Tophe's slanting views

[elmayerle]

You are very right: the PZL-38Z and Br-693Z were very close:

(thanks...)

Hmm, what if you used a constant-chord horizontal section between the two fuselages and spaced the two vertical tails above the horizontal surface, equally distant from the outboard vertical tails; something like a four-vertical-tail version of the OV-1 tail surfaces?

[Tophe]

Like this?

Thanks for this improvement!

[elmayerle]

Precisely.  I think it would work better than separate sets of twin tail surfaces as you would not get any interference drag from flows around adjacent vertical surfaces interfering with each other.

[Tophe]

Thanks engineer! :)

[Tophe]

The XP-47Y, YP-47Y, P-47Y were single-engine fighters of course but they had no ugly big nose, they had 2 slim noses! The designers made a twin-boomer at last.

[apophenia]

Oooo, the final P-47Y is especially nice!   :)

[Tophe]

Oooo, the final P-47Y is especially nice!   :)

Thanks! This one is also my favourite, as twin-boom non triplex-boom, while I wanted to show the lineage...

[lauhof52]

Oooo, the final P-47Y is especially nice!   :)

I second that, Tophe!

[Tophe]

The Supermarine Twin-Spitfire II was a Very Long Range fighter, shutting off one engine in cruise flight:

[Logan Hartke]

I wouldn't want to bail out of it, but it sure does look cool!

You could just about use the engine pod from a Supermarine Seagull and put it on a Spitfire to achieve that. I'd also be interested to see your take on this variant with just the engine mounted above, no engine in the nose.

Cheers,

Logan

[Tophe]

Thanks Logan for your opinion/explanation... (I was wondering why the Spitfires II below were designed this way and you gave the clue).

I thought the RAF officers had yelled "hey! a Spitfire must be single-engined, otherwise this is heresy!" or they wanted efficient noses (like the P-38 fighter or Fw-189 observer) but no, the reason was a safe bailing out (ventral), without unreliable explosive rear-propeller nor the obstacle by the front-propeller-shaft from the central engine. Thanks again!

[Tophe]

Different twin-engined Spitfires:

[Tophe]

Of course, after the first principle sketches came the actual projects, with different fins, to protect the propellers from hurting the runway:

[Tophe]

The final goal, of course, was a 4-engined Twin-Spitfire, of either type:

[GTX_Admin]

I like…although I would probably move the propellors forward a little.

[Tophe]

What?! For the push-pull one, the rear engine must be as close as possible to the center of gravity (the propeller being somewhere behind)...
While, for the other one, well, you are right and this was even mass-produced this way (as the famous Gupermarine-Tupermarine-Xupermarine GTX-25 Twin-Twin-Spitfire II):

[Tophe]

this was even mass-produced this way (as the famous Gupermarine-Tupermarine-Xupermarine GTX-25 Twin-Twin-Spitfire II):

A little more complex, the very-very-very-very-long-range GTX-2525 Double-Twin-Twin-Spitfire IV was not mass-produced, it was sold to Germany 1946 as Mistel-Zwilling-Spitfire:

[Tophe]

from Faust's great topic about the Fw-380 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4752.0):

If a Mustang was good, and they made a Twin Mustang, then it stands to reason that since the FW-190 D9 was good, there really should have been a twin of that!

I don't love Reality but I just tell what I have read in Edgar Shmued (the Mustang's designer) autobiography: the Twin-Mustang was not at all a double P-51, but a far bigger airplane than a double P-51, just a derivative of a very different twin-fuselage airplane on which were installed Mustang-like features: bubble-canopy, belly-air-scoop, etc. I don't want to divert from your wonderful Fw-380 subject, so I will post the illustrated explanation in my own topic, later.

Here is the illustration proof:

[Tophe]

As a further demonstrating joke, here is the zwilling (twin-plane) asymmetrically built with a P-51 and a half P-82...:

[Tophe]

With its free nose like a P-38 Lightning, the Mitsubishi A6M14-1 was very dangerous for its enemies:

[Tophe]

Well, as far as I am concerned, I prefer the Double Zero A6M14-2 and Triple Zero A6M14-3 (how do you say Double Zero and Triple Zero in Japanese?):

[Tophe]

I know I know, you will say: "this designer was a crazy lunatic: a Double-Zero did not need at all to be asymmetric!". This is right and, of course, the symmetric A6M11 Twin-Zero was designed first (with the quadruple-Zero A6M11Z as a complement, like the A6M3 gave the twin-engined twin-fuselage A6M3Z)...

[finsrin]

Both twin and quad engine Zeros are cool
Can add fuselage engine for 3-6 engine Zeros.

[Tophe]

Yes! The Finsrinnishi A6M13 (and 13Z), were faster than any P-51 or P-47, while... without dangerous free nose, they were just civilian aircraft. I like them even more for that, thanks!

[Tophe]

The Finsrinnishi A6M13 (and 13Z)

Later, the Tophitsubishi twin-boom interceptor should have been coded A6M15 but it was coded A6M38 to refer to the opponent it was surpassing...