.nl/~pverp/images/tn_lock...ooting_star.jpg ) - refused by the USAF   saying 'there are easier ways to have a 2-seater', leading to the sad Lockheed T-33, with only one tail ...
I prefer this Geoffeed NF-80 Twin-Star     .

[elmayerle]

I keep thinking that something along the lines of a P-38 with two F-80 fuselages without cockpits and a center pod along the lines of that on the "Lightning Swordfish" would look rather nice.  Separate or joined tail surfaces could be tested with the most effective being used.

[Tophe]

Yes, great idea, dear.
Just a question: if there is a central pod for radar and guns and crew, the lateral noses would not be justified anymore, so straight air-intakes would probably be the forward part of the lateral fuselages, no?  

[elmayerle]

Yes, great idea, dear.
Just a question: if there is a central pod for radar and guns and crew, the lateral noses would not be justified anymore, so straight air-intakes would probably be the forward part of the lateral fuselages, no?

Actually, from a weight and balance point of view, I'd probably keep the inlets as they are and use shortened noses that would still allow various fits of equipment to be easily and quickly installed or replaced.  I can see some advantages for recce purposes or for when you want a lot of concentrated firepower.   A straight inlet, though,  like that of the F-84 might be worth looking at too; clearly lots of possibiliites here.

[Tophe]

Before trying to draw the Twin-P-80 family, I include here, from the Mustang topic ('Book for free') of the workbench forum, some additional twin-tail from the (NA) Mustangs:
- (JHM) TB-51D
- twin (XT) BU-82 of (JHM) U-51F & (JHM) B-51D
- twin Duo-82 of (XT) Duo-51D - with intermeshing blades from separate engines: possible as model, not as viable flying machine, I fear...

[Tophe]

Our Geoff/Elmayerle/Tophe Twin-Star family:

To draw them, I have checked the Putnam book "Lockheed aircraft since 1913".  Alas there was no 3-view of the Lulu Belle prototype , that I remembered as very different from the post-war mass-produced copies. I read and, well, that may go: only the fin-tip, wing-tip and span, position of intakes, were slightly different . And while the L-140/MX-409 project is dated 1943, the built XP-80 first flew in early 1944, the very modified XP-80A in early 1945, the later YP-80A and P-80A had been ordered too in 1944. So the projected twin-P-80A could be dated 1944 with high confidence ...
Next page of the book: the post-war F-80B was first known as P-80B and initially known as P-80Z...! No! The P-80Z (with Z for Zwilling) was the secret code dedicated to a Twin-Star in 1944, and the proof is: I am sure!  No Historian could argue about such a Truth  – well psychiatrists could...