Author Topic: Article about twin-boom aircraft  (Read 30628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2005, 10:55:52 am »
And here is the pure twin-boom QP-38 UAVning…


P-38s – s meaning scales:
* with a 1/72 cockpit/pilot and a 1/32 plane (with freight compartments aft of the engines), the Lightning becomes maybe a twin-fuselage


* with a 1/144 cockpit/pilot on a 1/24 plane (with passenger cabins aft of the engines), the Lightning is probably a twin-fuselage, as much as the twin-hull Pemberton-Billing Venturi

 
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2005, 10:33:18 pm »
And here is the lifting-fuselage three-seater Uppercu-Burnelli P-38… :blink: Podless twin-boom?


And the airliner Canadian-Burnelli CBY-38, with bunches of 12 engines driving each propeller (and giant landing gears…)… :wacko: Triplex fuselage?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2005, 10:35:21 pm by Tophe »
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2005, 09:14:07 am »
Quote
And here is the pure twin-boom QP-38 UAVning…
Why a pilot-less Lightning in the 1940s, without electronics yet? :wacko:  :angry:  :wacko:
Well, what-if:
- Scale 1/24th: An enthusiast wanted to build a flying toy with this peculiar shape now common in the skies, with no need (on his own) of fake pilot nor fake guns...
- Scale 1/2nd: The USAF facing Ki-94 twin-boomers in 1945 was alarmed by the missing shots on these planes and an observer suggested an explanation: "our fighter pilots, our bomber and ground gunners, are all educated to direct fire on the center of the enemy aircraft, while this fails to hurt a twin-boomer! They must be educated by a twin-boom flying target: QP-38..."
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #33 on: March 26, 2005, 11:33:33 am »
As between twin-booms and twin-fuselages, there are intermediates between twin-tubes and two-tubes. The 4-engined P-55T (not much drag with 4 engines there, see?) has very different shapes on port and starboard, asymmetrical for sure, still a twin?
The derivative P-55U (push port, pull starboard) is even more different, but some twins are a boy and a girl, no?

 
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2005, 09:51:08 am »
I classify those projects as :
Bv P.166: twin-tail-booms, twin-pods
XT P.266: twin-tail-booms, single-pod
XT P.366: twin-tail-tube, single-fuselage, single-boom, single-pod... Weird!
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2005, 11:06:57 am »
Quote
* Rear post without rear weight, explaining the layout of G.1, P-61, Fw 189
Dream of mine:
I described: “the Northrop P-61 Widow is described in books as an airplane with a pilot in front and a rear post that needed to be not far away behind the tail, so a short central pod was installed, and the tailplane was carried aft by 2 lateral booms…”
The expert shouted: “Hey! You stupid what-if dreamer! Northrop engineers were the very top experts of Flying Wings in America! Why a tailplane on a Northrop fighter?! No need!!! W stands for Wing, flying Wing, not Widow, black Widow. P-61W, OK?! No, don’t answer, shut up!”

 
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2005, 10:31:17 pm »
- And the Messerschmitt Me 163Z would have been a twin of the tailless Me 163...
- No! You stupid what-ifer! All experts know clearly that Messerchmitt engineers were very classical, with their Bf 109 top achievment, so a Messerschmitt tailless design was completely impossible in Reality. The Bf 163 MUST have a tail!
- y... yes, Sir, sorry...
« Last Edit: March 27, 2005, 10:32:46 pm by Tophe »
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2005, 09:45:08 pm »
With the help of our dear MartinH Twin Meteor NF.14, I had drawn a few years ago a 1945 Twin of the F.3: let us call it TF.3 now, and I would like to add a different version: TB.3… F/B means (for me) Fuselage/Boom and not Fighter/Bomber; T means Twin and not Trainer/Two-seater; Mk.3 means 3-jets, with the F.3 having clearly a wrong name – Reality is wrong, simply, while fantasy is more logical, I believe it more than ever..
Well, as the new central air intakes would require a lot of scratch building, no need of such work on a linking tailplane: just external ones would be more simple for modellers - and away from hot exhaust for engineers.
On the opposite, for a smiling touch of asymmetry, one internal tailplane only is featured on the AB.3.
As this seemed unbalanced, designers may have simplified into the two-boom tB-3, with booms being no more obvious twins.

Designers could have proposed a simplified single-boom sB.3 (or a single-jet A.1) but there were not enough tails for me... Why was the tail lateral on the sB.3? (a symmetric single-fuselage 3-engined layout was possible) Uh, this was intended to secure baling out, without risk anymore to hurt the tail…
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still about 2-tails being not always twin-tails (logical introduction to these drawings…):
* The Bv-141˛ would have been a tandem-wing twin-plane (twinned both right/left and front/rear all at once…). I know it could have been a single-tail plane, but I have chosen to let the fin on the linking fuselage, because I need two tails absolutely… (this is not for control, this is a dream, able to fly at will). Question: what part do you count as fuselage in such a plane? As far as I am concerned, I would say, from port to starboard, there are 1 boom /1 fuselage /1 pod, and this is a 2 tail-tube plane, which is right for me…
* The Bv-141S is another twin freak (S means scale, maybe this meaning is not written with a S in German, but my Bv 141 was British: Airfix Bv 141, certified 100% “made in UK” …). The front/starboard part is a 1/72 model while the rear/port part is a 1/144 model (I hope it exists, well anyway what-if?). The rear one is inspired by our dear Glenn-Lyn’s creation, with the crew pod at wingtip. There, the counting is almost easy: 2 booms, 2 pods, 2 engines & 2 tails, and 2 tail-tubes for me. 4 seater: the parents front, the children aft, nice family plane…
I live in a new town, small, maybe there is no psychiatrist… well, no need, these well-balanced wise drawings rather prove I am mentally sane, no?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I like the Bv 141 but I prefer the Twin-Mustang… As the Mustang has already been twinned, I just need to twin the Twin-Mustang… The code P-88 has been chosen mixing the lateral Twin-Mustang (P-oo nick-name) and the vertical Mistel-Mustang (P-8 nick-name). Well, obviously 4 Mustangs together would have made too much tails for me, so I have used the pod for rear observer on 2 of them. This made 4 pilot axis, with 2 fuselages + 2 pods, but only 2 tails, 2 tail-tubes (as required) – with 4 engines and 6 seats.
As the 2 observers should be as far as possible to have the better view coverage, they are set diagonally. Logical.
This XP-88 seems very fragile, but with a lot of glue, with spars inside the pylons, it could have been okay (in plastic “1/72”, I mean). My problem was elsewhere: following my classical angle, one observer-post is hidden and the rear-end of the lower-port component is mysterious… The answer was moving forward the twin-above… and as the propellers had no risk anymore to intermesh, the twin-above could be lowered down, bringing much more solidity. A contract was immediately signed, with the code P-88A. No ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the Bv 141 and the Twin-Mustang had a (secret) baby: PB-841… I count on this one, from port to starboard: 1 fuselage, 1 boom, 1 pod, but I understand the ones counting 3 fuselages, or 2 (either external or else port+central)… Anyway such a model would feature 2 tails for this forum, and 2 tail-tubes for me…

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a variation to the former, I have drawn the more Mustang-ized Blohm-und-pursuit Bp-51. On this twin-tail plane, I count 2 booms and one pod, as far as I am concerned, with no more ‘fuselage’ than a P-38… (but you may count 1 or 2 or 3, you are free…).
And I add another double-Mustang two-tail bird (P-51t-2) that cannot be counted as a genuine twin. It is (or they are) a push-pull half-T-tail.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other variation from the PB-841: an asymmetric ‘almost normal’ P-82. Well, it is very easy to justify (outside narcotic psychomedicines): this P-82 had 2 engines rotating in the same direction, to lower cost through standardisation, but providing much torque so imbalance  with opposite stabilizers to compensate, this ‘P-82 Star (board)’ would be better balanced than the classical Twin-Mustang…
Maybe one of us will confirm if the genuine P-82 had such engines or not, and in which direction the propellers are rotating, then our dear Ing. Elmayerle will confirm if the counter-balancing half stabilizers must me starboard or port…

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the best way to explain why I did not separate twin-fuselage and twin-boom aircraft is to show the asymmetric Glider GP-82 below. Not 2 fuselages, not 2 booms, but 2 tubes holding the (twin-) tail(s).
These tubes are so different from one another that they are not perfect twins, while a single tailplane without external extension is not exactly a single tail that has been twinned… Nothing is simple, all is possible: just say What-if…

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As between boom and fuselage, some separations are very uneasy to define. The twin-tail SEAPLANES are often classified as either hull-flying-boats (twin-hull like the Twin-Princess, single-Hull like the Bv138) or else: airplanes with floats (twin-float like the P-38 for the Philippines, single-float like the Cole DryDuck). And what about the P-38HF below?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the Willoughby Delta F prototype of Great Britain (or below: what-if ‘P-82 - -‘ of mine) a twin-boomer? I guess not, as a wing-like flat part is not a genuine “boom”. It is not a “twin-tail-tube”either as this flat part is not a genuine “tube” either. Well, I classify them as peculiar “flying wings”, with a central ‘hole’. Uneasy life of aviation taxonomist…

 
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #38 on: June 12, 2005, 04:09:40 am »
Quote
Designers could have proposed a simplified single-boom sB.3 (or a single-jet A.1) but there were not enough tails for me...
Ups, shame on me : checking the Unicraft site, I have realized the Meteor A.1 is not a what-if invention of mine but a memory of Igor's Single-Jet Meteor :wub:
See much more at http://www.geocities.com/asymmetrics/
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2005, 04:34:08 am »
Well Igor's had a port jet while 'mine' had a starboard one... What-if we join such asymmetric planes: BF-2 symmetric balance... 1 is an odd number, it is well known, while 2=1+1 is not odd...
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2005, 10:35:16 am »
Quote
What-if we join such asymmetric planes
The Single-jet asymmetric Meteor had a cockpit-fuselage and an engined-pod, while the leading asymmetrical plane is opposite: Bv 141 with cockpit-pod and engined-fuselage. Here also, linking a starboard version with a port one would have given an interesting freak: Bv 1441. To bring some company on the virtual shelf, I add a double Fw 189E' (asymmetrical version inspired by Igor’s push-pull one) in the opposite direction: Fw 1881E…
Why a hell such a layout? Huh… not for pilots nor commanding generals but for smiling modellers: What-if.

 
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2005, 11:02:28 am »
Other kind of asymmetrical double-plane 1945 : the Tandem-Tandem-Tigercat :blink:  :wacko: , thanks once more to Igor's
http://www.geocities.com/asymmetrics/  :wub:
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2005, 10:53:30 pm »
In an article/book illustrating aeronautic shapes, the W gull-wing should include such a very special way, twin-fuselage, matching the W-definition differently.

from http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...160&#entry80158 :
Quote
Well, here is the Jeffry Howling Tophe P-82gul
* Why a W gull wing on a Mustang?: as for the F4U project, too much power may lead to a giant 4-bladed propeller, too long fragile legs (landing gear), while a gull-wing decrease the distance wing/ground thus allows solid legs.
* Moreover, on a Twin-Mustang, an actual W wing (rather than WW or V-straight-V or V-V-V) increase in the center the distance wing-ground, providing room for a giant extra-tank, or a giant radar. Nice addition to the Mustang family, thanks JF & JHM. :)
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2005, 02:33:52 pm »
Quote
Quote
Christophe, you magician, can you please please please also render a single fuselage P-51 Mustang with the bent gull-wing like a Corsair's?  Please.
Please?
You know, a single fuselage, no boom, no asymmetry... this is painful for me :(
But for a dear friend imploring, I can be strong and face the pain ;)
Thanks to JHM (F-5U topic quoted), here is below another twin-boom Mustang, P-51W, with a low tailplane and rather clear rear post (the same is possible with external tailplanes only, but this is less solid)
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14481
    • my what-if models
Article about twin-boom aircraft
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2005, 11:19:23 am »
In English, W may mean Wing too, and here are 2 more classification puzzles, thanks to Noxioux: have these P-82wg and P-51wg 2 tails or just a big and complicated wing (with fins above)?
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]