Something for Tophe (2)

[Tophe]

The camo is coming along nicely, as are the props - whoops, did I just say that?

Found it again: in the twin-tail forum!

[K5054NZ]

^_^ You'll find out soon enough, Tophe, just wauit til I get my camera back!

[Tophe]

Waiting, dreaming, smiling... ^_^  

[K5054NZ]

Still no sign of my camera so the Trago is gathering dust.

[K5054NZ]

Try this link. I hope you'll like what you'll see. B)  

[Tophe]

Thanks for the link, so if I direct here, the visitor will be directed there...
(to a great Me 262Z model , very different from all others, ^_^  thanks & congratulations)

[Tophe]

So: far away from the Messerschmitt factories, somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere, came the Zac'erschmitt IA.9, mixing turboprop and turbojets in a wise way (cruise/rush).
I add here the other considered design: IA.9B. This one was first imagined in a central-push-pull 4-engined way, but there must be air-intake and jet-exhaust somewhere on a double-turboprop... The second step was a push+pull: 2 separate engines close to one another, the port one pushing and the starboard one pulling, alas the rear propeller was burnt by the other jet exhaust... So came this IA.9B version with a single engine driving 2 pulling propellers...

Landing gears? No need, these airplanes were hand-launched by a giant, looking like the pilot but scale 48/1...

[K5054NZ]

As always, a brilliant backstory Tophe! Thank you so very much for creating the IA.9 in 3D! Magnificent.      

[Tophe]

Thanks for your nice words, Zac, but you know that the end of the story cannot be told... Shht, I remind you but don't repeat...
The Fuerza Aerea didn't agree with the giant-man launching, saying they had none currently available , and requested a short solid landing gear to order, mandatory, and a 4-engined layout, obligatory. Ing. Zaccharia Yatez so proposed the IA.9C with variable pitch single-blade propellers: the blade was not turning whole circles anymore but half-circles (or even less for the central ones), the pitch being reverted before turning in the opposite direction, a few hundred times per minute. With good vibrations that would have pleased the Beach Boys, and the ground clearance was great!      Alas, this wise project was not ordered , the plans were buried in a secret garbage can, and nick-named IA.9Casa de los Locos (IA.9House of the Crazy people   ), to fool an eventual spy among the cleaning staff.  This remains top secret even now...

[Tophe]

Of course, with piston engines, the push-pull way would have been simple: IA.PP, Yapp... far less pleasant than the IA-9C above...

[elmayerle]

Thanks for your nice words, Zac, but you know that the end of the story cannot be told... Shht, I remind you but don't repeat...
The Fuerza Aerea didn't agree with the giant-man launching, saying they had none currently available , and requested a short solid landing gear to order, mandatory, and a 4-engined layout, obligatory. Ing. Zaccharia Yatez so proposed the IA.9C with variable pitch single-blade propellers: the blade was not turning whole circles anymore but half-circles (or even less for the central ones), the pitch being reverted before turning in the opposite direction, a few hundred times per minute. With good vibrations that would have pleased the Beach Boys, and the ground clearance was great!      Alas, this wise project was not ordered , the plans were buried in a secret garbage can, and nick-named IA.9Casa de los Locos (IA.9House of the Crazy people   ), to fool an eventual spy among the cleaning staff.  This remains top secret even now...

Umm, wouldn't this one be simpler to just have the two center engines driving a common gearbox with either one large prop or a set of counter-rotating props?  Consider the T40 or its improved (but unbuilt) version, the T54 (the T54 is to the T40 as the T56 is to the T38).

[Tophe]

Yes, an even new chapter was added, after the IA.PP/IA.9D: IA.9E (E for Evan or for Evita Perron?). Then from a French modeller came an IA.9F with the wings reverted upside down to have a perfect ground clearance for propellers (alas the wing profile was providing 'lift' downward, and the model never flew...).

[Tophe]

Well, I will not add propellers on my own Me 262Z from the MPM Mistel kit (on the contrary I discarded propellers on 7 recent models of mine among 9 with propellers, turned gliders), but to increase originality, I consider reverting wings to have jets above the wing... Of course, not to be forward swept, the wings will be reversed upside-down AND port-starboard.

Is it stupid, preventing free view of passengers? Hey this is a business jet, not a tourism panoramic viewpoint! Remember the starboard fuselage with rear seats is not for the big boss enjoying landscape, clouds and the stewardess low-neck, it is devoted to low employees (like me) that must stay focused on their computer screen and keyboard to work and work again! Bizjets are a tool for productivity, justifying their high price...

[Brian da Basher]

That's another stunning concept Tophe! Your treatise on the rear seats having a poor view reminds me of the explanation of why the windows in the World Trade Center were narrow slits - to keep office workers from being distracted by the view and focused on their work.

Brian da Basher
(whose desk at work faces a huge window from which he can watch planes land at the airport during dull moments)

[Tophe]

From the rocket flying wing Me 262A (Ho 262A?) that I presented in the topic http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=6469 there was of course a virtual Zwilling derivative: Ho 262Z . Not twin-tail nor twin-tail-boom alas , just a twin-pod tail-less plane...

Why?    Uh, flying wings badly need a very wide span to have effective ailerons and flaps, and a huge swept wing on a single heavy pod central is fragile , so it is better having 2 light pods at mid span, for solidity.