Alternate History Combat Aircraft

Yes, twice the chance of an engine failure completely killing your hydraulics...

Nice art, but I'd never willingly set foot on that thing.
Wuss! :biggrin:

Just kidding I wouldn't get in any of the flying machines I've drawn up here or any of the designs done by others here either.
You think I'm crazy? 🤔
 
No... I get that the DC-10's safety record is often overblown, and normally I'm not afraid of flying, airplanes or getting in them, but the DC-10s hydraulic system with the No.2 engine being a single point of failure with little, if any redundancy just is.... na, I'll wait/pay more for a737/747/A300/any twin-engined aircraft.
 
No... I get that the DC-10's safety record is often overblown, and normally I'm not afraid of flying, airplanes or getting in them, but the DC-10s hydraulic system with the No.2 engine being a single point of failure with little, if any redundancy just is.... na, I'll wait/pay more for a737/747/A300/any twin-engined aircraft.
I didn't know any of that about the DC-10, I'm into military aircraft, not so much civilian.
And again I wouldn't step in any of the designs here if they were real, we're history buffs not aero-engineers. :neutral:
 
Focke-Wulf Fw-199 Moskito
Focke Wulf Fw-200++.png


In an alternate timeline Focke Wulf is ordered to design a long range fighter in part to confront the British wooden wonder, the Mosquito and and to conduct long range fighter sweeps.
Built primarily of wood the Fw-199 was a single seat fast and highly maneuverable (for a twin engine plane) fighter, powerfully armed with six twenty millimeter cannons.

Inspired by the Savio Marchetti SM.92. an alternate and earlier Ta-154.
basically a P38 lightning with radial engines.
 

Driftless

Donor
Focke-Wulf Fw-199 Moskito
View attachment 813905

In an alternate timeline Focke Wulf is ordered to design a long range fighter in part to confront the British wooden wonder, the Mosquito and and to conduct long range fighter sweeps.
Built primarily of wood the Fw-199 was a single seat fast and highly maneuverable (for a twin engine plane) fighter, powerfully armed with six twenty millimeter cannons.

Inspired by the Savio Marchetti SM.92. an alternate and earlier Ta-154.
basically a P38 lightning with radial engines.
I LIke it! It makes me think of a cross between a Fokker G.1*(wings and radials) a P-38 (Gondola), with the boom form borrowed from the FW-190 (Radials and tail)

I wonder what a Fokker G.1 would look like if put on "a diet"? Trim down the weight significantly by making the gondola a one place or tighter squeeze two-place, rather than the full on heavy fighter of OTL

* drawing pinched from Aviastar.com
 
I LIke it! It makes me think of a cross between a Fokker G.1*(wings and radials) a P-38 (Gondola), with the boom form borrowed from the FW-190 (Radials and tail)

I wonder what a Fokker G.1 would look like if put on "a diet"? Trim down the weight significantly by making the gondola a one place or tighter squeeze two-place, rather than the full on heavy fighter of OTL

* drawing pinched from Aviastar.com
Funny you should mentioned the Fokker G.1
0 FW Buzzard.jpg

I made this for one of the TL-191 threads here. I called it the Buzzard and I think it was a CSA aircraft,.
Now that I look at it, it's not a great pic, I changed the G.1's engine in the profile image but not on the bird's eye or front view images (lazy picture drawer).
I should take another crack at this but leave the German parts off.
 
Focke-Wulf Fw-199 Moskito
View attachment 813905

In an alternate timeline Focke Wulf is ordered to design a long range fighter in part to confront the British wooden wonder, the Mosquito and and to conduct long range fighter sweeps.
Built primarily of wood the Fw-199 was a single seat fast and highly maneuverable (for a twin engine plane) fighter, powerfully armed with six twenty millimeter cannons.

Inspired by the Savio Marchetti SM.92. an alternate and earlier Ta-154.
basically a P38 lightning with radial engines.
You know that this one exists, right?

Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito​

220px-Profil_Focke-Wulf_Ta_154_II.png
 

Yes, twice the chance of an engine failure completely killing your hydraulics...

Nice art, but I'd never willingly set foot on that thing.
Pretty sure eight engines is vastly overkill. I would expect probably 4-5 engines max. Certainly not more than 6.
A) 1 each wing outboard, 1 each tail, 2 center (6 total);
B) 1 each wing outboard, 2-3 center (delete tail engines, 4-5 total). I know, I know, that defeats the purpose of the "twin a tri-jet" exercise....
 
I didn't know any of that about the DC-10, I'm into military aircraft, not so much civilian.
And again I wouldn't step in any of the designs here if they were real, we're history buffs not aero-engineers. :neutral:
I know of at least two incidents where a catastrophic No.2 engine failure killed or nearly killed all hydraulics on a DC-10. The most prominent example is United Airlines Flight 232 in 1989, aka the Sioux City DC-10 crash.

Granted, that incident was an outlier in how unlucky it was and the Engine wasn't as much of a single point of failure as I made it out to be, but the way this was handled was a design flaw in the modern sense.
 
Pretty sure eight engines is vastly overkill. I would expect probably 4-5 engines max. Certainly not more than 6.
A) 1 each wing outboard, 1 each tail, 2 center (6 total);
B) 1 each wing outboard, 2-3 center (delete tail engines, 4-5 total). I know, I know, that defeats the purpose of the "twin a tri-jet" exercise....
Meh, the Zwills are all about the rule of cool.
 
Fictional fighter of the Spanish Republican Air Force. I haven't come up with the name yet. It's my first time ever drawing a fictional plane so it probably doesn't make much sense from a technical point of view. I based it heavily off some Spitfire designs.
plane.png
 
Top