Car-Door Cockpits...

[Double T]

I can think of a couple...
The P-39 Airacobra series was "car-door" equipped, as was the early version of the Hawker Typhoon I.
Any others I've missed?
Obviously this method of entry/exit did not catch-on with the aeronautics industry. Why was this considered a workable solution in the first-place?
I would think it very difficult to open a 'car-door' at speed in attempting to bail-out...

Tim

[simon]

I asked this in an earlier thread regarding the P-39, like yourself I couldn't somehow imagine being able to open the "Door" into a 300mph slip-stream.

Apparently the doors themselves were completely detachable and came away totally in an emergency.

[Ricky]

Wasn't there a 'car-door' P-38?

[Che_Guevara]

hmm,
does that count as a car door ?

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/Me108-3.jpg

A Bf 108

Regards,
Che.

[Tophe]

Maybe i16stealth may confirm from Russia, but I have seen several car-doors on Soviet fighters (Byelyayev 370 + OI-2)...

[Lightning]

Hi Double T,

You forgot to mention the P-63 "King Cobra". It was like the P-39 in many respects.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

Car-door P-38? Tell me more. (Or were you just pulling my chain? [}:)])

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Hi Lightning,

it is only a hazy memory - on reflection I think that it comes from a model kit of a P-38...

How did Lightning canopies open anyhow?

[Tophe]

quote:How did Lightning canopies open anyhow?
Views at http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/glaciergirlmh_1.htm
Does that answer your question?

[Ricky]

Yes!

Here is a good question - how would you give a P-38 a car door?[:I]

[Lightning]

Hi Trophe and Ricky,

I checked out the P-38 canopy in the cited website, and something doesn't look right to me.

The early-model Lightnings i.e. prior to the "F", had a hinged canopy that swung up-and-over to the right. From the "F" model forward, the top portion tipped straight back on its hinge; the two side panels slid up and down.

The photograph is of "Glacier Girl"--an "F" model. It shows neither of the above-described canopy configurations. It appears to me that maybe the top portion is removable and was removed when this photograph was taken. If so, it would certainly be replaced before flight.

The fact that Glacier Girl is an extensively rebuilt airplane leads me to believe that its canopy was somewhat modified during restoration or perhaps newly fabricated. If so, maybe it was found that this was a more convenient, or a more safe, way to enclose the cockpit. Once the canopy is in place and closed, it would look like any other P-38F.

Your thoughts?

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

It looks like they just left the canopy off - after all it is also missing a few engine panels, so I reckon that it is only taxiing and not about to take off. Leaving the canopy off would make sense in that scenario, as it leaves an easy exit in case of emergancy.

[Tophe]

Interesting picture, still from the Glacier Girl P-38:
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/glaciergirlimages/gg43towout-20.jpg

[Tophe]

quote:Here is a good question - how would you give a P-38 a car door?This is very simple: move the cockpit forward, ahead of the wing, and there is room for a car-door:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zg.jpg
I know I am a what-ifer, not serious, but Lockheed engineers had actually designed such a P-38, with a huge 75mm (3 inches i.d.) gun. It was featured in my last book, but thanks for having pushed me into drawing the missing link: P-38 car, thanks a lot!

[andyo2000]

I know this is a discussion mainly about fighter planes...

but

let's not forget about some of our more neglected bretheren. The L-4, for example, had car doors. There were a bunch of high-wing observation craft that had car doors, like the L-5. Other nations had 'em too, like the German Fi-156 Storch.

Low wing monoplanes had to have the top as low as possible, which added stability and increased aerodynamics. But planes with a high-wing configuration were not designed for speed, but rather for short takeoffs and good stability. Therefore, what was under the wings was less important, and actually helped increase the plane's stability by lowering the center of gravity below the wings.

[Double T]

Tophe:
I'm squinting my eyes, but it appears that one would open the P-38 'car-door' right into a counter-rotating propellor of a big inline-Allison to me...
YEOW.

Tim

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Double T

Tophe:
I'm squinting my eyes, but it appears that one would open the P-38 'car-door' right into a counter-rotating propellor of a big inline-Allison to me...
YEOW.

Tim

I was about to say the same thing...;)

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

quote:Originally posted by Double T

Tophe:
I'm squinting my eyes, but it appears that one would open the P-38 'car-door' right into a counter-rotating propellor of a big inline-Allison to me...
YEOW.
Tim
I was about to say the same thing...;)
Sorry my English is not fluent enough, you understand each other while I don’t understand your words…
If you fear the propeller is a danger for the pilot, I add (in red) the ‘orthogonal’ lines to ease your reading and cure this first misunderstanding (?) – this may be unusual but it is mathematically exact: oblique view through isometric projection.
Alas, I have not understood then what you said about contra-rotating propellers and one big in-line engine. Dreaming of a meaning, I imagine a very secure car-door for the pilot on an asymmetrical version (P-38PortContraProp), thanks for it - trying to understand is a reason to search and maybe invent…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zt.jpg

[Wuzak]

Tophe, I think Double T meant that one of teh P38's props counter rotates compared to the other, and that each is fitted with a big in-line Allison.

Nice drawings though.

[Tophe]

Wuzak:
Thanks for the help in understanding. You are right, opposite direction for lateral propellers (to prevent torque) is counter rotation, I just encountered these words almost allways about double propeller on the same axis (single-engined Wyvern/MB.5/RedBaron... several-engined Tu-114/Shackelon...).
http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/Shack-03.jpg
Sorry, that brings us far from the car-door subject...

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Tophe

Sorry my English is not fluent enough, you understand each other while I don’t understand your words…
If you fear the propeller is a danger for the pilot, I add (in red) the ‘orthogonal’ lines to ease your reading and cure this first misunderstanding (?)
Hi Tophe, sorry to cause confusion...
Yes, the worry was that the door would open into the path of the propellor, but your drawing reveals that this is not true. Thank you.:)

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

I know this is a discussion mainly about fighter planes... but let's not forget about some of our more neglected bretheren. The L-4, for example, had car doors.Presenting a Shackleton above, I asked myself also: what are we talking about? The Dakota had car doors and many other airliners... Below is the P-38AL with several passengers and such a car-door...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zv.jpg
PS. Ricky: thanks.

[Wuzak]

Could also convert that one into a bomber with internal bomb bay!

What about a navalised version with a slightly extended centre nacelle with a tail hook?

[andyo2000]

There was a proposed Lightning for carrier ops, the Model 822. The designs included folding wings and a strengthed undercarriage, and of course an arresting hook. However, the Navy considered at as too bulky for carrier service, and they also didn't like the idea of liquid-cooled engines. The Navy had excluded liquid-cooled engines from carrier service in 1927. The coolant, glycol, was very volatile and unsafe for ships, in their opinion.

However, the Navy did operate 4 P-38s in North Africa from land bases, renamed FO-1.

[Tophe]

There is a what-if plastic model photograph of P-38 with folded wings and radial engines at
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=7090&st=10
(one of the Oct.11 2005 entries)
and a true Lockheed project of it at
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=4626&st=65
(one of the Jan.29 2005 entries) I had no Copyright, but was 'advertising into' more than 'stealing from'…
Enjoy those weird dreams, half-true!

[Lightning]

Hi Trophe,

You're proving the validity of everything I've ever said about the versatility of the P-38. Thanks.:D

Regards,
Lightning

[Tophe]

Thanks for your thanks and approval. What-ifers, accused for accute lack of respect towards heroic machines, are more used to receive spittles than cheers. Thanks for your tolerance...;)

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by Tophe

I have seen several car-doors on Soviet fighters (Byelyayev 370 + OI-2)...
The Yuriev Kit-1 was also a Soviet fighter with a car door, see its story and pictures at
http://www.unicraftmodels.com/ (available kits/KIT-1)
Though, like the P-63 and OI-2, it was based on the P-39, not a completely new design. This does not prevent originality, as a tail-sitter VTOL P-39 reaching 800km/h (500mph) is not a common Airacobra…:)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/kit1.jpg

[simon]

Heh! I sense another GOT here...

Looks sort of like a piston engined Komet, where is Corsarius when you need him?:D

[Tophe]

From the P-38-car and the Kit-1 tail-sitter VTOL, it is also possible to build P-38Kit tail-sitter VTOL, either with intermeshing 2-blade rotors or with a lengthened port boom. They would have been Great Planes, if viable...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzm.jpg
The car door has a clear explanation here: the normal P-38 cockpit had to be moved forward, to leave room for the interconnecting shafts for one engine to drive both propeller if the other engine is in a jam... Almost logical[:o)]

[Ricky]

But I'd hate to balance them on such a small base...;)

[Lightning]

Hi All,

See, guys? Do you finally see? Trophe has finally vindicated me! I told you about the Lightning's versatility! I told you so! Oh, I'm so happy!

Regards,
Lightning

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

But I'd hate to balance them on such a small base...;)

Oh, afraid dear?… With 3 P-38 models, we may build a P-38TandemWingVtol, simply, reaching top stability to comfort you… In the Lightning universe, the client is king…
And thanks dear Lt-Col-Lightning-from-Germany for your appreciating these weird dreams…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzr.jpg

[Tophe]

Most of you know propably that the RP-38 prototype (see http://www.aerofiles.com/lock-RP38.jpg ) demonstrated that a Lightning may be piloted laterally, away from the centerline, so this is another way to have a safe car-door, far from the propellers: see the P-38R below, the pilot’s starboard cockpit features such a danger-less car-door… (the observer’s port cockpit had a similar door, opposite, and the central pod is for the radar and front landing gear).
Lt-Col-Lightning-from-Germany: if you have other ideas, not yet built, tell me, I may try…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzv.jpg

[andyo2000]

I found this plane a while back....

http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/8-5-2003-9-36-ryan_x-13_vertijet_approaching_jetty.jpg

The plane was so simple that it barely had enough fuel to take off and land. It's severe limitations, mainly in the weight category, ended it's viability for service. It's only importance was as a distant ancestor of today's directed-thrust, STOL planes like the Harrier.

As for a P-38 - I think it would suffer the same problems as a hovering helicopter. The air would be pushed away from beneath the propellors, and thus the plane would have nothing to push off of. In helicopters, this can be deadly. I can only imagine for a top-heavy, bulky craft such as this one.

[Lightning]

Hi Trophe,

Your quot: quote: Lt-Col-Lightning-from-Germany: if you have other ideas, not yet built, tell me, I may try…

In the face of your fertile imagination, I stand in awe! Your ideas are delightful. Since I have no chance of improving on them, I'll just sit back and enjoy them. :D

Regards,
Lightning

[Tophe]

Thanks for your nice words, Bob...:)
Well, I try by myself to find more in this topic: the subject was car-doors, than car-door on P-38, then car-door on airliners, so... I drew a P-38 airliner with a very narrow cabin, but a very wide cabin may be proposed instead: reminding the Uppercu-Burnelli Model 14 (see at http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/ub14_v4.jpg ) here is an Uppercu-Purnelli Model 38, UP-38, with lifting body and solid cabin resisting crashes, and... 2 car doors, still lateral while in a different direction [8D]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzz.jpg

[Lightning]

Kelly Johnson, look out!!! There's a new talent on the scene! :D

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Tophe


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzz.jpg

Very, very nice.

I would love to see this one actually built...
(even though passengers would need to lie down in the lifting body!)

[simon]

Yes, but think of the legroom!

[Tophe]

You are very right as Reality is concerned, and I must explain: I am a what-if-modeller, used to mix scales smilingly. So: a 1/48 big pilot with 1/72 dwarf passengers is common in my (lightly crazy) Universe…
Well, as I fully respect your way also, I present the corrected Scaled-Purnelli SP-38, closer to the UB-14 with its lifting fuselage going below the engines. Thank you all for this new one, coming from you more than from myself…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzzb.jpg

[Groggy]

[/IMG]

[/quote]

Did the Vickers Venom have a type of car door ????

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

[/IMG]



Did the Vickers Venom have a type of car door ????
[/quote]

Do you mean de Havilland Venom?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

[/IMG]



Did the Vickers Venom have a type of car door ????


Do you mean de Havilland Venom?
[/quote]


No Vickers Venom with eight Brownings,about the same time possibly same spec. as Spit etc.

[Tophe]

See the Vickers Venom at http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/1960.jpg
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/1960.jpg
or at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum/uploads/post-19-1109424597.jpg in different colours...:D
Well, is it a car-door?[?] Difficult to decide from these pictures, but easy :)from the Putnam book "Vickers aircraft since 1908" pages 247-248 concerning this F.5/34 fighter that flew 3 months after the Spitfire: this is not a car-door at all, the canopy is above and is removed alone, on the side is a glazed panel, close but not linked. Sorry for your collection of car-doors...[V]
but as a misunderstanding directed us to the Sea-Venom/Vampire family, I may draw a car-door Vampire, I will see... I fear that does not change the shape, so it is a little sad. Don't you have other suggestions, requiring a shape change of a twin-boomer?:)

[Groggy]

but as a misunderstanding directed us to the Sea-Venom/Vampire family, I may draw a car-door Vampire, I will see... I fear that does not change the shape, so it is a little sad. Don't you have other suggestions, requiring a shape change of a twin-boomer?:)
[/quote]

Many thanks!

I have found some notes that I made at the British Library some time ago that give the weights for the Aquila and an alternative Alvis engine licensed from a French manufacturer that was 200lbs lighter and more compact. This contradicts the official reason that there was no alternative engine smaller enough that would fit the Venom to replace the underdeveloped Aquila.

Many years ago I saw a drawing of the de Havilland Vampire with a proposed four seat cabin with “car doors” type. I think it was from a American Company that wanted to fit redundant airframes with a passenger cabin for private use, so lets see your drawing please !!!

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
No Vickers Venom with eight Brownings,about the same time possibly same spec. as Spit etc.


Oops, sorry!

[Tophe]

quote:
Many years ago I saw a drawing of the de Havilland Vampire with a proposed four seat cabin with “car doors” type. I think it was from a American Company that wanted to fit redundant airframes with a passenger cabin for private use, so lets see your drawing please !!!

Are you sure of this 4-seat Vampire? I would be very interested to see a picture. The pictures I have of civil executive US Vampires feature 4 windows by side and a wind-screen, which seems far bigger than a 4-seater.

As far as I know, there were 6 Vampire projects/prototypes with several seats:
- De Havilland DH-123: 6 seats, UK 1950s
- Jet Craft Mystery Jet T.1: 6 seats, USA 1967
- Jet Craft MJ-11: 6 seats, USA 1969
- Jetcraft Executive Mk I: 7 seats, USA 1989
- Jetcraft Jet Cruizer Mk II: with turboprop and pusher propeller…
- Jetcraft Whisper Jet Mk III then Executive Commuter Mk III: 10 seats, twin-jet…

About more seats with car-doors, our P-38 is still a good basis:
- As a classical car (nor sport nor luxury) had 2 doors per side (not 1 nor 3), the P-38car could be designed just the same, and the trainer TP-38C was born…
- As a link between cars and aircraft were Flying Cars, 4-seaters, that brought to life the Familial FP-38FC… Landing, you pilot discard the wings, air-engines, tail, switch on the nose ground-engine, and here you go on the road, driver…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzzm.jpg

[Tophe]

In September 1945, P-38s would not have been warbirds anymore but needed to be pleasant fast aircraft for rich civilians… Thus a car door providing a very easy access would have been a very good point for sells, but… the propellers (rotating saws...) should be very distant not to threaten the customer, and that could have given a P-38St with long shafts to rear pusher propellers – perfectly safe, as there is no need to bail out ever for peaceful civilians…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzzr.jpg

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Tophe

perfectly safe, as there is no need to bail out ever for peaceful civilians…

Well, there mihgt be, but you can always install a new-fangled ejector seat.;)

[Tophe]

You are very right:), but when my wife had asked me in August "why hadn't the passengers of this Boeing a parachute each?", I did answer: "only the militaries and sportsmen/women are leaving planes in flight". Was I wrong?;).

[Tophe]

You gave me an idea, Ricky: trying to design the best P-38 for Bailing out… P-38Bo (and "Bo" is pronounced as "Beau"="Beautiful" in my French language…).
Well:
- no pusher propellers, not even central tailplane…
- a low central wing (while the external wings remain in a mid position), to walk on, going out of the cockpit… the car-door (hydraulically opened) protecting from the airflow…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_b.jpg

[DoBravery]

How about if the cabin is propelled away from the twin booms. Small fins emerge from being flush with the main wing. A rudder springs up and a small rocket motor ignites. Just enough to give the pilot time to belly down safely.

[Wuzak]

How about a rear "cargo" door for emergency egress? Only works with the centre of the tailplane removed.

[Trexx]

HA! Great graphics, wacky-man!

[Tophe]

Thanks a lot for your answers:
* Do Bravery: your P-38DB (if I have well understood) is below left with fin extended and rocket ready to fire…[8)]
* Wuzak: your P-38W is below right, with still another car-door direction, facing rear!:D
* Trexx: happy to see you back, dear:). Will the Vintage Magazines topic be activated again? Thanks if you can, while I understand if you are too busy.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_d.jpg

[Lightning]

Hi All,

This has been great fun, but let me be a bit serious for a moment. Without really trying, Trophe has demonstrated the versatility of the twin-boom configuration even in flights of fancy.

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

How about if the cabin is propelled away from the twin booms. Small fins emerge from being flush with the main wing. A rudder springs up and a small rocket motor ignites. Just enough to give the pilot time to belly down safely.


I've stumbled upon a common pilots view of such arrangements:
If the escape capsule is so good, why don't we fly IT? For goodness sakes, what's all that excess airplane for?

[Trexx]

Additional comment:

The P-38 Lightning had roll-down side windows, just like a car. You had to have them in the 'UP' position for take-off. If not, the airflow over the wing was disturbed and the plane wouldn't take off easily or not at all.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

How about if the cabin is propelled away from the twin booms. Small fins emerge from being flush with the main wing. A rudder springs up and a small rocket motor ignites. Just enough to give the pilot time to belly down safely.


I've stumbled upon a common pilots view of such arrangements:
If the escape capsule is so good, why don't we fly IT? For goodness sakes, what's all that excess airplane for?


The more normal and natural thing to do is to have the safety capsule (the cabin) leave the main aircraft and float to the ground suspended by an appropriate number of parachutes.

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

How about if the cabin is propelled away from the twin booms. Small fins emerge from being flush with the main wing. A rudder springs up and a small rocket motor ignites. Just enough to give the pilot time to belly down safely.
I've stumbled upon a common pilots view of such arrangements:
If the escape capsule is so good, why don't we fly IT? For goodness sakes, what's all that excess airplane for?
The more normal and natural thing to do is to have the safety capsule (the cabin) leave the main aircraft and float to the ground suspended by an appropriate number of parachutes.

Yes, and the more challenging anf weird thing to do is to have the rocket winged capsule used as a parasite fighter, going back to the wings after a rush at high speed: the wings and piston engines of the P-38DB mothership would bring range while the actual fighter would be a piloted rocket. As a dream, I prefer. But I would not endanger pilots' life trying...

[Tophe]

Slight improvement: here are the P-38D-1 & D-2 as a compound, respecting better the fins requirement of DoBravery (thanks! that makes a twin-boom of the rocket part too!) and with a more free central part, better adapted to the capsule removal (or coming back)…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_f.jpg

[Wuzak]

A touch more connection to the "mother ship" is required, methinks.

Do we need a pilot in the "mother ship", or will it be a drone with a pre-programmed flight path?

[Tophe]

Thanks for the improving advice, here are the P-38Wuzak 1+2...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_h.jpg

[Tophe]

...and with better weight balance:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_i.jpg

[andyo2000]

hmm, the P-38Wuzak might be a bit hard to build before fly-by-wire technology. All the hydraulic lines running everywhere would be a mess!

But I like the design ;) Couldn't you modify the small capsule to be a large bomb? Maybe like the a MIRV, the capsule could hold a number of guided or freefall bombs. Or, if you used a large bomb, that would be the ultimate in dive-bombing accuracy. Yes?

[Tophe]

Thanks for your nice words, Andy.
I try to understand your wish of next design, but fail, sorry...[V] Do you imagine a flying bomb, radio-controlled or something? Or a bomb without wings, but perhaps it should be in a very different position, below a high central-wing, no? And there would be a low margin to avoid propellers, no? Thanks anyway.

[Tophe]

Sorry, I was wrong : instead of a high central wing with a pod below, it is of course possible to have a normal P-38 mid-wing, central, with a low central pod. That would be also better for Wuzak’s droppable cockpit with parachutes. And it is even far better for a genuine car-door, to enter the cockpit without ladder, just as in a car… The lateral landing gears had to be long for the ground clearance of the propellers, but the central pod could be low, I feel stupid not to have thought of it by myself! Belated thanks! To celebrate this, I have named the plane P-38Andyo2000…
Of course, following more the droppable central pod with a lateral cockpit, I felt I must draw the P-38A-2001, but this is far away from the car-door subject…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_k.jpg

[Tophe]

Having a safe P-38 car-door far away from propellers was possible in still another direction: see the P-38Sf below. The ground crew may start the engines long before the pilot comes and enters the cockpit. Useful for long warm-up in Iceland or Alaska deep cold…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_l.jpg

[Tophe]

And here is the tilting-engines P-38V, not V-38 as 1945 was so long before the XV-1/XV-15/V-22…
(ejector seat: mandatory, no baling out)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_t.jpg

[Trexx]

HA! [8D]

[andyo2000]

Tophe - thanks for naming the A-2000 and A-2001 for me. Great drawings too!

[Tophe]

Still feeling uncomfortable about P-38's car door and safety with lateral propellers, engineers (of my dreams) found another way: Push-pull-38...[8D]
(it could have been called C-338, leading to the Cessna 337/336/327, with counter-clockwise clock and years running backwards...[^])
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_v.jpg

[Tophe]

Still for a safe car-door on P-38, far from propellers:
The PushPull-38 was judged bad as loosing its precious free nose, so 2 pusher engines were considered. A tandem double-engine (like the V-3420=2xV-1710) driving a double pusher-propeller was considered (P-38Push) but this was judged not reliable, and the final solution was 2 separate pusher engines (P-38 Push-Push), as used on the big Lockheed L-130 project. To avoid intermeshing propellers and a different wing holding more external booms, contra-rotating propellers were used to decrease the propeller diameter (see the other topic about that). As with a single pusher propeller, an ejection seat was mandatory…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_zb.jpg

[Wuzak]

Hey Tophe.

Again nice drawings.

About the twin pusher arrangement....

Imagine the engines were still mounted in the booms, with the boom being of circular section. The props rotate around the axis of the booms, with the spinners appearing to be a part of the boom.

For prop replacement the booms aft of the props are removeable. Perhaps even jettisonable.

Also, in the latest couple of designs the cockpit appears to be off-centre. Is this intentional?

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

About the twin pusher arrangement.... Imagine the engines were still mounted in the booms, with the boom being of circular section. The props rotate around the axis of the booms, with the spinners appearing to be a part of the boom. For prop replacement the booms aft of the props are removeable. Perhaps even jettisonable.

I had drawn such a propeller-in-booms P-38 last month, for what-if modeller friends, saying this after the P-38St:
"cheaper P-38S-2: shorter shafts, standard P-38 tail... with the safe and pleasant car-door feature, still."
Thanks to reach the same conclusion, meaning I am not (completely) crazy...:D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzzu.jpg

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

Hey Tophe.
Again nice drawings.
Also, in the latest couple of designs the cockpit appears to be off-centre. Is this intentional?
Be careful with slanting views and intuitive judgement. I may be wrong sometimes but intuition may also lead to misjudgement. Below: the blue pod seems far closer to the red starboard boom than to the orange port boom, while it is not at all, it is central while behind the starboard boom from your point of view.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_Demo_c.jpg

[Tophe]

(As we have changed page, it seems, see previous page the P-38 with propellers inside booms):)

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Tophe


I had drawn such a propeller-in-booms P-38 last month, for what-if modeller friends, saying this after the P-38St:
"cheaper P-38S-2: shorter shafts, standard P-38 tail... with the safe and pleasant car-door feature, still."
Thanks to reach the same conclusion, meaning I am not (completely) crazy...:D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzzu.jpg



Very nice.

Now we can get rid of the side radiators/intercoolers and place them at the front of the boom inside a carefully shaped duct.

I understand what you are saying about the perspective.

[Tophe]

You are very right, Wuzak, the cooling system would be very much more simple on the engine side of the propeller…
I did not know how to draw such a cooler though, I have imagined something like the Fw 190D nose. There is no spinner, the cone is immobile, just there to decrease drag… If you were meaning something else, dear Wuzak, saying "a carefully shaped duct", please tell us, as this P-38W² is your own baby - I would correct.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_zo.jpg
Of course, it would be possible to imagine radial engines at the front of the booms (Fw 190A like, P-61 like), but those front propellers would restore danger for the car door exit…

[Wuzak]

That is something like what I was thinking.

One of the cones could be used to house a radar system, rather than hanging it under the nose as in the P38M (or N?). This leaves the standard P38 gun arrangement completely unaffected.

[Tophe]

For Lightining-Bob: a further illustration of the P-38 versatility: a light Truck variant, with a car door to welcome aboard a young girl hitch-hiking beside the runway (without ladder)… Truck drivers are nice men. But beware of the rotating propellers, miss, come carefully from the rear…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_zq.jpg

[Wuzak]

That version would have been useful for the allied forces in WW2...

They could have usefully been used to transport injured soldiers.

[Lightning]

Hi Trophe,

quote: For Lightining-Bob: a further illustration of the P-38 versatility...

Thanks, Trophe. I love it!

Regards,
Lightning

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

That version would have been useful for the allied forces in WW2... They could have usefully been used to transport injured soldiers.

Thanks: I love your explanation, bringing logic to my crazy dream!:D

[Tophe]

I wonder whether it is easy, Bob, to be a P-38 fan while living in Germany, homeland of the famous twin-boom Fw 189… Well, to illustrate the question, let me introduce a P-389 hybrid, or Lightning Observation Post. With the originality of 2 car doors: front and rear.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hy_zt.jpg

[Tophe]

New year’s P-38 with a car door: a 3-engined one with minimum drag and still acceptable visibility…
[Compare to classic 3-engined planes of that time (Ju 52/3m, SM.79 Sparviero) and you will see this Lightning was so better…]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_E38-83d_z.jpg
(the port fuselage had a central engine,P-39-way, driving a nose propeller with a shaft between the pilot’s legs; the starboard fuselage had 2 tandem engines driving contra-rotating propellers…).

[Lightning]

Hi Trophe,

There was a one-of-a-kind P-38 with a cockpit on the left boom. It was modified from a standard Lightning in order to test the effects on the pilot due to his off-centerline (or asymetrical) placement. (Put another cockpit on the right boom, remove the center pod, and make a few other "minor" adjustments, and you have the F-82. :D)

Spelling error corrected by edit: "asymetrical" should be "asymmetrical". Sorry.

Regards,
Lightning

[Tophe]

I know, the RP-38 and the Recon P-38 without central pod were illustrated since 1998 in a book of mine (pages 73 and 22 of “Forked Ghosts”), you could have a look at them, they are now in English and absolutely free to download (at http://cmeunier.chez-alice.fr/Free_EoFG_MV.htm ).
But this is far away from the car-door subject, and such an original idea (P-38-car-door) was great to invent much more… Thanks again.

[Lightning]

Hi Tophe (I finally got your name right),

I tried to access the website you gave, but it wouldn't work. Any suggestions? I would surely like to see more of your excellent work!

Regards,
Lightning

[Tophe]

I don't understand what happens: 3669 visitors came in (and I can go there today to check that) and the count was 3497 two weeks ago, so it works (most often?). Try again now or someday, Alice Web provider may have had a temporary problem...
Otherwise, I may send the files with E-mails (one per day during 16 days? it would be uneasy), or send you a CD, but I would do that for only one, not all our friends here, I am not rich enough...;)

[Lightning]

Hi Tophe,

I tried again with the same result. I use the computer in the US Army post library here in Germany, and I think that has something to do with my not getting through. I have had the same problem accessing other sites cited in this forum. It must have something to do with the security software in use.

They are also a little "touchy" about downloading E-mail files and using outside discs, so I won't be able to take advantage of your kind offer to send the files in those media.

In any event, I appreciate your offer, and I thank you for it. Rest assured that I have become a fan of your delightful "flights of fancy". Please keep up the good work.

Regards,
Lightning

[Tophe]

Lighting:
If you are an American soldier in Germany, with no home computer of your own, maybe you could have different access in a Web-café of the nearest town, no?
Before going, you just should make a list of the topics with maybe-interesting links that had not work, discovering them may provide you with a nice vacation day, no? Full access to the Web is like a goldmine, you will see...:)

[Tophe]

Next one: Car-door-Lightning re-designed in our turbofan years...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_p38_4j_g.jpg

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Tophe

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

About the twin pusher arrangement.... Imagine the engines were still mounted in the booms, with the boom being of circular section. The props rotate around the axis of the booms, with the spinners appearing to be a part of the boom. For prop replacement the booms aft of the props are removeable. Perhaps even jettisonable.

I had drawn such a propeller-in-booms P-38 last month, for what-if modeller friends, saying this after the P-38St:
"cheaper P-38S-2: shorter shafts, standard P-38 tail... with the safe and pleasant car-door feature, still."
Thanks to reach the same conclusion, meaning I am not (completely) crazy...:D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38hyd_zzzu.jpg



I hadn't realised it at the time, but Daimler Benz had suggested the prop arrangement for one of their engine intsllations (the DB609).

http://www.luft46.com/db/dbjager.html

[Tophe]

Yes, we are not inventing, there was also a Soviet fighter (1939 design, cancelled 1941): Belyayev 370, featured in the very recent book “The encyclopedia of SOVIET FIGHTERS 1939-1951” - devoted to single-piston-engined Soviet fighters.
But it seems no twin lateral system like the ones on our P-38-derivative came in the 1940s...