Asymmetric readings

[Tophe]

Jeff BlackOps [adding colours and “Reality” (J-18 topic) to a comparative sketch, port of one aircraft vs. starboard of another to compare] may have invented a whole class of asymmetric aircraft! Inside I am glad to focus on the twin-fuselage Zwilling part…
Below is a port Heinkel He 111Z/5m compared to a Sisko/Toff (Siskel) He 222Z/7m ; read as a whole, in the great BlackOps-way, this provide us with the weird asymmetric ToffOps He 333Z/6m…

If you ask why such asymmetry, there are answers, don't worry. For instance: all the engines were rotating in the same direction (from the begining or because one factory among two had burnt), so the torque was huge and asymmetry provided stability...

[Tophe]

As well without twin-fuselages: the comparison between Go 244B & Go 444 could have created a Go 344B…  (I have already presented elsewhere the Go 243 between 242 and 244, not realising this is a whole generation process).

[Tophe]

From the misread ‘view from above’ was born a ‘Real’ machine…

The He333Z code was replaced by He231, I don’t know why, the ground crew even telling puzzles like “He-132 code while going away, He-231 coming back, always!”. A local clown, walking on hands, denied: “No! 231 going away, 132 coming back!” with approval of an Arabic witness, standing there and hearing us. Mysteries…

[Tophe]

While a double-plane usually requires double-power, it may have been different for a single-plane with additional-fuselage.

Above, project HB-29T-2 was a B-29 designed to transport/spray lethal bacteria/viruses: little load but needing to be separated from the crew and technical staff. Safe efficiency...
As the B-29 fuselage was available (with useless glazed nose) in the 1944 production line, it was selected as biological hold, but a single extra-engine was enough to carry all: thus such a 5-engined completely asymmetrical result.
The most funny is the way these micro-organisms would have been efficient: making the enemy crazy!… and as simply drawing it, 60 years later, without physical contact, seems already dangerous for sanity, what a thread!

[Tophe]

In the first “Forked Ghosts” book, that I am currently translating in English, were presented with the highest number of engines (left below):
- the Percival P.36, 6-engined Burnelli-like, from a 4-engined design
- a Martin 4-engined cargo with low wing, from a 2-engined design
Now it is easy to:
- present versions with less engines (center below)
- imagine asymmetric 3-engined versions, for fun (right below)…

[Tophe]

Another way towards asymmetric twin-boomers is twin-booming asymmetric aircraft, I did it with airplanes (Bv141, Ca.381) but this had yet to be done with flying boats... So here below, the asymmetric Blohm und Voss P.111 becomes the asymmetric twin-boom P.111B ^_^

More solid, seriously...  

[Tophe]

Coming from a trip to Austria, in a Canadair Regional Jet, I wanted to draw such a T-tail jet, but with 2 tails and dated 1939-45, of course, so aboard I smiled and drew the asymmetric P-38TXF (T-tail + extra fin)…
On computer at home, to draw it more properly, this has become a mix of a P-38JR-3 (for starboard) and a P-38DF (for port)…

[Tophe]

Mixing a half P-61 Black Widow with a half GP-61 Black Glider made the P-61S Black Single (or Light Widow):
(from http://www.enter.net/~rocketeer/p61drwng.jpg )
No, seriously: a night fighter needed a free radar nose, all right, and maybe a rear post, so this required a pod for the crew, not the classical fuselage with nose engine/rear tail of a P-51/P-47, all right. And the twin-boom layout was solid, perfect for that, maybe better than the Bv 141 layout. But why 2 engines? No need!
[I consider seriously building this P-61S, in 2007 or 2008... I have a 1/72 Airfix kit available]

[Tophe]

I think I should mention here that, up to now, I have posted 62 asymmetric drawings in the topic
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=4626 and 27 in the topic http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=5092 . With the 9 in this topic, that makes 98 new ones added to my Forked Ghosts collection, and I just have to add 2 to get 100, so here they are: Me 322Z as average 321Z + 323Z:

Edit Jun 23rd: I have posted 13 more asymmetric inventions at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...showtopic=10863

Edit July 22nd: and more modern: 10 asymmetric double-deltas at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=8523

Edit August 27th: and 6 asymmetric derivatives at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...showtopic=11771  

[Tophe]

All of you know pretty well the Martin B-26 Marauder, but the Martin B-33 Super-Marauder is far less known. I have asked Google and two discrepant pictures were got from the Wikipedia encyclopaedia: 2-engines (XB-33) or 4-engines (XB-33A). And the more surprising was the text saying “the XB-33 was a twin-tailed…”
Hey, what a mess!
- 2 OR 4 engines (1 OR 2 per wing)?
- Twin-tail OR twin-fin!?!
Relax: I have the solution, as the XB-33Z:
- 1 engine per wing AND 2 engines per wing
- Twin-tails AND twin-fins

The mystery is “solved”…    

[Tophe]

Let us discard seriousness: I am a what-ifer, yes or no?
So, what-if the XB-33 was turned into the glider GB-33, and the 4-engined XB-33A into the 6-engined XB-33B? From this came the weird B-33Z, immediately mass-produced 1944… But why so many engines as 2 were enough for the XB-33? That leaded to the 2-engined B-33Z-2, with asymmetry still as there was no fuel line for an engine in the short port wing…

[Tophe]

As a further demonstration: look how sad would have looked the situation without asymmetry: GB-33Z(s) glider(s) tugged by a TB-33Z, just like a poor US copy of a He 111Z tugging Go 242s…  No, US engineers were able to do better, more inventing, more challenging, thus the asymmetric way explained above…  
 

[Tophe]

As well, comparing side by side a C-47 Dakota and a CG-17 glider-derivative is more funny if you imagine this is an asymmetric twin-plane (C-47CG-17). A twin C-47Z and a twin CG-17 are fun too, but without asymmetry, this is rather sad…

[Tophe]

Of course, in the sad funless Reality, the basic C-47CG-17 would have been simplified: no need of so many tailplanes and landing gears...  even if this C-47G may have been kept asymmetric...

[Tophe]

Me 322Z as average 321Z + 323Z:

- Hey you stupid what-ifer, the Me 321Z and 323Z have never existed, how to join them?!  
- Uh... we could join a Me 321 and a Me 323...:

- That cannot work either!
- So the Nazi would loose war
- Well, yes. You stupid but not a bad guy.