Twin-hull planes

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Colin1]

4-6 x 0.50in, 2 x 1150HP, 600km/h, available in 1942 (= fastest plane in Pacific war theatre)...

Hmmm... 1942...
Faster than a P-38F? At what altitude?

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hmmm... 1942...
Faster than a P-38F? At what altitude?

Just seen the comment
The P-38F was only introduced in late 1942 (even the -Es were rare) , so my claim has merit

 

[Colin1]

Just seen the comment
The P-38F was only introduced in late 1942 (even the -Es were rare) , so my claim has merit

Ahaaa!
So you escape my scrutiny by introducing your bogus twin-hull EARLY in 1942...

 

[tomo pauk]

You are a man of great wisdom

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[ccheese]

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

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Tzaw1]

What's next ?

Fiat CR.42 Gemelli
8)

 

[Butters]

How about the Do 635 Zwilling four-engine fighter? The ultimate piston engine bomber zerstorer...

JL

 

[GrauGeist]

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?

 

[jakeblues]

WOW ...wheres my exacto

 

[jamierd]

wasnt the twin mustang used for considerable time after the war

 

[tomo pauk]

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):

 

[tomo pauk]

wasnt the twin mustang used for considerable time after the war

Yep, IIRC it was the 1st USAF plane to score air victory in Korean war.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Geedee]

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