Has the first version of the DC9 been discussed here?

[maxmwill]

Now, I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with what might have become the DC9, had Douglas decided to build it, but, as an airliner, it might have been, well, interesting.

I'm referring to the transport version of the B42 Mixmaster.

But, I'm thinking of  the next step after that, that of military transport and other systems. Long range patrol craft, something similar to what happened with the Lockheed Electra, resulting in the P3 Orion.

[jcf]

It has been mentioned:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20134.msg285400.html#msg285400

BTW, it was the first use of the DC 8 designation, the DC 9 designator was first applied to a small four
engine jet transport.

[sandiego89]

Ohh, new one for me, lots of WHIF potential for a MixMaster with a bigger fuselage.

ASW/Maritime patrol would be a natural, although MAD boom placement might pose a challenge. 

[PR19_Kit]

I can't help feeling that a transport Mixmaster would not have sold well once the first pax had travelled in them. With two large piston engines mounted right in front of the cabin and a large propshaft whirring  away somewhere under their feet it would hardly have been a quiet or relaxing aircraft to fly in!

[Flyer]

Ohh, new one for me, lots of WHIF potential for a MixMaster with a bigger fuselage.

ASW/Maritime patrol would be a natural, although MAD boom placement might pose a challenge. 

New to me as well. There was a small twin with what the pilot said was a MAD boom sticking out the front like a javelin, they were looking for mineral deposits or something and were flying around this area for several weeks a few years ago, but I never had a camera with me when I was near it it looked cool in a weird way. Why couldn't a ASW MAD boom be at the front?

[kitnut617]

I can't help feeling that a transport Mixmaster would not have sold well once the first pax had travelled in them. With two large piston engines mounted right in front of the cabin and a large propshaft whirring  away somewhere under their feet it would hardly have been a quiet or relaxing aircraft to fly in!

Looking at the pic in Jon's link, I'd say the engines are at the rear end of the fuselage Kit.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=20134.0;attach=26494;image

[jcf]

More on the DC-8 Skybus:

http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-skybus.htm

The engines were mounted forward, under the fwd cargo hold.





Thread on Secretprojects:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4716.0.html

[sandiego89]

More on the DC-8 Skybus:

http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-skybus.htm

The engines were mounted forward, under the fwd cargo hold.

Egadds, then I'm with Kit- two V-1710's forward and long shaft(s) below the pax cabin- engineers and enthusiasts would have loved it- normal pax, not so much.   

Wonder what the FAA would have said about main engine fire supression? 

[jcf]

Wonder what the FAA would have said about main engine fire supression? 

Nothing, as they didn't exist. 

[kitnut617]

Cripes!! I'm with Kit's view now ----

I'd have thought putting the engines in the rear end, then moving the wing back would have been more exceptable

[PR19_Kit]

IIRC the Mixmaster, and Jetmaster, had their engines well forward, and above the bomb bay. The main landing gear retracted into bays aft of the wing trailing edge too, so there was precious little space to put the engines in the rear.

For the bombers rear engines would never have worked because as soon as the bombs were dropped the CG would move way aft and out of any sensible limits. Douglas were just building on their experience with the 'masters to produce a passenger variant I suppose.

Turning to modelling, which fuselage would work for the 'DC8' though? I just happen to have two each of the VP XB-42 and -43 kits around, one '-43 is in build for a Whiffed version but the others are untouched as yet. It'll look good in a Delta or early Braniff scheme.....  

[Later] Looking at the linked page that Jon posted, it looks like they planned to use a variant of the later, wider single canopy as fitted to the XB-43 at some stage, which is good as the VP kit comes with both types and the 'Double Bubble' ones are a MUST for a bomber! 

I can't figure out how the main gear retracts on the 'DC8', there aren't any doors in the drawings and the wheels just seem to go straight up! 

[jcf]

There was a later four-engine variation proposed for AB Aerotransport in Sweden.
Contra-props on nose and tail. 

[jcf]

Hey Kit,
the mlg appear to turn through 90 degrees when retracting into a bulge at the wingroot.
Or at least that's how I interpret a drawing posted on Secretprojects by Mark Nankivil (Gerald Balzer collection).

[sandiego89]

Turning to modelling, which fuselage would work for the 'DC8' though?

I can't figure out how the main gear retracts on the 'DC8', there aren't any doors in the drawings and the wheels just seem to go straight up!  

A DC-9 (the jet version we all know) would be pretty close in fuselage diameter. DC-4/6/C-54 might be a good shape, and have the square windows.  

And the gear looks very short as well.  Perhaps just a simple fold like jcf interprets.

I would be more worried about catching a wingtip and cartwheeling.  A very low slug beast.

[PR19_Kit]

Hey Kit,
the mlg appear to turn through 90 degrees when retracting into a bulge at the wingroot.
Or at least that's how I interpret a drawing posted on Secretprojects by Mark Nankivil (Gerald Balzer collection).

Ah yes, that'd make sense, a bit like a P-40, thanks.

A DC-9 (the jet version we all know) would be pretty close in fuselage diameter. DC-4/6/C-54 might be a good shape, and have the square windows.  

Sure, but 1/72 DC9s are like snowfalls in the Sahara.

Maybe a 1/144 scale 767 would do, I'm well stocked with them.