Twin-Whirlwind & Catalina…

[Tophe]

Still for a safe car-door on P-38, far from propellers:
The PushPull-38 was judged bad as loosing its precious free nose, so 2 pusher engines were considered. A tandem double-engine (like the V-3420=2xV-1710) driving a double pusher-propeller was considered (P-38Push) but this was judged not reliable, and the final solution was 2 separate pusher engines (P-38 Push-Push), as used on the big Lockheed L-130 project (see the Update topic about it). To avoid intermeshing propellers and a different wing holding more external booms, contra-rotating propellers were used to decrease the propeller diameter. As with a single pusher propeller, an ejection seat was mandatory...

[Brian da Basher]

Tophe you're really onto something here! My particular favorite has been the "push-pull" version...seems like it could be done by bashing a P-38 Lightning with a P-39 Airacobra. I love this thread and want to thank you for your fine efforts and wonderful ideas.



Brian da Basher

[Tophe]

Thanks a lot, dear Brian. I am very happy that what-ifers enrich the P-38 Car-door subject also, not only serious war-enthusiasts.
Well, I had a hard time trying to understand your words: the P-39's nose propeller is driven by an engine behind the cockpit, was it what you meant?
What-if... So... this PP-38+P-39 mix, PP-38½, would have a double central engine like the P-38P, while driving a pusher propeller + a tractor propeller, P-39 way... Great!

– Why?!
– uh, what-if...
- Why, you crazy ?!
- uh, this way, the cockpit can be much more forward, improving pilot's view drastically...
- Why, to kill better?!
- uh, a very classical landing gear without nose gear could be installed, without need of lateral guidance by ground crew...
- Why?!
- for STOL ability due to the airflow angle on the wing...
- Mmh. All right for this one, but never forget the injection threat! You damned what-ifer!

[Tophe]

(In my dreams) the USAF refused the P-38PP saying OK for the double-pusher-engines but...
- there is too much drag with these extra lateral structures
- the contraprops are not reliable enough
So engineers returned to the drawing board, hoping to save the car door, and the result was the PsP-38 Pusher-twin-engined, with low drag, simple propellers, no asymmetry if one engine fails...
As a smile they proposed also the PlP-38 Pull-Push. The army refused both, alas.
Then a spy came back from Germany, saying the future of aviation was all in TurboJet, an engine with kinda 8 propellers on the same axis. Designers immediately proposed the TJ-38.

Co-operation with English engineers revealed the misunderstanding... Anyway, a 4-engined plane with such low drag, such lack of asymmetry if any engines are in a jam, was rare... Weight balance may have been a problem, though.

[Tophe]

On the TGPlanes forum, Wuzak corrected the P-38S-2 design with central propellers, suggesting to remove the side radiators/intercoolers and place them at the front of the boom.
I agreed that the cooling system would be very much more simple on the engine side of the propeller...
I did not know how to draw such a cooler for the P-38W², and I have imagined something like the Fw 190D nose. There is no spinner, the cone is immobile, just there to decrease drag...

Of course, it would be possible to imagine radial engines there (Fw 190A like), but those propellers would restore danger for the car door exit...

[Tophe]

the cabin was much too narrow. Well, that could be enough for a little cargo plane: P-38LG LightGo, with separate tailplanes leaving free access to trucks. The GD Charger and NA Bronco had such a small rear door - designed by professional engineers, yes... B)

I had drawn the P-38LG for what-if friends, but I presented it lastly on the TGPlane forum, adding a car-door to match the topic subject, with a smile: "a light Truck variant, with a car door to welcome aboard a young girl hitch-hiking beside the runway (without ladder)... Truck drivers are nice men. But beware of the rotating propellers, miss, come carefully from the rear..."

Nicely, Wuzak member found a logic: this would have been a useful air-ambulance for injured soldiers...

[Tophe]

I then introduced a P-389 (hybrid of P-38 and Fw 189), or Lightning Observation Post. With the originality of 2 car doors: front and rear.

[Tophe]

I have opened my Unicraft 1/72 box of Grokhovsky G-38, so cute... and I plan to build it soon. But this design is dated 1934 and I needed a 1939 version to justify a drawing for this update of my twin-boom-39-45 collection, so:
With the world-wide hard-work in the 1930s to improve flying wings and tailless aircraft (Northrop, Horten, Kalinin, Chyeranovsky,...), it seemed the minimum-drag G-38 could be improved further: removing the tailplane! The goal was to discard the fins too, but then I stopped the film: "Hey, this would not be a twin-boomer anymore!". So starting all again, engineers decided that an intermediate step was appropriate before flying a pure flying wing, and they let fins aft of short booms: the G-38-II was born, 1939.

PS. The rear canopy is not matching some sources, I am currently discussing about it with Herbert Léonard, expert of old Russian fighters. The final answer may be in his next book...

[Brian da Basher]

Wow Tophe that's absolutely fantastic! I love that "flying wing" look and those great "russian style" engines! I'd love to see a model of that one built...either in those bright 1930's commercial colors or maybe in that cool RAF prewar scheme with only blue and red roundels and fin flashes.

Brian da Basher

[Tophe]

Thanks to Ollie's topic http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=7996 with a P-36 and P-40 side by side, I present their natural child: P-3640. Why such a machine, with complicated maintenance and double amount of parts in stock? It is easy to understand: in-line engine is much more streamlined, increasing speed, while radial engine is more reliable and resisting damage, providing safety. A Twin-Hawk being double-radial would be very slow, a Twin-Hawk being double in-line would be very fragile, the mix is the best compromise.

[Tophe]

Thanks to Salt6's topic http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=8036 , I have been directed to an Hyperscale What-if hesitation to handle 2 Dakota kits: 4-engined Dakota or Zwilling-Dakota? The decision was 4-engined, and a DC-3/4M view was presented. I have Zwilled it simply into a 7-engined Twin-Dakota: DC-34M... That layout seems wise if you have 4 Dakota kits and a need to save room... ^_^

[K5054NZ]

Great stuff, Tophe! Terrific to see it! Now he needs to BUILD this monster!  

[Daryl J.]

I like the stagger of the center engine pods....very clever.


Daryl J.

[Tophe]

Well, my 7-engined Twin-Dakota was such a waste from 4 complete kits: 1 engine to the garbage, 2 fuselages, 2 sets of wings...    
Stop, let us do it differently: a tandem-wing twin-tandem-fuselage push-pull 8-engined Dakota flying-wing... DC-343! ^_^
I know: 4 tails go to the garbage anyway...

(Thanks to http://www.airminded.net/dc3/dc3.html )

[Tophe]

Thanks to Glenn's picture of a no-pod-yet P-38 model at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=7780 , I have imagined a what-if complement: installing a P-38 pod of a different scale or a wing link (P-38-0 or QP-38, UAV-38, UP-38)...