Update for "The end of Forked Ghosts"

[Tophe]

Here is the source for my drawing of the Vultee Model 70:

The nose (detail at the bottom right) was puzzling me , I asked Lark to explain me his reading of "a nose mounted radiator for engine/oil cooling with provisions for armament barrel/projectile clearance trough the radiator core". Rifles in the radiator hole?  He answered nicely, helping to understand:
There are several possibilities :
- It is technical to do to make holes in the radiator an fit a pipe in it. The coolant liquid is fluing around the pipes. The gun barrels are running trough the pipes (space between pipe wall and the barrel) while the gun mechanism is behind the radiator.
- Radiator can be made annular (ring alike) with guns in the middle opening
- Radiator can be made frame like with guns again in the middle. Coolant flow is in the frame.
All right, thanks !

[Tophe]

Seeing (in Overscan's site at http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...php?topic=339.0 ) the C-82-II project of 1948, it seems obvious that the Fairchild XC-82 project was considered either with 2 powerful engines (F-78), or with four smaller (F-78B?), cheaper or more available, perhaps more reliable.

The Faichild twin-boom cargo family could have been:
Packet (--> XC-82) : built 2×R-2800 big (or 4×R-1820)
Packet II (--> XC-119): built 2×R-4360 huge (or 4×R-2800)

[Tophe]

A friend directed me to a weird twin-tail aircraft patent, with application in November 1945: Jeffreys GB601,509 "Improvements in or relating to Aircraft". See http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&...DX=GB601509&F=0
There are no wings but two elongated rotors with helical grooves pushing forward and upward (my arrows are the airflow), no landing gear...

So different from everything we know...

[Tophe]

Another Patent, Stalker US639,125 of 1941 delivered in 1950 as GB639,125 (see http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&...DX=GB639125&F=0 ). This is for a boundary layer control, presented with either a single-pusher-propeller twin-boom layout or a twin-pusher-propeller classical layout. They had in common a great distance between the wing and the pusher propeller(s), probably to decrease the interference of the propeller on the wing at low speed.

Thanks Max.

[Tophe]

From the topic http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...showtopic=11262 :

Late war RAF P-38 with Griffons and contra props

Take it one step farther and do the cleanups Kelly Johnson wanted to do but never could 'cause they'd disrupt production lines:
- Replace the radiators and oil coolers with leading edge units along the lines of what the Mosquito had; depending on how badly it'd mess up the plumbing, look at doing something similar with the intercoolers for the turbochargers (why not?  The Griffon would adapt better than the Merline would)
- Longer center nacelle, along the lines of the "Lightning Swordfish" with bubble canopy (either sngel-seat or dual-seat cockpit).

I have drawn this P-38-II you were speaking of, and included it here (with the standard P-38 to compare) as you said it was a serious project...

[Tophe]

At http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...php?topic=242.0 pometablava presented the source picture for the Flying Whale illustrated in Forked Ghosts with the title "Martin XB-16" (3rd design with this code). The information came from "International Air Power Review Vol.4, 5 and 13. Airtime Publishing".
So it is confirmed the Flying Whale was a late public presentation of an old USAF cancelled project...

[Tophe]

In the Supplement to Forked Ghosts Nr 1, I presented the Howard Nebesar, a 4-engined cargo plane with a thick wing.
Now, thanks to a friend, I have discovered (at http://www.vintage-reprints.com/catalog/pr...oducts_id=48834 ) a patent for an more classical 2-engined cargo with a high wing, filed in 1941 by Robert J. Nebesar:

- BUT the originality is its being mentioned as Amphibian, and I don't know how the water would be prevented from overflowing into the load when the rear door is opened... (same problem as for the sea versions of Go 242/244)
- According to this site, this was the patent #48834 "Design for an amphibian airplane or like", Mr Nebesar being a Czech living in Florida. But these Patent numbers seem dubious as the Sznycer 136296 (figure appearing on the thumbnail) is labeled as Patent 8835. I wonder also if the Howard Nebesar was a design of Mr Nebesar for the Howard Aircarft Corp.
- According to esp@cenet.com, Robert J. Nebesar deposited 14 US patents but not this one: for the Universal Molded Corp (1945-56) and for the Douglas Aircraft Co Inc (1968). But it seems there are not all patents at esp@cenet... Some are older than 1941, but many ones are missing. The Sznycer 136296 of 1943, for instance, is not included.
- I have ordered today the vintage reprint of this patent artwork (and 2 other twin-boomers 1939-1943), I hope to see the tail and be able to post an improved "box" view someday.

[Tophe]

At http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&...DX=GB605641&F=0 is the Patent GB605,641 of R.A. Robert for a "multi-engined airplane", published 1948, filed 1946 in UK, from sources 1942-43 in France.
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, but the final tailplanes followed another Robert Patent, and the front booms were different at last with a cooling device (see below the comparison).

There are single-propeller and contra-rotating propellers versions in the same Patent.

[Tophe]

(from a topic of mine at http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ )
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RLM_a...ft_designations the family Junkers Ju 52 family is Ju 52/252/352 (all rather famous) but also Ju 452 (derivative of the Ju 252) and no Ju 152, as the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 had already taken this RLM code [but a Klemm Kl 152 fighter was mentioned, while a Putnam book mentioned the Horten Ho 252...]
It seems very possible that the Ju 452 was a Zwilling Ju 252Z (like the Me 409 was a Zwilling Me 209Z) - but not sure (like the Ju 488 was not a Zwilling Ju 288Z)...

(thanks to http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?http://...nkers/ju252.htm )

Before receiving confirmations, I dream:
- The 6-engined Ju 52/3m x2 (Junkers/Aircavpinkteam Ju 52Z) being over-cost, a Ju 52Z/4m has been designed.
- With the need of higher speed, the nose engines came back, streamlined, and the Ju 52Z became Ju 152, before the choice went to the single fuselage Ju 252 – the code 152 then being transfered to Kurt Tank for his Ta 152...

[Tophe]

More at http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/germany.html :
Fw 252 : Single-jet single-seat fighter (1944); project only
Ju 452 : Three-engine cargo transport; derivative of Ju 252 in wooden construction; project only?
The 3-engined layout instead of 5 or 6 or 7 seemed not to match my Zwilling dream, BUT using the Ju 52Z/4m recipe, nose engines can be discarded: from 5-engined Ju 452Z V0 (left below) to 3-engined Ju 452Z V1 (right below)...

(thanks to the same source http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?http://...nkers/ju252.htm )

[Tophe]

I have discovered (at http://www.vintage-reprints.com/catalog/pr...oducts_id=48834 ) a patent for a 2-engined cargo with a high wing, filed in 1941
- this was an "amphibian airplane or the like"
- I have ordered the vintage reprint of this patent artwork, I hope to see the tail

I received yesterday the nice copy of the Nebesar Design 129,412 (US Patent office), here is the improved box-view of mine:

Surprisingly, the official Patent US129412 is not an aircraft at all but an old "box-opener" tool of 1872 ( http://v3.espacenet.com/textdraw?DB=EPODOC...=0&QPN=US129412 )

[Tophe]

The Rogers Design 113,880 of 1939 (from front up, from rear below) is titled Airship. See at http://www.adventurelounge.com/aircraft/fu...design/047.html

Well, the Rogers Design US113,879, filed in January 1939 by the US Patent office [I bought a copy at http://www.vintage-reprints.com/catalog/pr...roducts_id=9069 ], confirmed (on a single rotor preliminary version) these were twin-boom airships...

The official Patent US113,879 is not a 1939 aircraft but a 1871 "spring roller shade" ( http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&...=0&QPN=US113879 )

[Tophe]

*At http://www.vintage-reprints.com/catalog/pr...oducts_id=48774 and http://www.vintage-reprints.com/catalog/pr...oducts_id=48773 were 2 versions of a weird twin-boom 1943 "hydroplane" design. I bought a copy of the former and it is the Gazda Design 136,792 filed in 1941 by the US Patent office. [However the Patent US136792 is not such an hydroplane of the 1940s but a 1878 sewing machine (see http://v3.espacenet.com/textdraw?DB=EPODOC...=0&QPN=US136792 )]
* With so tiny wings (no external wings outside the booms), was it really an aircraft? I checked the Jane's Aerospace Dictionary: "Hydroplane = Light boat which skims water surface on planning bottom when at high speed; erroneously misused for seaplane and/or hydrofoil." So this was either a "boat" properly named or a seaplane wrongly named...
* Fortunately, Espacenet.com found a Gazda patent: US2,354,453 filed in 1941 with both versions (and non twin-boom ones) and a long text: http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&...0&QPN=US2354453 . And this is a kind of WIG craft, not actually flying but taking off from the water and staying in the air, at almost zero altitude: "This invention relates to a floating fighter craft which is designed to carry out the same functions upon water that a fighter carries out in the air".

Weird!  And alas unbuilt ever... We may consider this layout in plastic from an available twin-boom twin-floatplane  but there is none on the market and that requires scratch-building... Too hard for me.  

[Tophe]

Evan directed me to the unlimited hydroplane racing, with craft like this one:

from http://www.seafair.com/x571.asp
I think the Gazda was much different, to carry a torpedo above water. Did it really take over? I am not sure anymore...

[Tophe]

The (Patent) Brevet of Francis Maillard FR 992.237 (see at http://v3.espacenet.com/textdraw?DB=EPODOC...=0&QPN=FR992237 ) was filed in 1944 for the SNCASO company. It was based on free separate wings, linked by a mechanical articulation, to handle blast in flight or bump on landing without tendency to break the solid cargo plane apart.