North: Twin-boom or not

[Tophe]

The John Dudley North (Compound) Aeroplane Patent US 2,062,599 at http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=XudHAAAAEBAJ
features exactly the same aspect of front view for
- a classical Mistel and...
- a surprising one with the lower component being a twin-boomer… (the main airplane being either the twin-boomer below or the classical airplane above).

 

[hesham]

Yes my dear Tophe,


it is a twin boom,and there is two different designs to the aircraft,note Fig. 1
and Fig.10.

 

[Tophe]

Thanks for this confirming my guess.
It is a 1934-1936 patent.

 

[Jemiba]

Well, the draftsman could be accused of having overly simplified the front views, I think.
In the case of the twin boomer, I'm pretty sure, that the fins still would be visible behind
the struts of landing gear and the wing of the upper component.
And clearly the nacelles/booms of the twin boomer are deeper, than the nacelles of the
"conventional" type, but the same drawing was used in both cases.
But just for illustrating the basic idea, it's ok of course.

 

[Tophe]

Thanks for this great analysis, with good explicating sketch!
Yes, it seems the frontal views were discarding the rear parts (the fin of the aircraft above should appear otherwise, and the lower tailplanes should be seen a little above the lower wing of the biplane).
While... the frontal views are not a complete duplication: the engines are a little different, for no reason it seems...