Twin P-40

Discussion in 'Start to Finish Builds' started by Colin1, Apr 10, 2009.

  1. 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
  2. Wurger

    Wurger Siggy Master
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    47,768
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A retired military Navigator/ATC, FIS controller
    Location:
    Poland
    He he he ....interesting.:)
     
  3. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    God that is ugly... in a very appealing sort of way :lol: Did this ever fly then, or does 'plywood stage' mean it was only ever mocked-up?
     
  4. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    41,790
    Likes Received:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    Location:
    Portsmouth / Royal Deeside, UK
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  5. mkloby

    mkloby Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,561
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    USMC - Capt - 7532
    Location:
    Jacksonville, NC
    I kinda like it! Although it doesn't quite look right... those nacelles are huge!
     
  6. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    It does have 'something' about it... but you're right, the nacelles look really out of proportion.
     
  7. 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.
    Those nacelles really look huge !! It looks like it needs tail booms,
    ala P-38....

    Charles
     
  8. 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
    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
     
  9. Airframes

    Airframes Benevolens Magister

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    47,726
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    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..........!!
     
  10. Wayne Little

    Wayne Little Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    51,197
    Likes Received:
    849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Adelaide Sth. Aust.
    Good effort with the work...BUT! it's just not right.....:shock:
     
  11. Matt308

    Matt308 Glock Perfection
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Washington State
    He blew it. Now imagine the same thing but F-82 style.

    Now that would have looked elegant!
     
  12. beaupower32

    beaupower32 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    :shock: It is ugly, but wonder what weapons would have been mounted on it. And where would u mount them. In the nacells, or wings?
     
  13. Micdrow

    Micdrow “Archive”
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    7,716
    Likes Received:
    424
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Occupation:
    Manufacture Tech
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Considering he made it off the is picture I dont think it looks that bad.
     

    Attached Files:

    • 43.JPG
      43.JPG
      File size:
      96.2 KB
      Views:
      48
  14. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    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?
     
  15. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  16. Micdrow

    Micdrow “Archive”
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    7,716
    Likes Received:
    424
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Occupation:
    Manufacture Tech
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    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.
     
  17. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    Good point, Paul. Talk about tunnel vision!
     
  18. Airframes

    Airframes Benevolens Magister

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    47,726
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    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!
     
  19. Thorlifter

    Thorlifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    7,911
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    IT Nerd
    Location:
    Dallas, Tx Jubail, Saudi Arabia
    I think we all agree that That is one ugly plane!!!!!
     
  20. HoHun

    HoHun Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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)
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Micdrow
    Replies:
    179
    Views:
    2,692
  2. T Bolt
    Replies:
    212
    Views:
    18,156
  3. Clay_Allison
    Replies:
    330
    Views:
    26,221
  4. sunny91
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,598
  5. 10tweaker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,154

Share This Page