Twin engine Avro Shackleton

[wuzak]

I wondered about a twin engined B-17 using R-2800s or R-3350s.

I figured that the problem would be swinging the larger propellor required by th emore powerful motor, particularly if you used the standard inner mounts. Maybe need contra-props.

Would a pair of 4360s be in order, or would they be too much of a good thing?

Why not.

A bit heavier and longer than the other options, but also with more power!

[maxmwill]

Yeah, I mentioned that in a thread I just started.

After I posted that, I started thinking of a B17 that had a 4360 mounted in the nose.

Scratch that, I am wrong. I just looked it up, and the radial tested in the nose was the 3350, not the 4360, although that does conjure some interesting thoughts. The other engines tested in the nose were the XT35, the J65 Sapphire, and the T-64-G. Its designation went through a number of changes as well, starting with the EB17-G,  then the JB17-G.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/GauthierDavidJ/9578.htm

Some pics:
http://m.cdn.blog.hu/fe/fekszarny/image/001.jpg

http://www.in2guitar.com/b-17/test.jpg

http://www.aerofiles.com/boe-b17turbo.jpg

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/36022d1395465544-if-you-could-would-you-go-55332d1299778287t-b-17-turbo-prop-b-17.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Boeing_JB-17G.jpg/800px-Boeing_JB-17G.jpg

http://www.b17bomber.de/images/versionen/jb17.jpg

http://aerofiles.com/boe-jb17g.jpg

And, just to be cranky, here is a Chinese Bull:

http://i57.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/a0/01974c60d2f694cefe0e62cfc1db38a0.jpg

[maxmwill]

Now, this might be a bit off topic, but here is, I think, and interesting B17 mod, because it has one engine:

http://elpoderdelasgalaxias.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/mystery0015.jpg?w=674&h=378

[PR19_Kit]

Now, this might be a bit off topic, but here is, I think, and interesting B17 mod, because it has one engine:

http://elpoderdelasgalaxias.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/mystery0015.jpg?w=674&h=378

Where does the main landing gear retract into???

[kitnut617]

Now, this might be a bit off topic, but here is, I think, and interesting B17 mod, because it has one engine:

http://elpoderdelasgalaxias.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/mystery0015.jpg?w=674&h=378

Where does the main landing gear retract into???

I believe that pic is photo-shopped Kit,

See here, this is the original pic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_T34#mediaviewer/File:Pratt-Whitney_T-34_B-17_testbed_NAN10-50.jpg

[maxmwill]

I didn't realize that it was photoshopped or, if the pic was created BC, before computers, then with an airbrush. But then, a single engine B17, why not?

I mean, even as a small model, a peanut scale single prop B17 might be kinda cute.

And then there'd be the possibility of a homebuilt, scaled down to something like 5/8 or even 3/4, or even smaller, and with a lot of eye squinting, an ultralight that could look kinda like this.

As to where the gear would retract, why not in the same relative position, but with the struts rotating 90 degrees, or swinging either outboard or inboard

[jcf]

Now, this might be a bit off topic, but here is, I think, and interesting B17 mod, because it has one engine:

http://elpoderdelasgalaxias.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/mystery0015.jpg?w=674&h=378

Where does the main landing gear retract into???

Straight back into the wing like the Monomail. 

[PR19_Kit]

I believe that pic is photo-shopped Kit,

See here, this is the original pic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_T34#mediaviewer/File:Pratt-Whitney_T-34_B-17_testbed_NAN10-50.jpg

I thought as much too, but I was roundly protested the last time I suggested that on here.....

[wuzak]

Might be warm in the bomb aimer's position!

For the single engined version I would suggest inward retracting main landing gear.

Like on the de Havilland Albatross

http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/users/user675/De_Havilland_DH_91-11.JPG

[McColm]

Seems that you Guys are straying from the topic. Unless one of you has idea of a turbojet powered B-17 to get back on track.

[rickshaw]

I've been thinking on this.  Obviously a twin-engined Shackleton is basically a Lockheed Neptune. 

Has anyone suggested a couple of Tynes?   Big honking turboprops.  Always the best way to go.   

[jcf]

I've been thinking on this.  Obviously a twin-engined Shackleton is basically a Lockheed Neptune. 

Has anyone suggested a couple of Tynes?   Big honking turboprops.  Always the best way to go.   

More like a Martin Mercator.

[McColm]

If you kitbashed the Neptune and the Shackleton you'd get a very large weapons bay something the Neptune wished it had.
Could chop off the cockpits arears and change them over. Cut off the tails and change them as well.

[PR19_Kit]

I've been thinking on this.  Obviously a twin-engined Shackleton is basically a Lockheed Neptune. 

Has anyone suggested a couple of Tynes?   Big honking turboprops.  Always the best way to go.   

More like a Martin Mercator.

Only if it was a twin engined Mk 3, the earlier versions didn't have the mini-jets outboard.

To drift the thread even further, did anyone ever kit the Mercator? It's a pretty impressive looking aeroplane.

[zenrat]

Might be warm in the bomb aimer's position!

For the single engined version I would suggest inward retracting main landing gear.

Like on the de Havilland Albatross

http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/users/user675/De_Havilland_DH_91-11.JPG

A flagpole.  More aircraft should have one of them.