Has the first version of the DC9 been discussed here?

[kitnut617]

The wing and wingspan are quite a bit bigger than the XB-42 (that only has a 70'-6" wingspan), maybe you need a scale-o-rama to do this, 1/144 airliner fuselage and 1/72 wings. And seeing as the wheel track is only 13'-7", I would guess the fuselage is about 10'-0" in diameter. About Comet size I'd say ---

[sandiego89]

, I would guess the fuselage is about 10'-0" in diameter. About Comet size I'd say ---

Pretty close, The second drawing a few posts up, supplied by joncarrfarrelly, shows a fuselage of 10 feet 3 inches diameter.

Caravelle looks like a close match for a donor. Comet a bit skinnier IIRC, but likely close enough.

[PR19_Kit]

, I would guess the fuselage is about 10'-0" in diameter. About Comet size I'd say ---

Pretty close, The second drawing a few posts up, supplied by joncarrfarrelly, shows a fuselage of 10 feet 3 inches diameter.

Caravelle looks like a close match for a donor. Comet a bit skinnier IIRC, but likely close enough.

Mach 2 do a 1/72 scale Caravelle, but it's bound to cost an arm and a leg. IIRC the Comet and Caravelle had the same diameter fuselage, they both used exactly the same nose/cockpit assembly.

[maxmwill]

Ok, I was hoping to learn more, and that  hope is paying off. But, I also am curious as a possible patrol craft, ala the P3 route, as in, as a patrol/recce craft, say along the lines of the P3, how would a MAD boom be mounted(curiously, could it  be mounted on the spinner, much like the mast-mounted sensor pod on a helicopter is mounted?), or would there be booms mounted on the trailing edges of wings and/or stab and/or  fin? Say, perhaps, two mounted on the wings, two on the stab, and one on the fin. Or, if there is need only for one MAD boom, then what other sensor packages be mounted?

And as far as a need for additional engine power, something like over-wing mounted turbofans, similar to the Fokker airliner twin, for cruising?

[PR19_Kit]

The Russian Bear F (Tu-142) has a fin mounted MAD probe just as you surmise. AFAIK they only need one of them, I can't think of an MR aircraft that has more than one anyway.

[sandiego89]

Ok, I was hoping to learn more, and that  hope is paying off. But, I also am curious as a possible patrol craft, ala the P3 route, as in, as a patrol/recce craft, say along the lines of the P3, how would a MAD boom be mounted(curiously, could it  be mounted on the spinner, much like the mast-mounted sensor pod on a helicopter is mounted?), or would there be booms mounted on the trailing edges of wings and/or stab and/or  fin? Say, perhaps, two mounted on the wings, two on the stab, and one on the fin. Or, if there is need only for one MAD boom, then what other sensor packages be mounted?

And as far as a need for additional engine power, something like over-wing mounted turbofans, similar to the Fokker airliner twin, for cruising?

Just one MAD boom needed.  Agree fin (upper) mounted would be a good solution, or fuselage, or even one wing.  Through a hollow spinner on the pusher potentially feasible but overly complicated.  

For a patrol/ASW aircraft you also also want surface search radar, a searchlight, a weapons bay and sonobouy launching tubes. A few bubble windows and extra bumbs and lumps for electronic sensors always helps.  Radar placement could be nose or belly, but not a lot of room on the belly.  

Given a late 1940's time frame, defensive guns/turrets would still likely be part fo the mix. 

Weapons.  External stores or a bay for a few torpedos/depth charges.  Engine and shaft arrangment on this aircraft complicates placement of a weapons bay.  Some wing mounted pods, or external stores could be a solution.      

Booster turbojets (not turbofans) could be quite feasible. Given the time frame turbojets (not fans) more appropriate and the J34 pods like on the P2V Neptune, C-119 etc would be a good choice.  The jets are not really used for "cruising" but for take off and high speed dash.  Cruising implies economical speed/endurace, which the jets were not.    

[PR19_Kit]

Why not revert to the XB-42's engine layout and put the engines above the weapons bay? As it'll have a wider fuselage the crew could have a (noisy...) tunnel between the engines to get to the cockpit and their crew stations could be above and behind the wing, and the radar could be in a retractable dustbin like a Gannet or Shackleton.

It'd need a double dose of gearboxes to get the prop drive down from the engines and back up again, but maybe an alternative solution would be to invert the engines and run the prop shafts along the roof all the way to the tail.

[jcf]

XB-42 prop system:
http://www.enginehistory.org/Propellers/Curtiss/XB-42Prop.shtml

No need to invert the engines, few inline powered aircraft of the period
had a thrust line that was inline with the crankshaft, offset drive with a
reduction gear was common and not a big deal.

[KJ_Lesnick]

JCF

1. I did not know the intention was to use 2 x V-3420 instead of the V-1710: It makes a lot more sense as the 2 x V-1710 powering a 32,000 or so pound airplane seemed a touch underpowered
2. As I understand it: Contra-rotating props negated tangential flow from the first and possibly added a little bit of extra acceleration to the initial airflow; I did not know that it doubled thrust (seems underpowered without that)

Still interesting to see

[KJ_Lesnick]

While slightly off topic: There was an interesting proposal that I remember awhile back

Douglas planned initially to build an SE-210 with CJ805-23

[Hobbes]

Ok, I was hoping to learn more, and that  hope is paying off. But, I also am curious as a possible patrol craft, ala the P3 route, as in, as a patrol/recce craft, say along the lines of the P3, how would a MAD boom be mounted(curiously, could it  be mounted on the spinner, much like the mast-mounted sensor pod on a helicopter is mounted?), or would there be booms mounted on the trailing edges of wings and/or stab and/or  fin? Say, perhaps, two mounted on the wings, two on the stab, and one on the fin. Or, if there is need only for one MAD boom, then what other sensor packages be mounted?

The prop spinner would be a bad place for a MAD boom. The slip rings (for transferring the electrical signals from/to the boom) would induce a lot of noise, and the boom is right next to a big rotating hunk of metal so again lots of EM interference.
Plus I suspect the sensor must have a fixed orientation, so you'd need a complicated mechanism to provide a stationary boom on top of a rotating prop.


In Nimrod' Genesis there are some proposals with a MAD boom on one wingtip, and a searchlight on the other.

[Dizzyfugu]

When the Soviet Be-6 flying boat was outfitted with ASW equipment, an MAD sensor was included, too. Initial placement was at the wing tips, but this proved to be unsatisfactory and it eventually ended up in a tail extension, replacing the gun station.