Twin-hull planes

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tomo pauk, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    With greetings to the fellow member jakesblues for making me messing with what-if planes, I proudly present twin P-40B.
    4-6 x 0.50in, 2 x 1150HP, 600km/h, available in 1942 (= fastest plane in Pacific war theatre).
    The twin P-40F and -L would do cca 630 (early 1943), the -N perhaps 650 (late 43). The night fighter possible as early as 1942, instead of Beaufighters for US service.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Hmmm... 1942...
    Faster than a P-38F? At what altitude?
     
  3. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #3 tomo pauk, Mar 10, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2010
    Twin P-51A, not much of innovation here, but some performance :)
    6 x .50in, 2 x 1200 HP, perhaps up to 670-680km/h (comparable with what was expected of Bf-109Z, with 2 x 1350 HP), available as early as 1942. Maybe also as a night fighter.
    With 2 x cca1350 - easily beating 700km/h. Allison engines all the way.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Someone would say: why do you think those planes would be that faster then their single-hulled siblings?
    I base my estimates upon comparison of P-82 vs P-51H (the -H had notably more power per no. of hulls, but speed was about the same) and Bf-109Z vs. 109F (same power, Z was to be much faster), and then some math. Namely, if one engine pulls 100% of a wing, 100% of the horizontal stabilator, 100% of a radio and 100% of weaponry in single-hull plane, the same engine would pull only about 75% of a wing, 50% of the horiz . stabilator, radio and weaponry in twin-hull plane.
     
  5. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Twin Hurricane IIC, available in 1942.
    4 x 20mm, optional 1 x 40mm (as seen on picture), optional 3 x 4 rail rocket launcher, 2 x 1450HP, perhaps 650 km/h clean - note the radiators moved to central wing.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Just seen the comment :)
    The P-38F was only introduced in late 1942 (even the -Es were rare) , so my claim has merit :)
     
  7. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ahaaa!
    So you escape my scrutiny by introducing your bogus twin-hull EARLY in 1942... :)
     
  8. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are a man of great wisdom :)
     
  9. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Boy, this is contageous, like flu or something...

    The twin MC-200: 4 x 12,7mm, 2x 830 HP, performance comparable to twin P-36 due to more streamlined wings (though semi-open canopy might interfere), available in late 1940.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. ccheese

    ccheese Member In Perpetuity
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,669
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    R E T I R E D !!
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    What's next ? Twin bf-109's ?? Why stop there... Twin "Zero's" ??

    Next time extend the elevator so it goes outboard of the fuselage. Looks better that way....

    In reference to that twin P-51A.... Why Allison engines ???? R/R was better !

    Charles
     
  11. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yep, RR were better, but Allisons were way more easily available for US in the pre-1944 time frame:)

    Twin 109 existed as a project, so I won't bother.
     
  12. Tzaw1

    Tzaw1 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Warszawa
    Home Page:
    Fiat CR.42 Gemelli
    8)
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Butters

    Butters Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    carpenter
    Location:
    South Shore of Nova Scotia
    How about the Do 635 Zwilling four-engine fighter? The ultimate piston engine bomber zerstorer...:twisted:

    JL
     
  14. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,208
    Likes Received:
    2,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    Interesting ideas...

    Ok, so how about a Bf110 "Zwilling"...with a third engine in the center at the mainwing joint?

    Or better still, a Me410 in the same configuration?
     
  15. jakeblues

    jakeblues Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Peoria,Illinois
    WOW ...wheres my exacto
     
  16. jamierd

    jamierd Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    chef
    Location:
    Glenrothes Scotland
    wasnt the twin mustang used for considerable time after the war
     
  17. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #17 tomo pauk, Mar 11, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2010
    The twin P-36 I've posted in another thread.
    4 x 0.50in, 37mm (derived AA piece) optional, 2 x 1200 HP, up to 550 km/h, feasible way before Pearl Harbour (= faster then mid-1942 Japanese planes):
     

    Attached Files:

  18. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yep, IIRC it was the 1st USAF plane to score air victory in Korean war.
     
  19. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Twin P-39, many versions feasible :)
    Eg. twin P-39N, 4 x .50in, 3 x 37mm, perhaps up to 400 mph; twin P-39Q well beyond 650 km/h.
    Light weight/long range version, with 37mm it's ammo eliminated and replaced with fuel tanks.
    Night fighter version, a la P-82, elements of radar electronics replace the 37mm ammo, better than anything Germans had in hand, no need for P-61 to be developed produced.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Geedee

    Geedee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,292
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire, UK
    Some interesting ideas here but has anyone thought about how they'd manage to make one radial run the other way so that you wouldn't have the problem of torque wazzing you off to one side when you firewall the loudlevers on the take off run ?

    Extending the thread a bit more, what about a re-engined B17 with the Cyclones ditched and replaced with the Wright 'Corncob' ?.

    I've also run up some re-engined Spitfire profiles...fitted with a radial from P47. I'll add the pics when I'm back home this evening.

    Been thinking about it and have come up with a few questions (there are probably loads more but I'll leave that for you guys to chew the fat over)

    Radials have some advantages over an inline water cooled I.C.E.

    You wouldnt need the radiators under the wings / fuselage reducing drag...even though the radial would normally have a greater forward cross section

    You could get a similar horsepower output (not sure about about fuel consumption tho ?)

    Not sure about mechanical complexity either

    What view from the cockpit....better or worse ?

    Simpler engine change requirements ?

    Any difference in engine management complexity
     
Loading...

Share This Page