Land based Taildragger P39 idea

[pinsog]

First, how much weight would you lose by ditching the LONG front landing gear?

Second, would where the front wheel USED to be, be a good place for the turbocharger?

Armament would be 2 50's and a 20mm in the nose, wings are all fuel with a small section for the intercooler.

Thoughts?

(running for cover!!!!)

 

[GregP]

I don't think there is room in the nost for a turbo system, the gear case, and the cannon plus ammo.

Yes, you lose a little weight, but the ducting would be VERY difficult as the cockpit was as wide as the plane and the pilot sat very near the bottom of the plane. The driveshaft basically went through the pilot's legs and rounting the exhust through the cockpit would be a tough chore, especially without creating a sauna in the process.

Cool idea, though, and I could be wrong. It might BE possible. I'm sort of a doubter, but not against the idea of trying it out, at least as a design exercise. I'd say to put six 50s in the wings, ditch the cannon and ammo, and maybe someone could contrive something. It would have been interesting, if nothing else. Not too sure I'd want hot exhaust in the nose that was likely to get a few holes in it, but it might be worth investigating.

 

[pinsog]

I never thought about the hot exhaust directly under the cockpit and I sorta forgot about the driveshaft in the way. Probably can't ditch the driveshaft and still have a successful fighter could we.......
How big would the pipe have to be to the turbo? How big for the pipe going back to the engine? Didn't the P43 Lancer route the pipe OUTSIDE of the fuselage on its belly?

 

[Capt. Vick]

Like an Airabonita with a turbo?

 

[GregP]

Turbo Airabonita! What an idea!

Why didn't we think if this before?

What about a turbo Airacuda?

Go slow, and underperform ... but do it all much higher?

 

[wuzak]

What about a turbo Airacuda?

Go slow, and underperform ... but do it all much higher?

The Airacuda did have turbos, or at least some of them did.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRqXFycEDJE

 

[swampyankee]

After you get through dealing with the P-39's c/g issue, now worsened because of the weight taken out of the nose, the turbo would need to have two sets of large, relatively straight pipes: the engine exhaust, to drive the turbo, and the pressurized air to feed the engine. (I am certainly not the first to notice that) Then, redesign the wing for the new gear, as the mains for conventional gear needs to be ahead of the c/g, unlike tricycle, where the mains need to be behind it. Then deal with the fact that you'll need to buy a lot of ladders and staging, because the prop is so far above the ground and will need to be repaired more often due to all the nose-overs, ground loops, and other ground-based handling woes. Once you put the engine in the middle, using conventional gear is probably no longer the best option. Have you seen pics of the AiraBonita?


(bold added)

 

[tomo pauk]

First, how much weight would you lose by ditching the LONG front landing gear?
Second, would where the front wheel USED to be, be a good place for the turbocharger?
Armament would be 2 50's and a 20mm in the nose, wings are all fuel with a small section for the intercooler.
Thoughts?
(running for cover!!!!)

The weight of complete landing gear for the P-39 was some 515 lbs, so ditching the front gear saves perhaps 170-180 lbs?
If we're to install the turbo, perhaps install the oil and coolant radiators in now-vacant place under the drive shaft, thus leaving some useful volume for the turbocharger? The intercoolers will probably be located like the coolant radiators on the Airabonita?

 

[pinsog]

How big would the pipe be from the engine to the turbo? How big would the pipe be from the turbo to the engine?
6 inches? 8 inches?

 

[chuter]

Look up the Curtiss YP-37 (I like it!). That plane had a ton of reliability issues that were still almost certainly similar to the later P-39's. I bring this up for turbo volume/placement reasons.

Oh, every reference I've seen on the P-37 says the cockpit was moved back for balance. Everything done on/to a plane takes balance into consideration but I'm fairly certain the cockpit (flight deck - DAMMIT, I'll never make the transition) was moved aft to make room for the turbo installation behind the motor- lol.

 

[swampyankee]

The weight of complete landing gear for the P-39 was some 515 lbs, so ditching the front gear saves perhaps 170-180 lbs?
If we're to install the turbo, perhaps install the oil and coolant radiators in now-vacant place under the drive shaft, thus leaving some useful volume for the turbocharger? The intercoolers will probably be located like the coolant radiators on the Airabonita?

Typically, the nose gear won't have brakes, and will only carry about 15 to 20% of the aircraft's weight, so it's probably more like 20% of the landing gear weight than 30.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Aft engine+fwd turbo+midships intercoolers+driveshaft=plumber's nightmare=tailheavy treacherous nugget-killer.
Cheers
Wes