Twin-Whirlwind & Catalina…

[GTX]

Robert,

For some info on the Pond Racer, look here  - scroll down the page a bit for photos and story.

Regards,

Greg

[kitnut617]

Robert,

For some info on the Pond Racer, look here  - scroll down the page a bit for photos and story.

Regards,

Greg

excellent Greg,  I went to the 1996 Reno races and I had heard about the Pond Racer.  I would have dearly liked to see it fly B)

Cheers,  Robert

[Tophe]

Joining two aircraft just by the wing tips is probably structurally impossible.

see the USAF Tom-Tom experiment, dear, and let us dream...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boeing_...B-29_TomTom.jpg

and, as we are free from sad seriousness, all is possible, AS DREAMS. I know some prefer Reality, or almost-Reality, we are simply different individuals and may welcome one another.

For the French twin-boom fighter, ask Google pictures with SO-8000 Narval. Is it this one?

[Tophe]

Thanks to http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=32753 I am able to add a Bo 15Z derivative of 1939 from the Gruse Bo 15/1 of 1935...

Twin tail-boom and twin-fuselage all at once... ^_^  

[Tophe]

– What is the best trainer to learn piloting a P-38 Lightning?
– A trainer-Lightning! With a front cockpit added in the weapon-less nose: PT-38!
– Why 2 expensive engines? Why learning to handle 2 engines as a start?
– Use a single-engined Lightning! Twin-booms allow a pusher layout: PT-38A!
– What about baling out?
– Use a lateral engine: PT-38B!
– Why learning to handle asymmetry?
– Use a nose engine: PT-38C... but this would be sad: not better than a T-6...

[Tophe]

The picture above was created for another forum ( http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic...p?TOPIC_ID=1152 ) about the "most loved trainer" of WW2. Seeing my post, Montanamotor answered:
and what about the four-engined-Lightning - the BT 38 (push/pull/left/right) - for training of bomber-crews...?
P.S.: Okay, this last one was no trainer - but one should not forget about the famous "Tankbuster"-Lightning - the A 38: Push/pull, with two 37 mm-caliber M9-anti-tank-guns at the tips of the Booms...
I replied, happily:
So... here are illustrated the Montanakheed Lightning trainers TA-38 and BT-38, with the A-38 goal also.
Thanks for enriching the collection with these not-much-known ones...

[Tophe]

Answer of Montanamotor:
Err, hmm, I think the B 38 is still missing - that one with the push/pull center bubble AND the two standard-boom-tip-engines, Tophe...
Reply of mine:
Here is the B-38, in its 2 versions: first YB-38 then bubble B-38A.

[Tophe]

Archibald's topic http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...showtopic=11412 enriched the B-29 Superfortress collection with a B-40 Mixfortress (I agree we don't care about Historians pretending the B-40 was a B-17F derivative, Archie's one is more funny), and I simply twin it here into a B-40Z TwinMixFortress: TT-tail & 8 engines = 4 jets + 4 piston.

[Archibald]

Look great! Now I have to buy another B-29 kit (and also, another Mach2 falcon 20 guardian to have the turbofans ).
Just a detail : you forgot the P-47 canopy (yes, it come from a P-47) above the glazed cockpit.  

[Archibald]

PS I'm looking at your B-40Z, and think : with four jets, why keep on with the
R-3350 ? just get ride of them...  and also of one of the two cockpits The result will rock! (I let you imagine others variants with asymetric engines and wings, I'm confident in your imagination!!)

[Tophe]

Just a detail : you forgot the P-47 canopy (yes, it come from a P-47) above the glazed cockpit.

You are right: I must explain. The Boeing team did use the XB-40A prototype for the prototype XB-40Z.

Then:
- Why a single raised up cockpit as there are 2 noses?
- Hey, there's a single pilot, the rest of the crew takes the other nose!
- So why a raised up cockpit?
- Uh...
The B-40Z was born, without the raised up cockpit.
(This is true-life story, believe me, I am not crazy on Tuesdays. Usually.)

[Tophe]

I'm looking at your B-40Z, and think : with four jets, why keep on with the
R-3350 ? just get ride of them...  and also of one of the two cockpits The result will rock! (I let you imagine others variants with asymetric engines and wings, I'm confident in your imagination!!)

This is not my imagination but the USAF requirements, I am sure: decreasing the price and increasing the range led to a 3-jet version with minimum crew room: B-40Z-2:

[Archibald]

encore plus cool!!

[Tophe]

On the Great Planes forum ( http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic...p?TOPIC_ID=1162 ), about the Me 410, GregP said that all twin-engined fighters of WW2 were outclassed by single-engined fighters, except the P-38.
I answered:
if the classical Me 410 was bad and the twin-boom P-38 was good, why not designing a twin-boom Me 510?

(thanks to http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2h.../messme410.html )

[Tophe]

The engines are in front of the booms, driving central propeller(s) through gears and shafts. The central pod shape is optimum without taking care of big engine(s) in it, and the airflow on the wing is optimum without disturbance by propellers. If one engine fails (or is shut down to save fuel), no dissymmetry occurs. This was used in the MATRA R75 project

From this Robert Patent (at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...80&#entry157446 ) with P-38 like tailplanes, I think I may change my P-74C (with tandem central engines) into a – somehow better – P-74M (with lateral engines driving the central propellers):