GOT: The Douglas XB-42

[Romantic Technofreak]

My dear friends,

this time I can't say personally much about this aircraft. Any necessary information, as much as I know, is already given in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-42_Mixmaster

So, what could I do that justified to write a GOT topic at all about this aircraft? First, I checked if the available pictures of the XB-42 are improvable. And yes, they are. Second, I found something out you may have not known yet. See after picture #7 and enjoy the beginning ones before!

#1:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/9840286c.jpg

#2:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/552613b0.jpg

#3:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/1855d7c2.jpg

#4:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/0ebe2941.jpg

[Romantic Technofreak]

First time here? Scroll up, please!

#5:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/8f4d6563.jpg


#6:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/fbb3bcc0.jpg

#7:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/61f78c2b.jpg

OK, you saw pic #7. When searching the web for 3-wheel cars (I also have a big, big collection of electronic pictures of scurrile small powered vehicles), I found the following:

#8:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/cdfa1394.jpg

So, there was a DC-8 before the DC-8 jet liner! And it originated from... the XB-42!

See the whole story here:
http://www.dc8.org/library/Skybus/article.php

Pictures #1 - 3 and 5 - 6 are all available on commons.wikimedia. #4 is from dc8.org, the article above. #7 is from ww2drawings.jexiste.fr. #8 is from blog.modernmechanix.com. Improvements done using XnView, like always.

BTW, does anybody know the type of the three-wheel car?

Hope you enjoyed, and regards, RT

[Wuzak]

The XB-42 is an interesting aircraft. Basically it would have been the second generation of Mosquito style aircraft - fast unarmed bombers.

It could carry up to 8000lb of bombs, and do so at similar or faster speeds than the Mosquito.

The pusher configuration was partially the reason for this - as it allowed the airframe to be much cleaner.

The Mixmaster is quite an ugly looking aircraft. I believe it was the first to use Douglas' double bubble cockpit canopy style for bombers.

An interesting decision was to run two V-1710s instead of a single V-3420. The latter was built in a variant with two output shafts for extension shaft drive (as in Fisher XP-75). The V-1710s were mounted at the sides of the fuselage and drove the props via long angled extension shafts. This installation caused problems, with both the drive shafts and the engines. A V-3420 would have allowed for straight extension shafts, but maybe it got in the way of other things?

It didn't take long for jet engines to be hung under the wing, and there was apure jet version built after WW2.

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

The XB-42 is an interesting aircraft. Basically it would have been the second generation of Mosquito style aircraft - fast unarmed bombers.

It had .50 cal guns directed fore and aft, but not in turrets.

The pusher configuration was partially the reason for this - as it allowed the airframe to be much cleaner.

This is certainly true in that there were no engines on the leading edges of the wings. These same two engines could have driven similar contra-rotating propellers in the nose with no less of a clean airframe. This would, however, have led to greater drag caused by the uneven airflow over the wings and fuselage due to the propwash.

One obvious advantage of having the props at the rear was that the bombardier had a clear, unobstructed view from the glass nose. One obvious disadvantage was that it made bail-out much more dangerous for the crew.

There is one issue that I wonder about. A pusher propeller at the extreme aft end of the fuselage causes a loss of stability over those located further forward or over tractor configurations. Since the XB-42 was a bomber, and bombers require good stability in the bomb run, was this a drawback of the design? Perhaps it was not of a magnitude great enough to have caused a problem.

The Mixmaster is quite an ugly looking aircraft. I believe it was the first to use Douglas' double bubble cockpit canopy style for bombers.

Do you really think it was ugly? I kind of like it. I do, however, think that the later single canopy looked a lot better than the original "double-bubble" type.

Regards,
Lightning

[PMN1]

Mhh a 'bug-eye' canopy arrangement....why??

[Lightning]

Hi PMN1,

Mhh a 'bug-eye' canopy arrangement....why??

I don't really know, but my guess is that it caused less drag than the larger, framed single canopy. Still, I like the single canopy better--looks-wise.

I also read somewhere that the two individual canopies led to less-effective communication between crew members--a serious problem when split-second decisions must be made.

Regards,
Lightning