# Prop Plus Jet Aircraft



## ccheese (Dec 1, 2008)

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


----------



## rochie (Dec 1, 2008)

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


----------



## ccheese (Dec 1, 2008)

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


----------



## rochie (Dec 1, 2008)

and didnt the C-123 have jet engines added under the wings


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2008)

Combination engines were supposed to allow for greater dash speed, while still affording greater endurance, long range, loiter times when operating prop only.


----------



## ccheese (Dec 1, 2008)

Matt: here's a pic of the Ryan Fireball, in formation, with props feathered,
running on jet engines...

Charles


----------



## Flyboy2 (Dec 1, 2008)

ccheese said:


> 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


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2008)

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.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 2, 2008)

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)


----------



## Graeme (Dec 2, 2008)

Turboprop and turbojet combination.

French. The Breguet 960 Vultur...





...and American. The Consolidated Vultee XP-81...





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mixed-power_aircraft


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 19, 2008)

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.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 11, 2010)

C-123s? Might not have JATOs could it? I know some transport aircraft are meant to use them sometimes to shorten Take-off length when heavily loaded.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 15, 2010)

Some C-123 models have J-85 engines installed under the wings.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 17, 2010)

Okay, I didn't realise about the jet engine experiment. Thought it was JATOs he was getting confused with.


----------



## Dilbert (Mar 19, 2011)

I flew the P-2 (old P2-V7, later SP2H) in the '60's. The main engines were a pair of Wright 3350's (the same engine used by the B-29), but Westinghouse J-34 jet engines were added to later models outboard of the piston engines. The aircraft that entered service in 1946 was a trim, relatively light long range patrol bomber, but over the years as more and more electronics were added for submarine detection the airframe became heavier and heavier to a point where single engine performance on take off was compromised. The solution was the addition of jet engines which were used only for take offs (and landings in case of a wave off). They were shut down when you reached cruise altitude as they used a lot of fuel. They incidentally used the piston engines' avgas, 115/145 grade fuel, which burned much hotter than the JP kerosene used in jets. As a consequence the engines had to be overhauled more often that a normal jet engine. 

A footnote to the above. There was a P-2 patrolling the Sea of Japan when both recips failed (don't recall just why). They lighted the jets and flew back to the coast on the jets alone and made it just to the shore when the fuel gave out and they were forced to ditch in the surf off a beach. The photos showed the tall vertical stabilizer sticking out of the surf along with the wingtip tanks and part of the forward canopy. Everyone made it to shore.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 19, 2011)

ccheese said:


> 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.


 
I believe this pics are the AJ-2, but still show the prop/jet configuration. Hope these help Charles.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 19, 2011)

The jet engines on the C-123 wasn't just a experiment, it was a regular production aircraft, the C-123K.
In it's case it was for added take off, and go around power. You can't talk about dash speeds and C-123 in the same sentence. Even with the jets burning it's top speed was still just 230 mph.


----------



## Rivet (Mar 21, 2011)

Though not intended as primary propulsion or for operational use the Heinkel 215/217's not put on unit rolls were used to test various airstream propulsion units by the Germans during the second international slugfest. Photos of the airframe carrying a Fiesler-103 pulsejet engine may be viewed in William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich."


----------



## Rivet (Mar 21, 2011)

Correction to post #18. The manufacturer of the 215/217 bombers was Dornier.


----------



## nimrod322003 (Mar 23, 2011)

been trying to figure out what this is any help?

http://www.highgallery.com/UnusualAircraft/Page-6/Unusual_0239.jpg


----------



## Budman (Mar 23, 2011)

Its true about the C-123K, We were heading back to Westover AFB and decided to see how fast the old "Thunder Pig" could go. The best we got was 220 knots I.A.S. We were burning about 1,000 lbs of fuel ever 10 minutes!! The weird thing was when you trimmed the aircraft out for level flight, it seemed to like to fly in a nose down attitude.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 4, 2011)

Probably, among the most widely known of them (if not counting the B-36D-F-H-J) were the KB-50J/K (a total of 136 had been converted), and some later - the KC-97L (total 81). They had four R-4360 piston engines with addition of a pair of J47 turbojets. Tankers had received such a low-cost upgrade in order to raise their speed and altitude of level flight during refueling modern jet-powered aircraft. 
Also, aged tankers that have had forced to operate on heavy-laden take-offs, unavoidably had need in such improvement of their capabilities.
They were an interim substitute for forthcoming KC-135. Also, as I presume they had been a some alternative for the cancelled B-54's eventual derivative - the hypothetical KB-54.


----------

