Fairchild C-82, C-119 Boxcar, AC-119G Shadow and AC-119K Stinger, XC-120 Pack Plane

[elmayerle]

How about a turbine conversion for the C-119?  Swap the radial engines out for something a bit more modern and slightly more efficient.  Maybe adapt the RR Tyne to fit on the C-119?  It certainly has a diameter that is very close to the current C-119 engine nacelles so the only real challenge is to determine how best to route the turbine exhaust to exit behind the main landing gear.  Source for the RR Tynes?  Two choices in 1/72nd scale at the moment, bot from Revell of Germany, one is the Breguet Atlantic and the other is the Transall C-160.  The down side is the cost as both kits are quite expensive acquisitions for just parts unless you go in on a joint purchase with someone that has plans for the fuselage sans engines.  A RR Tyne powered C-119 would certainly look interesting as a WHIF in the markings for the  French AdA or one of the Commonwealth Air Forces instead of the Transall C-160, ("What if the Transall C-160 was never produced?")

Just a thought, why does the trubine exhaust have to exit on the side of the boom?  Why can't it be discharged from the top of the nacelle/boom?  Though I'll grant you that a side exhaust would be more likely to give a propulsive effect.  Whatever you do, you don't want your exhaust nozzles too long (the long over-wing tailpipes on the Garrett-powered Merlin and Metro definitely cause some problems - you wouldn't believe how much an engine package that worked great in MU-2s, Aero Commanders, and CASA C.212's needed several iteration of "tweaking" before it'd work properly in the Merlin and Metro).

[frank2056]

Just a thought, why does the trubine exhaust have to exit on the side of the boom?  Why can't it be discharged from the top of the nacelle/boom?  Though I'll grant you that a side exhaust would be more likely to give a propulsive effect.  Whatever you do, you don't want your exhaust nozzles too long (the long over-wing tailpipes on the Garrett-powered Merlin and Metro definitely cause some problems - you wouldn't believe how much an engine package that worked great in MU-2s, Aero Commanders, and CASA C.212's needed several iteration of "tweaking" before it'd work properly in the Merlin and Metro).

Hey Evan - good to see you posting again!

Don't turboprops use up most of the energy in the turbine before it gets to the exhaust? So the exhaust from a good turbo prop engine should provide very little thrust, right? Something like a PT6 where the turbine engine is mounted backwards in the nacelle.

[elmayerle]

It depends on the turboprop.  Usually the exhaust doesn't add that much extra thrust but if you can use it, it doesn't hurt.  Not many engines have the layo the layout of the PT6, but I'll agree that the same thought applies to most of them (mind you, I've more familiarity with TPE331s than with PT6s).  In any case, I can't see a big problem with routing the engine exhausts so as not to adversely impact anything else.  I will admit that I wonder how swapping engines for the  turboprops would affect weight and balance considerations.

[frank2056]

In any case, I can't see a big problem with routing the engine exhausts so as not to adversely impact anything else.  I will admit that I wonder how swapping engines for the  turboprops would affect weight and balance considerations.

Thanks for the clarification, Evan. IIRC, the DC-3 with turboprops have the engines moved pretty far forward. As for the exhaust, one reason to put it above the booms would be to reduce the IR signature from below. MANPADS are probably more of a worry than fighters.

[kitnut617]

In any case, I can't see a big problem with routing the engine exhausts so as not to adversely impact anything else.  I will admit that I wonder how swapping engines for the  turboprops would affect weight and balance considerations.

IIRC, the DC-3 with turboprops have the engines moved pretty far forward.

The Dart engined DC-3's did, way forward, so the spinners were in front of the nose, but the Basler's which used the PT-6 in more or less a straight swap for the original engines, added a substantial fuselage plug just behind the cockpit to overcome the cg deficiency.  I've got a 1/72 conversion set of both in the stash.

[famvburg]

     RR Darts are also a lot longer & heavier than PT-6s. They're probably fairly close in weight to the R-1830s where the PT-6 is probably 20% of the R-1830.

In any case, I can't see a big problem with routing the engine exhausts so as not to adversely impact anything else.  I will admit that I wonder how swapping engines for the  turboprops would affect weight and balance considerations.

IIRC, the DC-3 with turboprops have the engines moved pretty far forward.

The Dart engined DC-3's did, way forward, so the spinners were in front of the nose, but the Basler's which used the PT-6 in more or less a straight swap for the original engines, added a substantial fuselage plug just behind the cockpit to overcome the cg deficiency.  I've got a 1/72 conversion set of both in the stash.

[Sauragnmon]

Call me crazy, but if you're looking at a top-ducted turboprop, why not set it up to generate an airflow bias over the wing to generate additional lifting force?  Call me crazy, that sounds like a good idea though.

[MAD]

I read somewhere that Fairchild's proposal in response to the USAF's RFP - which would become the venerable Lockheed C-130 Hercules, was a four-engine (turboprop), longer wingspan version of their C-119!
Can anyone confirm this?
And if so is there any pictures, drawings or technical data out there?


M.A.D

[apophenia]

MAD: The Fairchild submission was the Model 160/XC-119H with extended wings and two R-3550-30Ws.

http://aerofiles.com/EEfair-xc119h.jpg
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,878.msg6956/highlight,c-119+hercules.html#msg6956

[MAD]

MAD: The Fairchild submission was the Model 160/XC-119H with extended wings and two R-3550-30Ws.

http://aerofiles.com/EEfair-xc119h.jpg
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,878.msg6956/highlight,c-119+hercules.html#msg6956

Thanks my friend for the heads up!
Well looking at the picture of the XC-119H - it really didn't stand a chance against the likes of the then radically advanced Lockheed YC-130A design.
They could of at least attempted to incorporate some modern technology of the time - say the likes of turboprop engines!!!!

M.A.D

[famvburg]

          I saved this drawing from somewhere........

I read somewhere that Fairchild's proposal in response to the USAF's RFP - which would become the venerable Lockheed C-130 Hercules, was a four-engine (turboprop), longer wingspan version of their C-119!
Can anyone confirm this?
And if so is there any pictures, drawings or technical data out there?


M.A.D

[apophenia]

          I saved this drawing from somewhere........

There's a notional sketch of a six-engined 'Super Packet' around too. There's debate about how serious Fairchild was about a 4-engined Boxcar. Regardless, they seemed to think that their twin-engined XC-119H should be a shoe in for the Herc contest.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

You mean like the C-119 modified into the XC-120 PackPlane?

I may be incorrect - probably am, but I'm sure I read in an old Thunderbirds annual, that the XC-120 was the starting-point for Thunderbird 2.... it would make sense in a Gerry Anderson sort-of-way. Personally I always liked the idea of the C-119 in the Aden scheme, circa 1967..... May even build that one one day.

Ian

[Cobra]

Hey Guys, Just wondering if the C-119 had ever been used or Considered for use by the RAF? the Question just came to me & was something i often was curious about. thanks for looking. Dan

[rickshaw]

Hey Guys, Just wondering if the C-119 had ever been used or Considered for use by the RAF? the Question just came to me & was something i often was curious about. thanks for looking. Dan

Dan, did you try a Google Search before you asked the question?

I did and found several references to British interest and use of the C-82 of which the most interesting was: http://www.paradata.org.uk/content/fairchild-c82-packet-and-c119-boxcar-aircraft

And the C-119: http://www.ruudleeuw.com/c119-info-p2.htm - mentions one on the UK civil register.

Google and other search engines are wonderful things, Dan.  Please, it would be nice if you made an effort to use them.