Twin P-40
- Thread starter Colin1
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
God that is ugly... in a very appealing sort of way 
Did this ever fly then, or does 'plywood stage' mean it was only ever mocked-up?
Did this ever fly then, or does 'plywood stage' mean it was only ever mocked-up?
According to the article, it briefly mentions that is thought to of only been a mock-up. Still, it is an interesting model, if just a little on the ugly side.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
God that is ugly... in a very appealing sort of way
I kinda like it! Although it doesn't quite look right... those nacelles are huge!
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
It does have 'something' about it... but you're right, the nacelles look really out of proportion.
ccheese
Member In Perpetuity
Those nacelles really look huge !! It looks like it needs tail booms,
ala P-38....
Charles
ala P-38....
Charles
- Thread starter
- #8
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I can't believe the undercarriage (would have) remained in its original P-40 position outside of those nacelles, it makes for an unnecessarily unclean frontal area given that the nacelles look capable of easily swallowing the gear mechanism - they're enormous
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Very interesting, hadn't heard of this before, thanks Colin.
Have to agree it's ugly, unbalanced, somewhat pointless and not user friendly. Wonder why Curtiss didn't go ahead with the plans then..........!!
Have to agree it's ugly, unbalanced, somewhat pointless and not user friendly. Wonder why Curtiss didn't go ahead with the plans then..........!!
Good effort with the work...BUT! it's just not right.....
Matt308
Glock Perfection
He blew it. Now imagine the same thing but F-82 style.
Now that would have looked elegant!
Now that would have looked elegant!
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
It is ugly, but wonder what weapons would have been mounted on it. And where would u mount them. In the nacells, or wings?
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
My money would be on 4x 50s and a 20mm Hispano in the nose, a la the P-38. Possibly a bomb under the fuselage like on the single-engined variant as well - or maybe one under each wing root/nacelle?
evangilder
"Shooter"
That's just not right. Had they made that one, it would have been a candidate for the "butt-ugly airplanes" thread. Aside from having 2 engines for redundancy, I don't really see much of a benefit.
Actually it probably would never had made it past the proto stage. Look at how high the engine cells are compared to the canopy. Visibulity is greatly reduced. Pilots would have been a sitting duck in this thing in combat.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Good point, Paul. Talk about tunnel vision!
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
The only reason I can see for the concept, is as an emergency transport, for example, 'Casevac', with a casualty, passenger, agent, or freight in the rear of each nacelle. But then, why? There were already suitable types in operation!
Thorlifter
Captain
I think we all agree that That is one ugly plane!!!!!
Hi Colin,
What I don't understand about the twin P-40 is how the airplane is supposed to preserve its centre of gravity and its aerodynamic controllability.
With two engines in front of the centre of gravity instead of one, something has to be put in the back to avoid the aircraft simply nosing over on the ground - don't even think about flying! The large nacelles look as if they're well-suited for carrying large amounts of fuel, which is a good idea as two engines will need twice as much fuel as a single engine, and it's nice to see that the variable load is right on the centre of gravity where it won't create any trim problems while it's consumed, but it will do nothing to cure the originally nose-heavy trim either. And if the armament is going to be carried in the nose, there's even more stuff in front of the centre of gravity, making things go from bad to worse ...
Aerodynamically, the tail will not be large enough to guarantee stability with the large additional surfaces in front of the centre of gravity, and a long fuselage plug (as seen on the Fw 190D) will be the least that'll be required. Even if this is added, if there is no change to the original wing the aircraft will end up with a rather high stall speed and accordingly very hot take-off and landing characteristics. So you're probably going to need a new wing as well, and this will require a yet larger tail moment. The larger wing is going to create more drag as well, unless you avoid enlarging it by re-designing the old wing to incorporate high-lift devices ...
You might be better off just designing a brand new twin, and I guess that is what historically kept Curtiss from pursuing the twin P-40 project
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
What I don't understand about the twin P-40 is how the airplane is supposed to preserve its centre of gravity and its aerodynamic controllability.
With two engines in front of the centre of gravity instead of one, something has to be put in the back to avoid the aircraft simply nosing over on the ground - don't even think about flying! The large nacelles look as if they're well-suited for carrying large amounts of fuel, which is a good idea as two engines will need twice as much fuel as a single engine, and it's nice to see that the variable load is right on the centre of gravity where it won't create any trim problems while it's consumed, but it will do nothing to cure the originally nose-heavy trim either. And if the armament is going to be carried in the nose, there's even more stuff in front of the centre of gravity, making things go from bad to worse ...
Aerodynamically, the tail will not be large enough to guarantee stability with the large additional surfaces in front of the centre of gravity, and a long fuselage plug (as seen on the Fw 190D) will be the least that'll be required. Even if this is added, if there is no change to the original wing the aircraft will end up with a rather high stall speed and accordingly very hot take-off and landing characteristics. So you're probably going to need a new wing as well, and this will require a yet larger tail moment. The larger wing is going to create more drag as well, unless you avoid enlarging it by re-designing the old wing to incorporate high-lift devices ...
You might be better off just designing a brand new twin, and I guess that is what historically kept Curtiss from pursuing the twin P-40 project
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
