Twin-Whirlwind & Catalina…

[elmayerle]

On the Sea Lightning, where was the tailhook? It couldn't have been on the tail, as that's too high, and certainly not the booms. On the pilot's pod, I'd have to guess?

JoeP

It's too bad no one else here has the newsletter from the Phoenix, AZ chapter of IPMS/USA.  The aritcle on this one was in there some 22+ years ago and I've no idea where my copy is at the moment.  I would expect a hook at the end of the center pod.  That's where the pod of the Lightning "Swordfish" would've been good; it would've moved the hook farther aft.

[Jschmus]

...including the description of the naval fighter SO-8000 Narval, also twin-boom with tricycle landing gear (but pusher propellers): "naval devices included (...) one hook that has never been installed on prototypes. It would have been put on a retractable support to keep enough guard for the propeller".

Tophe, you find the neatest things!  Then I plug those things into Google, and find...



The SO-8000 Narval.  I like it.  I found some text, mentioning that the powerplant was a copy of the Jumo 213, with all of the inherent problems thereof.

[Tophe]

The SO-8000 Narval.  I like it.  I found some text, mentioning that the powerplant was a copy of the Jumo 213, with all of the inherent problems thereof.

The story is:
- in the early 1940s, Eng. Dupuy dreamed of a twin-boom pusher naval fighter
- in 1946 he designed the final Sud-Ouest (government factories of South-Western France) SO.8000, but its first flight occured only in 1949, completely outdated with its piston engine (and engine troubles gave lower performances than expected, moreover). 110 copies cancelled in 1950, with just 2 prototypes being built.
- in 1948 was designed the improved SO.8010 jet (3-view in the same Docavia book). None ordered. THE END...

[Tophe]

You may say that a Narval is very different from the P-38, because of its longer central pod and very different weight balance. I agree, but have you noticed that my avatar for years now is a SO.8000-like P-38?    Naval P-38?

[Tophe]

DC-3x3 Panoramic... and asymmetric for fun

DC-33 View is even more pleasant , and even more dangerous with impossible balance

[Tophe]

In Europe, we travel mostly in trains, different from USA/Canada/Australia, and we are used to think it is not much comfortable for stomach to face the rear. So a front viewpoint would be even better than a rear one, to appeal European clients. Besides, there is no need of 3 pilots, so the triplex fuselage DC-3 could feature 2 panoramic noses. Its name would be DC-34, for DC-3 with 4 engines, preferred to DC-33 as DC-3 with 3-fuselages. DC-3 was also meaning – see from here – intermediate between the 2-engined DC-2 and the 4-engined DC-4... what-if DC-3/4 was meaning "intermediate between DC-3 and DC-4".
I wanted also to include a PowerFul 4-engined P-38PF (with single pod, different from my P-38T), though I reminded Ollie's objection: don't select short engine pods, external, as there is room necessary for superchargers - so I have lengthened those pods and then decided to make them push-pull: the total is 6 engines. Impossible? Hey, what-if, with 4 main landing gears?
(PF does not stand only for PowerFul, it stands also for Pierre-François, my older brother, who is the source of my love for twin-boomers, and who offered me for Christmas one of my P-38s...)

[Aircav]

Love the rear facing engines on the DC-34, look cool on a standard Dak      
Bravo Tophe    

[Tophe]

Love the rear facing engines, look cool on a standard Dak

Like that? AirCavouglas DC-3pp...

[Aircav]

I was just think of it fitted with the two rear engines Tophe    

[elmayerle]

The only problem I can see with that one, Tophe, is that cooling the rear engines is going to be something of a problem.  You'll probably need some cooling scoops and such.

[Jschmus]

You'd have to make a few more changes to the C-47 to accomodate pusher props.  You'd have to fit it with tricycle gear, to get those props off the deck.  Also, I think the engines would have to ride a little outboard of where they're mounted in the original.  Otherwise, the props would strike the fuselage.  

I like the idea of a pusher C-47.  Or even, a jet C-47.  Maybe a regular one with underwing jet pods for greater speed?  IFR probe?  Now I understand what makes people go out and buy models they don't really need.

[Tophe]

Yes Aircav, Evan, Jschmus, you are all right. So:
- moving the wings back for a nose landing gear
- discarding the front engines and having air scoops
- using double propellers of reduced diameter not to hurt the fuselage
That made the 4-propellers DC-3 (DC-43 or AEJ-43 for Aircav-Elmayerle-Jschmus, designer names ).
As I am the one that drew it, I just required the industrial manufacture (of dreams) to build a twin in my way, the 8-propellers double DC-3: DC-83.
Thank you all

[Aircav]

Cool            

[Tophe]

I post here one great creation of a friend, illustrating 'as-real' my XP-55T with Combat Flight Simulator 3 .

Another source, XP-55Z, from the great LaFayette CFS-player/artist. Alas I am unable to reach him again...

[Tophe]

Oh, I feel so ashamed , so guilty  
Lyn, I apologize, it is not my fault, those psychotropic drugs made my mind all blurred. Of course, I see it now clearly, where was I? Instead of dreaming of Twin-Float-Whirlwind, Twin-Float-Corsair, the first step for me should have been... the Float-Twin-Mustang, of course... And when TSR-Joe and you hesitated between single-float and double-float for balance of your Mustang seaplanes on rough seas, I should have helped with a Twin single-float Mustang...
Please forgive me.    
Below is a J5F-2 Twin-Bronco , from your J5F-1 Bronco basis , with a lateral main float for balance , a lateral free fuselage for tanks, a lateral nose for a radar. I hope this late waking up will be better than never...

PS. what seems to be a ventral air scoop on the starboard fuselage (mistake after the engine removal?) is an extra-extra room for one more tank: the designers simply decided to use the available parts and used this bulge for fuel, just closing its front part with an aerodynamic cowling - unfortunately, this is hidden below the wing...)