Twin-Whirlwind & Catalina…

[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.

Then Greg P said "The Lockheed P-38 mounted the twin engines close to the center of gravity, so they did not greatly impede rate of pitch. They were also mounted fairly cose to the centerline (as close as possible), so they didn't really slow the rate of roll much either."
I answered:
"This is right as "seriousness -1937" Lightning is concerned, but I prefer "dreams-1945" of Lightning-II.
- P-38Roll: No more war, no need of gun-nose anymore, the P-38 becoming just an acrobatic freak for airshows, a star with its weird twin-boom layout, so... the booms could come far closer to the centerline, freed by a shortened nose. To prevent from intermeshing propellers (dangerous when driven by separate engines), the port spinner/shaft is simply elongated...
- P-74C: With ejector seats coming available, the pusher propellers were less frightening, so... two tandem engines over the center of gravity are driven contra-rotating pusher-propellers...
- P-74N: With the 1942 ideas of Eng. Robert becoming public (see Patent GB605,641), lateral engines may drive central pusher-propellers without being cumbersome in the central pod, with "simply" gears and shafts...
As a conclusion: you were right as users were concerned, but engineers (and dreamers) may imagine "theoretically better"...

[Tophe]

Wuzak brought new ideas and I illustrated them:
So here is the batch of Wuzakheed P-74 Lightning II (if I have well understood):
- P-74Ro2: P-74Rol with intermeshing propellers geared together
- P-74J: P-74N with jet
- P-74OSh: P-74C with central engine(s) driving lateral propellers like on the Soviet Bedunkovich OSh

[Tophe]

Thanks to Daryl J's topic "what to do with a Aichi D3A-1 Val" ( http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...showtopic=11568 ) and to  http://www.enter.net/~rocketeer/13thjpdatan.html here is the Aichi D3A-11 Val-Val:

I post it here  as this is not answering completely the question: what to do with 1 single kit?...  

[Tophe]

I know that several designs in the batch that leaded to the P-38 Lightning were not twin-boomers , but they were rejected, fortunately (according to me ). But later the classical Grumman XP-50 frightened  the success of the Lockheed XP-49 improved P-38, and the non-twin-boom version of the P-38 may have come to life again  - as HP-38: Heresy P-38, because discarding the twin-boom layout is a holy crime I think . Fortunately the Twin version HP-38Z restored the twin-tail true layout, HP meaning there High-Perfection 38.


Edit from: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...=0&#entry159200 :

Try do it single boom and T-tail 

If ever I imagine a single-boom P-38 , it is to heroically fight such evil and turn it immediately in the holy twin-boom direction

[Tophe]

From the Tgplanes' forum http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic...p?TOPIC_ID=1183 :
Thanks for this link/article about Breaking the Sound Barrier.
I have been mostly interested by the P-38 part, saying this was the first airplane to encounter compressibility problem in 1941, with a fatal dive, exceeding its Mach critical number, the tail producing too much lift.
I would have proposed a P-38 Mach explorer (P-38Me), with a sharp nose to look like a X-1, and 4 tailplanes, with 2 that can be discarded in flight if there is too much lift aft.
One more Lightning, with good reasons, thanks!

[Tophe]

RedAdmiral answered "Tophe, it was the main wing that was a problem more than anything else. The way to maintain control and fly faster would be to re-design it with a thinner wing, say 10-12% chord. But then there isn't room for fuel tanks in the wings... "
My reply:
"So here is the P-38 Red Admiral, with a thin wing and extra tanks at mid span..."

[Tophe]

Thanks to http://www.metaldesigns.com/afb.html
Here are a few more twin views: F6F-11, B-25Z...

[Tophe]

from the topic http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=8543 :

Not a twin boom, but shows what i ment:
http://www.luft46.com/db/dbjager.html

Interesting, weird! and twin-boom with a little zwilling transformation...

[Tophe]

From the Tgplanes' forum http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic...p?TOPIC_ID=1183 :
Thanks for this link/article about Breaking the Sound Barrier.
I have been mostly interested by the P-38 part, saying this was the first airplane to encounter compressibility problem in 1941, with a fatal dive, exceeding its Mach critical number, the tail producing too much lift.

My last addition:
This topic was entitled "Going supersonic!" and I apologize for having hijacked it into improving the long range P-38 to sustain a dive safely thanks to a thin-wing. To repair and go back in the "right" direction, let me try to make the thin-wing P-38 go supersonic! With rocket power, yes, and level flight! Vrooom!

[Tophe]

Then:
Testing the P-38RJ did not break the Sound Barrier (you would have heard of it!), and the explanation was simple: no matter what thrust was provided by the rockets, the propellers were acting as aerodynamic brakes - maybe you have heard of "braking (near) the Sound Barrier"... So a version P-38JR was designed without propellers anymore but with a turbojet instead. The twin-boom layout was very good for that, allowing to have a straight air intake then short exhaust without long tubes meaning loss of power... As a tail wheel was impossible with the jet aft, the wings were moved aft for keeping balance toward the nose wheel.

[B777LR]

Ive modified it a little:

[B777LR]

And another

[B777LR]

The Twin-Super-Draken!

[B777LR]

Modified twin-mix-master

[Tophe]

Thanks! Better indeed!