C-46 with Jet Pod?

[Graeme]

Saw this photo yesterday.
Is that a jet pod under the fuselage?
I couldn't find a listing of it in the Variants section of the wiki article devoted to the C-46 Commando.
And are those props feathered?

 

[Capt. Vick]

Certainly looks like it

 

[tyrodtom]

The Flying Tiger Line was the predecessor of Air America, the CIA's private airline. Probably needed the extra power for some special missions.

 

[gumbyk]

Something fishy there - both props feathered, but cowl flaps still open. And that pod engine doesn't look big enough...

And the lighting's all wrong, if its slung under the aircraft, there shouldn't be that much light on the top of it.

 

[tyrodtom]

I have the Flying Tiger Line confused with Civil Air Transport, It preceded Air America.

If the photo was photoshopped from a aircraft sitting on the tarmac, wouldn't the props be in fine pitch ?

 

[tyrodtom]

In the early to mid 50s, Fuji Heavy Industries was developing what was to become the J3-IHI-3 jet engine, 1200 Kg thrust.
They mounted it on a C-46. That may be a picture of their test aircraft.

 

[vikingBerserker]

The exhaust end of the "engine" just looks way too small.

 

[WJPearce]

Like everyone, I was suspicious about this. But, I found the following article that indicates it was legit. The article is from Popular Mechanics Jan 1953.

Standby folks, having issues with the attachment.

 

[WJPearce]

Okay, sorry about that. Here is the article.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good old Flying Tigers. Flew on one of their DC-8's on a military charter to Germany back in 88, via Gander.

 

[gumbyk]

Okay, sorry about that. Here is the article.

Producing just 10% additional power won't make it powerful enough to keep the aircraft airborne by itself.

The plot thickens...

 

[tyrodtom]

When light, a C-46 could still climb 200-300 fpm on one engine. So that 50% power and fighting a lot of trim drag.
Without any trim drag, how much power would it take to just not lose altitude. But then the cowl flaps are open, that's a lot of drag .
Maybe later versions produced more than just 10% additional power.
Puzzling picture, but it doesn't mean it's faked.

Whose to say the aircraft in the picture is maintaining it's altitude.

 

[Graeme]

Thanks gents!

Thanks for the Popular Mechanics snippet Bill.

 

[vikingBerserker]

The article makes perfect sense to me, it's along a JATO Rocket.

 

[T Bolt]

Interesting, I didn't know a jet engine could run on gasoline.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Another case cracked by the WW2AIRCRAFT.NET detective agency!

 

[gumbyk]

Interesting, I didn't know a jet engine could run on gasoline.

they'll run on anything.

 

[Valdez]

Interesting, I didn't know a jet engine could run on gasoline.

I worked for a year at the fixed base operation (FBO) for a small town airport. I was told that a jet or turboprop aircaft would fly on AvGas but a piston powered aircraft wouldn't make it back to the runway if I filled it up with J2

 

[Gnomey]

Interesting!

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of the early US jets ran on gasoline.
The GE I-16 (J-31) and I-40 (J-33) would run on either. the Westinghouse 9.5 and 19 engines ran on gasoline as did the J-35 (at least the early ones)