• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Twin-Cargomaster, Jet-Cargomaster

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,150
Reaction score
37
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
In Le Fana de l'Aviation #470, January 2009:
"(Douglas C-133 Cargomaster monography)
Archives include drawings of a twin-plane looking like the Heinkel 111Z Zwilling: a machine with 7 engines with 2 C-133 fuselages linked by a central plan holding 3 engines.
The Douglas D-895 was more interesting, matching the C-133B fuselage to the wing and engines of the DC-8. As many ideas having several advantages, those projects were not revealed except in specialised popular magazines".

Have anyone seen pictures of these?
 

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,150
Reaction score
37
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Skybolt said:
Renè Francilon.. (perhaps..) ;)
He is the author of this nice monography, but it seems he had not seen those magazines, otherwise he would have presented the pictures (I heard the Copyright on magazines is 30-year long, so for a plane of the 1960s, the picture could be free, no?)
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
683
crazy Idea
i photoshop around for a Twin C-133 (see Picture )

looks crazy

but Wat is the use of Twin C-133 ?
you jump from 4 to 7 turoboprops, but you get more death weight with second hull

equip a C-133 with DC-8 Pratt & Whitney JT4A-9 turbojets makes more sense !
 

Attachments

  • C-133.jpg
    C-133.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 228

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,150
Reaction score
37
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Michel Van said:
crazy Idea
i photoshop around for a Twin C-133 (see Picture )
looks crazy
but Wat is the use of Twin C-133 ?
you jump from 4 to 7 turoboprops, but you get more death weight with second hull
Thanks a lot Michel for this delicious Photoshop job! ;D I guess you are right for the separate tails, justifying the mention of He111Z rather than Twin-Mustang.
Concerning the interest of the "C-133Z", it would be slightly different from the He11Z as there are 7 engines (4+4-1) and not 9 (4+4+1). So... the goal seems not the highest performance, but the quick availability of a double-load new aircraft (without designing/building/developping a brand new single one). Why do you say this is crazy? many twin-planes have been designed this way. Few have been built I agree and there are drawbacks, but (as a try in a design bureau) that looks very possible. No?
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,226
Reaction score
933
One slight problem may have been the track of the undercarriage, which
( for the 7 engined version, which may have compensated for the additional
dead weight ) would have been around 42 m ! ;)

Not just made for use on every airfield ...
 

Attachments

  • Twin_C-133.GIF
    Twin_C-133.GIF
    50.6 KB · Views: 194

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
196
Jemiba said:
One slight problem may have been the track of the undercarriage, which
( for the 7 engined version, which may have compensated for the additional
dead weight ) would have been around 42 m ! ;)

Not just made for use on every airfield ...


Also if I may

Without the tail plane being linked/joint, there would be a tremendous amount stress at the point of the new inner wing section?


Regards
Pioneer
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
683
Pioneer said:
Also if I may

Without the tail plane being linked/joint, there would be a tremendous amount stress at the point of the new inner wing section?

Regards
Pioneer

oh yes, the stress is tremendous
but still I wounder Wat has to be transported with a Twin C-133 ? troops ???

another problem
why are trust on Jetengine measured in kN, while Turboprop in shp or kW ?
i try to finde out the C-133 with Pratt & Whitney JT4A-9 turbojet works
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
106
While slightly off-topic, did the He111Z have any connection between the twin fuselages? I've seen pictures dipecting it with and without. While the stresses at the wing centre section might be "tremendous" obviously it is manageable as the He111Z proved (if it had no connection between the fuselages).
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,226
Reaction score
933
AFAIK, The He 111Z, at least the actually built examples didn't have a
connection between the tailplanes, the only external modifications were
made to the left/right outer wings.
(see for example http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/he-111z.php)

Of course, it had to be mentioned, that the He 111 was a lot smaller, than the
C-133, so moments on the junction probably aren't comparable ...
 

frank

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
13
OTOH, the Bf 109Z was a lot smaller than the He 111Z, yet it had a single tailplane joining the two.


Jemiba said:
AFAIK, The He 111Z, at least the actually built examples didn't have a
connection between the tailplanes, the only external modifications were
made to the left/right outer wings.
(see for example http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/he-111z.php)

Of course, it had to be mentioned, that the He 111 was a lot smaller, than the
C-133, so moments on the junction probably aren't comparable ...
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
He is the author of this nice monography, but it seems he had not seen those magazines, otherwise he would have presented the pictures (I heard the Copyright on magazines is 30-year long, so for a plane of the 1960s, the picture could be free, no?)
Tophe I suspect Renè is really joking here, referring to magazines like... "Le Fanà"...
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
683
A linked/joint the tail/fuselages at Twin C-133
would not only make the stress on on wingjoint manageable

but give also extra lift during take-off and landing
make this the Twin C-133 a "Short Take-Off and Landing" ?

C-133 with turbojet from DC-8
from weight and size they match
but the performance same of DC-8 ?
 

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,150
Reaction score
37
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Michel Van said:
A linked/joint the tail/fuselages at Twin C-133
would not only make the stress on on wingjoint manageable
but give also extra lift during take-off and landing
I am not sure at all of that rear extra lift: I have read that, before the fly-by-wire 1980s, all the tailplanes were balancing by pushing downward (the cg was in front of the lift center, thus a nose-down tendancy, providing speed if stall so lift again preventing crash - and that nose-down/tail-up was counter-balanced by a rear tailplane pushing downward). So, tailplanes were providing not lift but balance (with "negative-lift"). I have read that in Science & Vie magazine in the 1980s, I am not sure this is the very truth. That was explaining the interest of nose foreplanes and fly-by-wire rear cg (nose-up tendancy) where tailplanes unusually were providing lift.
 
Top