 | Prop Plus Jet Aircraft| Post-War Discuss Prop Plus Jet Aircraft in the Other Eras forums; Near the end of WW-II, the US [and possibily other countries] were trying
out aircraft with both a piston ... |
|
12-01-2008, 01:18 PM
|
#1 | | Older Than Dirt
Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 5,530
Country:  | Prop Plus Jet Aircraft
Near the end of WW-II, the US [and possibily other countries] were trying
out aircraft with both a piston engine, and a jet engine. How many were
there ? Perhaps we can get a good discussion going about the pro's and
con's of a composite propulsion system.
First up is the Ryan FR1, a fighter aircraft. The Ryan FR Fireball was a composite
propeller and jet-powered aircraft designed for the United States Navy during World
War II. The Fireball entered service before the end of the war, but did not see combat.
The FR-1 Fireball was the U.S. Navy's first aircraft with jet propulsion. There were 66 built.
About the same time Curtis was developing the XF15C. An interesting note
about the XF1C. Only three were built. Number 1 crashed, number 2 is on
display at the Quonset Air Museum, at Quonset Point, RI. Number three was
scrapped.
How about the North American AJ-3 "Savage" ? When I was on the USS
Saratoga, we had them on board. It was suppose to be a medium bomber
with carrier capability. I could not find a picture of the "Savage". Maybe
someone has one.
Next up is the P2V-5, "Neptune". A twin engine patrol bomber. I saw these
at NAS Jacksonville, but never flew in the dash five. I did fly in the P2V-2.
And, of course, the "Peacemaker", the B-36, with "six turnin' and four burnin'".
I was fortunate enough to fly in this monster a few times while stationed at
Wheelus AFB, in Tripoli.
How about other countries ? Anybody know of British, German or Japanese
aircraft that tried both units of propulsion on the same aircraft ?
Comments are invited.....
Charles
__________________  I can only please one person per day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either....
Last edited by ccheese : 12-01-2008 at 02:19 PM.
| 
|  | |
12-01-2008, 01:51 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: nr middlesbrough uk
Posts: 1,176
Country:  | there was the shackleton 4 rolls royce griffons and two jet engines and i think the russians played around with the La9 by adding rocket or pulse jet engines
__________________  "We're not easily frightened.
Also we know how hard it is for an army to cross the Channel — the last little corporal to try it came a cropper.
So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall! ...and even then we won't listen!"
quote from B.O.B movie
Last edited by rochie : 12-01-2008 at 02:05 PM.
| |
| | |
12-01-2008, 02:28 PM
|
#3 | | Older Than Dirt
Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 5,530
Country: | Which reminds me..... didn't Fairchild take a C-119 and put a jet pod on
top of the fuselage ? I know they did modify one [a YC-119K] which was
a C-119G modified with two R-3350 engines and two J-58 underwing fitted
turbojets.
Charles
__________________ I can only please one person per day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.... | |
| | |
12-01-2008, 02:39 PM
|
#4 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: nr middlesbrough uk
Posts: 1,176
Country: | and didnt the C-123 have jet engines added under the wings
__________________ "We're not easily frightened.
Also we know how hard it is for an army to cross the Channel — the last little corporal to try it came a cropper.
So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall! ...and even then we won't listen!"
quote from B.O.B movie | |
| | |
12-01-2008, 04:12 PM
|
#5 | | aka Dickcheese
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,441
Country: | Combination engines were supposed to allow for greater dash speed, while still affording greater endurance, long range, loiter times when operating prop only.
__________________ 
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if
they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.]
Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts | |
| | |
12-01-2008, 04:48 PM
|
#6 | | Older Than Dirt
Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 5,530
Country: | Matt: here's a pic of the Ryan Fireball, in formation, with props feathered,
running on jet engines...
Charles
__________________ I can only please one person per day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.... | |
| | |
12-01-2008, 07:19 PM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 323
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by ccheese  didn't Fairchild take a C-119 and put a jet pod on
top of the fuselage ? | Yes they did... In fact it was on Avia quiz a little while ago AviaQuiz - Name That Plane! Quizs' Archive | |
| | |
12-01-2008, 07:53 PM
|
#8 | | aka Dickcheese
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,441
Country: | Yeah Mr. C, depending upon the specific fuel consumption of the engines or turbojets and their combination with a specific airframe, they were traded off. An example being the B-36 that cruised with the six piston engines at about 200mph, but (besides takeoffs) would light up their 4 turbojets for their 400mph run over target.
Another area of consideration might also be the maintenance aspects. Early turboject engines were notoriously short lived MTBO. However, I would also think that as technologies entered the late 50s early 60s that the true maintenance benefit of turbojets began to be realized. Using turbojets for cruise/loitering might also have been influenced by mission readiness rates too.
__________________
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if
they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.]
Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts | |
| | |
12-02-2008, 04:04 AM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,222
Country:  | Hi Charles,
>How about other countries ? Anybody know of British, German or Japanese
aircraft that tried both units of propulsion on the same aircraft ?
The Me 262 of course made at least one flight on composite power (until the jets failed), but it was not designed for it.
I think trials were flown with the He 219 to determine the possible speed gain from a jet engine suspended below the fuselage, but when not running it decreased performance so badly that the project was abandoned.
Among the multiple projected Do 335 variants, there was at least one designed for composite power, using a jet engine in place of the rear engine for a very clean layout. Of course, this was never built.
Not a German design, but in German use: The North Amercan OV-10 Bronco operated as target tug by the Luftwaffe was tested with an additional jet engine to improve performance and safety margin with a drogue deployed, but again the additional weight and drag of the jet proved to be excessive, and it would actually have been more dangerous to operate.
Generally one could say that after WW2, the development of sufficiently powerful turboprop engines made composite aircraft obsolete as the same operation characteristics could be achieved by more conventional means.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun) | |
| | |
12-19-2008, 10:03 AM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 337
Country:  | AFAIK the Vultee never flew on the full rated power of the turboprop in front...so it was cancelled before it ever finished the full flight test. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 PM. | | |
