Quiz: Four-engined aircraft

[Romantic Technofreak]

You say four-engined aircraft are easy to name because there are not too many of them? You are right - but there is a specific difficulty about all the ones I post below!


#1:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/98b0f838.jpg


#2:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/91dcfa2e.jpg


#3:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/8b5ed752.jpg


#4:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/7a7a5c4a.jpg


#5:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/ba60aa1c.jpg


You still think you know them? Try your luck! 1 aircraft - 1 point. The winner gets another picture of a four-engined aircraft personally dedicated - the one with the possibly strongest engines ever installed... enjoy!

Regards, RT

[Kutscha]

1. ??
2. XB-32
3. Curtiss something
4. French ??
5. ??

[Ricky]

1. ??
2. ??
3. Transport version of the B-29 Superfortress - can't remember the name...
4. Same as Kutscha - French thing??
5. ??

[Red Admiral]

No. 4 is the Piaggio P.50 II experimental aircraft and development plane for the P.108

No. 3 is the Tu-70

[GregP]

RT, you are good person to fool us do well!

I am still looking at the flying boats and the very neat propliner, but #2 and #4 are as follows:

1) ?
2) U.S.A.: XB-32 Terminator (the XB-32 was initially called the Terminator, the later, single-fin B-32 was called the Dominator)
3) I want to say Boeing, but maybe not ... the tail shape is fairly British ... still thinking about it.
4) Italy: Piaggio P-50. It doesn't even LOOK French; too normal-looking. Is it parked next to a bollard?
5) ?

I'll get back to you on these soon ...

[Romantic Technofreak]

OK, #2 and #4 are guessed. 1 point to Kutscha, 1 point to Gavin *Red Admiral*. The race is still open!

#3 is surely the most difficult thing. To help a little: Gavin´s guess is a little, little, little bit into the right direction!
Also, one of you already unveiled the "peculiar difficulty"!

Enjoy further, RT

[BlackWolf3945]

#1 is the Consolidated XPB2Y-1.

#3 is certainly a swell-lookin' bird.

#5 is the Sikorsky XPBS-1.


As to the specific difficulty on these... I don't know enough about some of them to know for sure, but is it a matter of these being prototypes and/or experimental types? Or perhaps it's a matter of the resulting production aircraft looking significantly different from these aircraft? This is certainly the case with #1 and #2.

Fade to Black...

[GregP]

Hi RT!

I think #3 is the Ilyushin Il-18 of 1947. It had a maximum speed of 588 kph and cruised at 400 kph with 66 passengers ... and looks pretty Boeing-like. It has four Shvetsov ASh73TK engines.

I also think all of these were prototypes, some of which are not reflective of the configurations in final form. For example, the Coronado was a twin-fin tail in production form.

Both the Ilyshin Il-18 and Tupolev Tu-70 required concrete runways and there were very few of these in the Soviet Union at the time, so they were not adopted.

My friend, Romatic Technofreak, you have a nice way of making us all THINK with these posts. I thank you and hope you continue s time allows.

[Romantic Technofreak]

We have a winner, it is BlackWolf3945 with two correct guesses. The difficulty is, of course, quote:a matter of the resulting production aircraft looking significantly different from these aircraft.

Before Red Admiral had said quote:development plane for the... , meaning the same.

And Greg is right about #3, the first Ilyushin Il-18! You can doubt it has anything to do but the configuration with the production version flying not before 18 years had passed, but I think for our purposes her it matches.

I think it is also a peculiarity that stability problems on #1 (prototype of the Coronado) led from a single-fin to a double-fin solution, while probably the same on #2 (protoype of the Dominator) led from a double-fin to a single-fine one, and both aircraft are from the same firm!

#5 became the predecessor of the civil Vought-Sikorsky VS-44 airliner.

BlackWolf, here is your reward:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/33e3e365.jpg

The Tupolev Tu-85, powered by 4 x 4,300 hp!

And yes, Greg, I am going to continue this!

Regards, RT

[Kutscha]

RT,

the B-24 ended up with a large single fin/rudder. This was the X/YB-24K. A redesign for the -24K, the XB-24N (44-48753), for production by Ford. Seven YB-24Ns were built before Liberator production was terminated. The -24N had a slight dihedral to the tailplane.

There was to be some 5168 B-24N-RO produced.

The US Navy recieved some 740, designated PB4Y-2.

While on a cross country m/c tour in 2000, seen one of these start-up and take-off from Greybull Wyoming. It was being used as a water bomber. Some 2200gal of retardent can be carried. Have it on video.

http://www.tctwest.net/~flight/images/PB4Y-2.jpg

[Lightning]

Hi RT,

I don't have my books on hand, but I seem to recall that the production PB2Y was named the "Coronado." Am I right, or has memory failed me (again)?

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Don't need books Lightning. A 10 sec search with Google wil do. ;)

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:Don't need books Lightning. A 10 sec search with Google wil do.

You're right, Kutscha, and so was I. A 10-sec Google search revealed that the PB2Y was indeed called the "Coronado."

Regards,
Lightning

[Romantic Technofreak]

Googling is not always necessary. In my third post here, I already said

quote:stability problems on #1 (prototype of the Coronado)
Sometimes I also prefer asking to googling. Google is a machine, and communication with a human being often contains the higher value.

So, everybody feel free to ask any question.

Regards, RT

[BlackWolf3945]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

There was to be some 5168 B-24N-RO produced.

The US Navy recieved some 740, designated PB4Y-2.

Alotta folks assume that the PB4Y-2 and the B-24N were the same design. But despite their similar appearance the PB4Y-2 cannot be considered a Navy version of the B-24N, as seems to be implied here.

The development of the PB4Y-2 took place separately from that of the B-24N. The latter was developed by Ford for the USAAF and the former by Consolidated Vultee at the behest of the USN. Despite the fact that both programs began with the same basic airframe and had some common goals, two different aircraft were produced.

Both programs sought to improve aerodynamic stability and improve performance. The answer to the question of stability was the same in both camps... replace the twin tails with a single tail. There seems to have been some data exchange here, as the tails on both aircraft were quite similar in construction with only a difference in height between the two.

As to improving performance, while the aim with the B-24N was to increase speed, climb rate and operational ceiling, the aim with the PB4Y-2 was mainly to increase speed while extending range. More powerful engines and turbosuperchargers were installed into the B-24N. However, since the Navy's patrol aircraft flew mainly at medium and low altitudes, the turbosuperchargers were deemed unnecessary and deleted from the PB4Y-2. There was also a change in the configuration of the engine nacelles, details of which are described on the PB4Y-2 webpage linked below.

Both aircraft also saw improvements in defensive armament. For the B-24N it was merely an installation of gun turrets in the nose and tail which were more advanced than those previously used. For the PB4Y-2, the changes consisted of an extra dorsal turret just aft of the wing, new gun blisters in the waist and, eventually, replacement of the nose turret with a more effective unit.

For more info as to the types of turrets and engines used, as well as other details, see the following pages:

Convair PB4Y-2 Privateer (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_38.html)
Consolidated B-24N Liberator (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_23.html)


An additional requirement of the Navy for the PB4Y-2 was to add a flight engineer's station to reduce the workload on pilots during long-distance flights. This saw the extension of the forward fuselage by seven feet. Next to its taller tail, the stretched fuselage is the most obvious difference between the PB4Y-2 and the B-24N.

Most of the aesthetic differences between the two aircraft are illustrated in these two photos:


XB-24N

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/achtungindianer/GP/XB-24N44-48753001b.jpg
Photo credit: Convair


PB4Y-2

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/achtungindianer/GP/PB4Y-28001a.jpg
Photo credit: unknown


And then there's this shot which shows the dorsal turrets a bit more clearly as well as the ERCO ball turret in the nose.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/achtungindianer/GP/PB4Y-2635001a.jpg
Photo credit: USN


Here's a couple of photos which used to be in my collection showing YB-24N 44-52056 in flight over Willow Grove.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/achtungindianer/GP/YB-24N44-52056001a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/achtungindianer/GP/YB-24N44-52056002a.jpg


As an additional bit of info, the B-24N had a precursor; the XB-24K. The XB-24K took two forms; initially being fitted with the tail unit from a B-23, then with that of a C-54.

Here's a look at the XB-24K in what I believe is its final form...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/achtungindianer/GP/XB-24K42-40234001b.jpg
Photo credit: USAF

I have no photos (that I know of) showing the initial configuration with the B-23 tail. If anyone has any, I'd like to see them.


Anyhoo, as can be seen, the PB4Y-2 and B-24N are indeed similar in appearance. But each was a separate development of its parent design.


Fade to Black...