Update for "The end of Forked Ghosts"

[Tophe]

Well, the F-78H and L were not interesting for the USAF , but they were interesting for us enthusiasts and modellers ... Mainly: the 78L with low wing would have booms so low, even above the wing, that a T-tail would have been mandatory, for the trucks to approach freely. Different Packet... maybe for JHM Senior, RCAF.

[Tophe]

as the fuselage was a disposable container

I have received from Belgium new data about the SR-45 (and probably the R-45 before 1945): either there would have been a rear door as I have drawn previously, with a ramp for a car to climb, classically, OR the whole rear part would have been removed, and towed on roads.
Differences with the late US XC-120:
- the R.45 kept a classical nose wheel
- the landing gear would be short, light, solid, stable
- removing the cargo-pod could be done only rearward
- the pod could not be released with a parachute while flying
But for fun, I draw as flying the podless R-45, above a normal podded one... Impossible? What-if the pod had been delivered and before it came back empty, an emergency evacuation (matter of life and death with killing armies invading) was obligatory: the empty R-45 may have tried to take off...

[Tophe]

- the R.45 kept a classical nose wheel
- the landing gear would be short, light, solid, stable
- removing the cargo-pod could be done only rearward

Other news from Belgium: the C-119 has been considered also as the SR-45, not low-wing but with a removable pod to be towed away rearward and keeping a nose wheel (before the USAF required front-and-aft removing of the pod, leading to the 1948 patent and building of the XC-120).
As the C-119 was first known as C-82B, flew in 1947, this special pod version of the C-82A (C-82P?) could be dated as somewhen in the range 1943-1947 (and the middle of it is 1945). Yes, just unsure, provisional.

[Tophe]

In the August-2005 issue of the magazine Le Fanatique de l'Aviation, I have read that the USAAF had wanted to replace its F-5 (foto-reco version of the P-38 Lightning) by the P-58 Chain-Lightning in a foto-reco version. Maybe this could have been a two-seater like the XP-58, with just addition of cameras (and unchanged layout) OR this could have been a high-speed single-seater like the P-38/F-5: see my provisional drawing RP-58 below.

[Tophe]

In the August-2005 issue of the magazine Le Fanatique de l'Aviation

In the same magazine, it was mentioned that the Hughes attack version XA-37 (from the pursuit XP-73) may have been coded  Design D-3 (from D-2). And the derivative XF-11/R-11 (from D-5) came from a 3-seater version with bigger fuselage and/or  a rear remote turret (XD-5? as the D-2 was also mentioned as XD-2 and DX-2).

[Tophe]

I understand the Hughes XD-5 above may shoot its own tailplane instead of the enemy behind. So a XD-5' with separate tailplanes may have been proposed, but all the strength calculations would have needed an update, as the layout is far less solid without rear link. Other possibility: XD-5'' with the turret on the tail, but how to justify the twin-boom layout anymore? (a central fuselage would have been more appropriate for such a central rear weight).

[Tophe]

I had ordered Justo Miranda's Unknown No.4 at http://www.luft46.com/rd/rdreams.html and I received yesterday. Very interesting... Most of all, for myself, a 3-view drawing of the Davis Manta, with lots of new explanations. I must correct my initial drawing (Manta-1 below) with the crescent-wing and bubble-canopy (Manta 2 below). I may add that it was a 1940 design of David Davis, with the name Bat at first, and the central double-engine could be replaced by a centrifugal turbojet (Manta-3 below); then in 1942 was created the Manta Aircraft Corporation to build the final design, keeping the crescent wing and double-propeller, but no more as pusher with twin-booms but as tractor with classical fuselage (P-75 like). Probably, in between, was considered a push-pull way (Manta-4 below), the 2 shafts from the double-engine going in opposite directions rather than in parallel.

[Tophe]

I had ordered Justo Miranda's Unknown No.4 at http://www.luft46.com/rd/rdreams.html and I received yesterday. Very interesting...

In the same booklet was a 5-view drawing of the twin-engined P-40, nice! This makes me correct my drawings of P-40T and T'' into P-40TE and TE''. Unlike the twin-engined P-40, these twin-boom derivatives of mine are not real projects, just mistakes, reading Supertom's 'wrong' words (but thanks! ) about a Real 'twin-boom' P-40, and I had not made enough checking before drawing my interpretation.  

[Tophe]

As seen above, the low wing was very imperfect for the XC-82 (and Ki-105 equivalent), because rotating blades needed not to hurt the ground, thus high engines, thus rather-high wing, thus (for a low wing) a rather high fuselage, difficult to reach for heavy loads, climbing from the ground.
BUT for a cargo glider, as the Ku-7, it was very different: both wing and fuselage could be very low, thus allowing :
- a short main landing gear in the booms, without very long (heavy & fragile) gears from a high position;
- a wide very stable main landing gear, from the wing, without narrow position from the central fuselage;
- a drag-less cumber-less main landing gear, needing no special pod when retracted, nor room in the fuselage.
It is almost sure that such a layout has been considered among the first Nihon-Kokusai designs leading to the Ku 7 order. Probably the high wing was selected at last in case a twin-engined derivative would be ordered next, which actually happened. Like for the SAM-23 that we will see next.

The provisional drawing above is what-ifingly named Ku 7 Kai, as possible derivative, in case it was proposed again when the test pilots of the Ku 7 said the balance was awful, dangerous, with the narrow landing gear.

[Tophe]

As well, this Moskalev SAM-23' cargo-glider with a low wing is not 'proven-true' with Historic sources, but very probable as temporary drawing (before considering the SAM-24 twin-engined derivative):

[Tophe]

To the list of non-genuine twin-boomers designed 1939-45, I must add the derivatives of the SNCA-SudEst SE 500: SE 600, SE C1, SE Trimoteur-30t, all were triplex-boomers, with a main central fuselage holding the tailplanes, while little extra-booms were linking fins and wings (and engines on the 3-engined Trimoteur and 2-engined 500). It would have been possible to design actual twin-boomers from that, truncating the central fuselage for a rear post or rear door or rear engine or rear jet pipe.

[Tophe]

In my book "Forked Ghosts" were presented all the twin-boom PROJECTS designed in 1939-45 (that I knew), not the famous IN-SERVICE twin-boomers of WW2. Though most of the leading twin-boomers 1939-45 were not hidden, as presented through derivatives: but one was absent, the Fokker G.1 – its initial project Ontwerp 129 is dated 1936, the glazed-nose derivative T-VI project is dated 1937 as well as the Super-G.1 and the G.2 (Ontwerp 135 & 154), so all far before 1939.
HOWEVER I have read today, in the old magazine Le Fana de l'Aviation Nr 125, that 16 copies of G-1B has been transferred in Germany in 1940, with deep interest. Maybe they were seen as very good two-seat fighters, better than Bf 110s, and considered for German production, with standard German engines of that time: Daimler-Benz DB.601. Thus the provisional G.1DB below:

[Tophe]

Provisional drawing: the Vultee XP-68 Tornado project (cancelled in 1941) was a late derivative of the XP-54 (first flown in 1943...). The engine would have been a 42 cylinders Wright R-2160 Tornado (? with 6x7 cylinders, thus much longer and narrower than the R-2800 Double-Wasp of 2x9?). I have read that this radial was surprisingly liquid cooled, in order to cool down even the rows far away from frontal area, while radial layout was chosen for maximum power.

[Tophe]

Here is an unknown twin-boomer found at
http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic...sp?TOPIC_ID=784


The markings suggest a US plane 1943, as true industrial project or true artist dream of those years, far away from our anachronic what-if inventions.
Note :
- the engine seems central, air-cooled, while the propellers are lateral, in front of the booms
- the weird shape of the fins (all below) is not explained, and the advantage of such a layout is difficult to imagine... engineer Elmayerle?
I am trying to reach the one that posted this picture, to know the precise magazine issue and picture title (maybe with the manufacturer/model names...)

[Tophe]

Provisional drawing: the Vultee XP-68

A friend has told me he had read the XP-68 had a ventral airscoop. Well, maybe the main one was ventral with 2 side scoops to complete, or there may be a single low one – I present the latter as XP-68B (B for Belly, of course).