Twin-Whirlwind & Catalina…

[Tophe]

In 1944, twin-planes were accepted (P-82), rear engines were accepted (P-39), but pusher propellers were not , so the XP-55Z became YP-55² with tractor propellers...
But canards were not accepted either and the YP-55² became P-55A²... a kind of simple P-63Z.

[Tophe]

Posted by myself on the GreatPlanes forum ( http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic...p?TOPIC_ID=1137 ):
I know this discussion was about the Reality of such raised wingtips on the P-38 and Actual advantages, but your words are also read by dreamers like myself...
I know this is not your subject but below is the result in my dreamy mind: P-38WL with winglets, P-38FW flying wing with no rear fins/rudders...

Thanks again. (And sorry, I let you discuss seriously again)
Of couse, the wing fins/rudders are 1/48 on 1/72, to be efficient enough and... to match the what-if modeller logic... ^_^

[Tophe]

The discussion going on...
Yes, the P-38FW could be turned into a P-38PR Pond-Racer-likening, but for me this has a severe drawback; it falls out of my beloved twin-boom class to become triplex-boom. So I have truncated it into the twin-boom P-38PR²...
Well thanks for having enriched the collection... maybe now we should stop hijacking this serious topic...

[Tophe]

With many friends coming from here to Overscan's site, we discuss at http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ and I draw... I gather here things I posted there, because this address here is the one I direct too in my updating site http://cmeunier.chez-alice.fr/Free_EoFG_MV.htm :

You were very right, Evan: pusher propellers are a problem with tail wheels: no ground clerance. So it would be possible to use counter-rotating propellers of reduced diameter:

Thanks dear engineer!

Do I read correctly, Antonio? Well, 2 readings are possible:
1/ The XP-58 twin-boom twin-tractor gave birth to the L-134-3 classical twin-pusher, that gave birth to a L-134-X canard twin-pusher...
2/ The XP-58 twin-boom twin-tractor gave also birth to a XP-58C canard (still twin-boom twin-tractor...) with a very efficient rear post, this is serious!
You know me, I prefer the second story, even if this is misreading your words...

[Tophe]

I have discovered a 2-seat P-61 with rear post and a long-long nose for a big-big radar:

in the archives Northrophe, of course...
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northrop_P-61.jpg

[Tophe]

At http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6015 there was a very serious discussion  about the codes of Waco aircraft (and other Waco activities, like ice-creams).
I was interested, and I used the YKC picture to add a joke  ^_^  :
and what would have been the code of a twin-YKC-6 of 1939...? YKC-66? YKC-9?

Romantic Technofreak answered nicely:
Hi Tophe,
what you posted is the Twaco YKKC "Dobble-Wobble". Not to be seen is the connection tube between the two fuselages. This is for transferring ice cream in flight, because the Mr. Weaver´s Eskimo Pies are stored only in one fuselage. The ice machine on the ground is, of course, driven by an old radial engine.  

[Tophe]

Another view of the Northrophe P-61 Big Widow:

[elmayerle]

Another view of the Northrophe P-61 Big Widow:

That's a beautifully done revision to the picture and the drawing, shortening the cockpit and lengthening the equipment section in the nose.  Personally, I'd have moved the pilot forward, and put the extra avionics behind him, if I was doing a two-seater as it gets him out of the plane of the propellers so he doesn't chance getting hit by flying blades if he does a gear-up landing.

[Tophe]

* Thanks Evan, you are right while... a better version with single-seat front cockpit would be less easy to make with PhotoPaint (and has partly been illustrated by my drawing of XP-61H in the book "Forked Ghosts")

* Thanks to MartG's topic presenting a new Twin-Galaxy with a weird tail ( http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...showtopic=11032 ), here is an 'improved Lightning: P-38C-5Z, associating highest tailplane efficiency and highest solidity all at once!

[Tophe]

The Rainbow XF-12 then XR-12 then R-12 is quite famous, but less known is its coming from the Double-Rainbow project of 1944: the most streamlined 8-engined plane of its time...

(thanks to jeffryfontaine's topic http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...showtopic=11089 , alas I have no room to display such a double Anigrand model at 1/72, and I have a problem with vacform canopies moreover...)

[elmayerle]

* Thanks Evan, you are right while... a better version with single-seat front cockpit would be less easy to make with PhotoPaint (and has partly been illustrated by my drawing of XP-61H in the book "Forked Ghosts")

Actually, my comments derive from what I've read of the pilots' comments.  Apparently the P-61 was one aircraft they hated to belly-land because the prop rotation would make certain that blades from both sides would break loose and come through the pilot's position.  Not a good thing from the pilot's perspective.

[Tophe]

Evan suggested (on the secretprojects forum), seeing MartinH's Twin-Dakota, to build a more powerful version, looking like the He 111Z. I drew it , understanding that 2 Dakota kits would not be enough to build it...

[Tophe]

Then Evan said that pusher propellers would be fragile in a low position (tail down), because debris from the main landing gear would provide damage, and suggested a tricycle (or quadricycle?) landing gear, as here, with lengthened noses and wing backward:

[Tophe]

On the great planes forum ( http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic...p?TOPIC_ID=1137 ) a discussion went on about the P-38's radised wingtips, and I didn't understand much, posting this picture as my (mis-?)interpretation:


Then the member nicknamed Lightning said I should draw a twin-boom Corsair. I presented my gallery of Twin-Corsairs but felt unsatisfied. Then, I answered:

My twin-fuselage Corsairs were not exactly matching Lightning's requirement of a twin-boom Corsair, even if he was too polite to refuse them.
So I tried to imagine: why a twin-boom Corsair, not using the available parts on the Corsair production line? I found 2 reasons, justifying this twin-tail-boom layout:
- doubling the power with a push-pull device, one solution being a twin-boom tail without the long shaft of the Do 335
- installing a big/long device above each wing, I don't know which one but military fans would know
The result is this:

[kitnut617]

Hi Tophe,

Well I've just spent a pleasant hour browsing through this thread.  Some of these are simply amazing and down right weird.   Now I'm not being critical but being in the design and drafting industry I find that some of the ideas are quite impractical, structurally wise.  Joining two aircraft just by the wing tips is probably structurally impossible.  I would think that if you're going to join two fuselages together you would have to have the leading and trailing edges parallel.  The ideas which have swept wings just joined at the wing tips is impossible.

I know that this is a What-If forum and especially this thread, where your imagination can run riot, but when I come up with my What-If's I try to make them somewhat possible.  I try to give some thought for a structurally sound idea where if I had the resources, I would be able to make it.

Maybe I've got the wrong idea of what a What-If is.  Is it 'What-If we can do this" or is it "What-If this had been built"

Anyway,  I was wondering if you have any info on a French aircraft that was built as a fighter prototype, was twin boom and contra-prop pusher, built in the 50's.  I came across some pictures of it some time ago what do you think I can find it now or even remember what it was called.

Would you have anything on the Pond Reno Racer, this was a twin boom with, IIRC, a center pod where the cockpit was at the tail end.

Cheers,  Robert