A4 Skyhawk Pusher

[Burncycle]

I had an A4 skyhawk laying around, and as I was poking through the spare parts box I came across an old engine and decided it would look kinda cool as a pusher.  Started out just adding vertical stabilizers to it similar to a vought cutlass, but it just didn't look right.  Finally settled on a twin boom and so I made a couple out of some balsa fashioned after the OV-10 shape.

So I invented a little back story about a hypothetical WW2 land-based pacific fighter (alt history).   Kind of a crude build, but I like how it turned out!

http://imgur.com/a/YuQDj

The proposal in this scenario is in response to a 1938 tender by a fictional allied pacific country for a strike fighter capable of 400 mph @ 20,000 feet, a range of 1,200 miles plus reserve in fighter sweep configuration (internal ammunition + droptanks) with pilot comfort and handling suitable for long over-water flights, along with a secondary ground attack role (anachronistic ordnance also part of the fictional country) and capability for mid-air refuelling (probe and drogue).

Competition included a couple of traditional twins: a domestic entry similar to the Skyrocket, and a foreign submission (P-38), a push/pull entry (domestic design similar to Do-335), and this configuration (contra rotating pusher).

This one represented the high risk option with less proven technology.   Proposed powerplant would be a 28 cyl 4-row radial (corncob type) engine in the fuselage.  Once the propellers and hubs are removed, the entire engine can be pulled out the rear for access and maintenance.  Landing gear is located in the booms (originally was going to have tires sticking out like an A-10, but figured they would fit inside ok).  The Skyrocket type design had sufficient speed but not sufficient range.  The P-38 type entry was a solicitation by US companies and was modified to incorporate a refueling probe and other range-extending options, but the licensing agreement was not found to be mutually beneficial. The Do335 type entry was a domestic design but no straightforward way could be found for mid air refueling.  This proposal was the unlikely winner despite the risks and criticism over a single-engine design to be used on long over-water flights.

First flight in 1940 with 2,500 HP, ends the war with 3,500 HP (alt-history wasp major type engine). The engine was found to be mechanically reliable, but maintenance intensive and prone to fires early on.  An ejection seat was incorporated, not "zero-zero", but sufficient to clear the tail boom while in flight with sufficient altitude and speed.  Landing gear doesn't give much prop clearance, so early on prop strikes were common with inexperienced pilots, and even experienced ones coming home fatigued after long missions and with battle damaged aircraft.  As a result, later models incorporated a retractable spring skids behind the landing gear along the booms that allowed for more forgiving landings.

Handling was docile and responsive.  With no net torque, long over-water flights were easy and visibility was the best out of all of the proposals.  High wing loading and excellent directional stability gave a smooth low-level ride and stable platform for delivering ordnance.  Boosted controls allowed for excellent roll and pitch rates, and the aircraft featured correspondingly good instantaneous turn rates.  Unfortunately the wing design also bleeds energy quickly leading to poor sustained turn rates despite the powerful engine, and so for air to air fights pilots were encouraged to maintain high speeds and energy fight instead of trying to turn with the opponent in the horizontal.  Despite it's faults, the design proved to be an excellent airplane mid to late war after it's teething problems were sorted and the technologies matured.


*edited* to add backstory, hope it sounds reasonable...

[darthspud]

 

looking very nice.

Wish I had that level of skill.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Ok, so an A-4 and a Bronco got together after watching some Shinden porn, and this happened...
...I think that's fantastic !!

Ian.

[kerick]

I have a Skyhawk fuselage laying in a drawer right now. Hmmmmm...... (Wanders off to basement muttering, "Why didn't I think of that....)

[zenrat]

Cool.

[Dizzyfugu]

Cool.

Second that - but looks IMHO rather post-WWII. Could be an alternative design in the competition for the USAF's PAVE COIN program that spawned the Piper PA-48 Enforcer?

[NARSES2]

Yup, I like that 

I agree with Dizzy in that it looks much latter then WII to me. Probably mid 60's even 70's, but hey it's your universe and your model 

[sandiego89]

Great idea/concept- a natural pusher.  

Thirded that the backstory is too early to be plausable.  The corncob engine was too immature then, and the concept way too advanced for your timeframe of 1938.  Recommend a late 50's to early 1970's backstory- maybe even as a Skyhawk modification for a ground attack aircraft- Vietnam, South America.....  

[Weaver]

That looks great - nice work! 

[Burncycle]

Thanks for the replies!  Yeah it definitely looks a little more post-war lol

[Burncycle]

So I did have a quick question. I know very little about how turbochargers and superchargers work or what's required space wise -- for a 28 cyl radial (kind of an Alt History wasp major), should there be enough room in the fuselage for a turbo or supercharger?  Would I need additional intakes / exhausts to simulate it?  Or could the heated / waste air run through the nacelle where the propeller hub is for a little Meredith effect?

[kerick]

Turbochargers compress the intake air for the engine using energy from the exhaust gasses. The exhaust is run through a turbine which is directly connected by a shaft to the compressor. Superchargers do the same thing but are driven directly off the engine by some mechanical connection such as a shaft, gears or belts and pulleys. Therefore, a turbo charged engine will have the exhaust discharged through some outlet that may be some distance from the engine as in the P-38. Supercharged engines will have the exhaust exiting through the usual places as in the P-51 or Spitfire.

Turbochargers could be placed anywhere in the aircraft that had room, as in the P-47. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_P-47_Thunderbolt#/media/File:P-47D-40_R_2800_side.jpg

In many aircraft engines the superchargers were attached to the back of the engine.

[Tophe]

I love your TWIN-BOOM pusher A-4

So I invented a little back story about a hypothetical WW2 land-based pacific fighter (alt history).   Kind of a crude build, but I like how it turned out!
http://imgur.com/a/YuQDj
First flight in 1940
*edited* to add backstory, hope it sounds reasonable...

I confirm at 100%: this is true because... I am making a collection of 1939-45 twin-boom airplanes and I am willing to include this one...
But blease don't try to be "reasonable", this sounds as an insult for us free-dreamers...  

[Burncycle]

Sounds good Tophe!   It's hard not to picture it as being more modern, maybe I can get away with 1944-1945 hehe

Thanks for the explanation kerick, hopefully there's enough room for a turbocharger

Here's a rough profile view I mashed together from existing three views out there.  I may mess with the canopy to give it more of a P-51 / FW190 look (sliding to the rear to open)

[Captain Canada]

Oh that`s pretty neat !