B

Fitting Jet Engines To Single Engine Props...

Started by B777LR, January 02, 2008, 06:27:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mossie

I would assume that a twin engine jet conversion would be easier than a single, but as far as I know it never happened.  What could have been converted?  Mossie & Hornet I mentioned earlier.  Beaufighter?  Me-410?  Noxioux mentioned the F7F which would be good, also the P-38 although twin boomers would cause more of a problem.
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

The Rat

Quote from: Mossie on April 05, 2008, 03:31:34 PM
...also the P-38 although twin boomers would cause more of a problem.

Get rid of the booms then and add a conventional rear fuselage - a double whiff!
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles

Life is too short to worry about perfection

Youtube: https://tinyurl.com/46dpfdpr

GTX

How about a Seafire?



Regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

GTX

It's crude, but what about a Ta-152 conversion (with heavier nose cannon):



regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

GTX

Another rush job - a 410 twin jet conversion:



Regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

jcf

Quote from: The Rat on April 05, 2008, 03:07:25 PM
Quote from: Daryl J. on February 23, 2008, 07:37:25 PMLonger, skinnier turbojets on any Gloster Meteor.

Captured Jumos?

Why bother when the axial-flow Metrovick F.2/4 Beryl engine was better?

The third F.9/40-Meteor prototype, DG204/G, was powered by Metrovick F.2/1 engines and Meteor F.4 RA490 was fitted with Beryls.

Jon

jcf

While not a conversion the addition of 1 or 2 BMW 003 turbojets to the 410 was explored.



Put three or four on the belly and eliminate the piston engines leaving just enough nacelle to contain the landing gear.

Jon

jcf

Close to a Jet Mossie from De Havilland's, aircraft would have been slightly larger than Mosquito..



Jon

The Rat

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on April 06, 2008, 12:01:14 AM
Quote from: The Rat on April 05, 2008, 03:07:25 PM
Quote from: Daryl J. on February 23, 2008, 07:37:25 PMLonger, skinnier turbojets on any Gloster Meteor.

Captured Jumos?

Why bother when the axial-flow Metrovick F.2/4 Beryl engine was better?

The third F.9/40-Meteor prototype, DG204/G, was powered by Metrovick F.2/1 engines and Meteor F.4 RA490 was fitted with Beryls.

Jon
Yeah, but from what I've heard (open to correction here), it wasn't as reliable at first, not that the Jumo was anything to write home about. But the key word in my original post was 'captured'. Back story would be that the Meteor was used to test the Jumos, not fly in service with them.
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles

Life is too short to worry about perfection

Youtube: https://tinyurl.com/46dpfdpr

kitnut617

Quote from: The Wooksta! on April 06, 2008, 07:20:09 AM
There was nowt wrong with the design of the German jet engines (although the diagonal flow compressor on the Heinkel HeS 011 caused the Germans no end of problems), it was the fact that they were using crap metals.

To be quite correct Lee, nobody back then had developed the right metals to withstand the heat of the turbines or the strength needed to stop the blades breaking off at the shaft.  It was determined that's what happened to the Metro-Vick Meteor, the blades breaking off and the flying bits & pieces then shearing through the main spar of the wing.  I was reading a section in the RR book 'Crecy' and it shows a photo of the 'exhaust turbine' which it says was taken directly from the turbine of the Welland, and you can see where they broke off from it.
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

Hawkeye

Quote from: noxioux on February 22, 2008, 06:57:46 PM
How about a Tigercat or Lightning?

I've been pondering that one (Tigercat) for some time. I have one that has already fallen under the saw to start the process. I also want to widen the fuselage to place the crew side by side...making it into a Super Tigercat.

The hardest part with any turbojet or turboprop conversion is to make it appear as plausible as possible. It's important to keep the technology of the era of the subject you are building the same to make it more realistic.
Gerald Voigt
http://www.hawkeyeshobbies.com
Its not the workbench that makes the model, it is the modeler at the workbench.

jcf

Quote from: Hawkeye on April 07, 2008, 07:32:05 AM
Quote from: noxioux on February 22, 2008, 06:57:46 PM
How about a Tigercat or Lightning?

I've been pondering that one (Tigercat) for some time. I have one that has already fallen under the saw to start the process. I also want to widen the fuselage to place the crew side by side...making it into a Super Tigercat.

The hardest part with any turbojet or turboprop conversion is to make it appear as plausible as possible. It's important to keep the technology of the era of the subject you are building the same to make it more realistic.

Something along these lines?



Jon

The Rat

Yeah, always thought that was a nice looking aircraft.



Unfortunately it was saddled with Westinghouse engines, which destroyed more aircraft than Erich Hartmann.
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles

Life is too short to worry about perfection

Youtube: https://tinyurl.com/46dpfdpr

puddingwrestler

I've had this crazy notion kicking around in the back of my head for a while to make a Jet-engined Fairey Gannet. Not because it'd make the plane better or any 'real world' justification like that, but because I reckon a Jet-engined gannet with swept wings would look like the world's fattest early MiG fighter...

It'll happen eventually, most likely as some sort of Soviet space fighter...
There are no good kits, bad kits or grail kits, just kitbash fodder.

kitbasher

#29
Quote from: GTX on April 05, 2008, 08:33:09 PM
How about a Seafire?

Just be careful, that's all I say!!
Seriously though, that configuration might suit a Hawker Typhooon (two engines, perhaps?)
;D ;D
What If? & Secret Project SIG member.
On the go: Beaumaris/Battle/Bronco/Barracuda/F-105(UK)/Flatning/Hellcat IV/Hunter PR11/Hurricane IIb/Ice Cream Tank/JP T4/Jumo MiG-15/M21/P1103 (early)/P1154-ish/Phantom FG1/I-153/Sea Hawk T7/Spitfire XII/Spitfire Tr18/Twin Otter/FrankenCOIN/Frankenfighter