P-80 air launched from B-24 mother ship *finished*

[sandiego89]

P-80 as B-24 launched parasite fighter, Operation Downfall, 1945. 

With Operation Olympic, scheduled to commence in November 1945, as part of the larger Operation Downfall for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, Allied planners desired to included high speed aircraft and early jets into planning efforts.  As experienced during the recent battles such as Okinawa, resistance was expected to be fierce, and the threat from Kamikazes and Betty launched Ohka's was deemed very real.  The first squadrons of Ryan Fireballs were working up to conduct carrier operations against high speed threats, but how to get the land based P-80 into the fight was a problem, as range was going to be an issue. 

The technical center at Wright field came up with a proposal to air launch the P-80 from modified bombers.  This would allow the P-80 to be launched much closer to the home islands, be able to loiter until threats were detected, and have enough fuel for meaningful engagement and to return to baes on newly captured Okinawa.  No airborne recovery was planned, just the carry and launch.  The B-29, with huge range and lifting capacity, was the obvious choice, but when General Curtis Lemay was briefed on the proposal, he was heard to say "Don't let those bastards even close to '29, I need everyone one of them.  If they want something to play with, give them a B-17 or a B-24 or something....but not a '29"....  The planners took this as direction to look for alternative airframes.  The B-17 and B-24 which were both widely available with the draw down in Europe were considered, as were the C-54 and the B-32 as carrier "mother ships".  Both belly/bomb bay and carriage on the the spine of the mother-ship were considered, but bottom carry was preferred because it was initially thought that operation may have to be launched from the Marianas, making for a very long flight for the fighter pilot strapped to the top of the bomber, and there would be no way to jettison the parasite in the event of an emergency.  Bomb bay carriage was deemed preferable as the P-80 would be unmanned during takeoff, and the pilot could climb into the parasite once the mother ship was safely at altitude.    The B-24 was initially rejected as it was thought to be too low to the ground for carrying an underslung P-80, but upon closer examination it was thought it could just fit..... 

Kits:
1/72 MPC B-24 Liberator
1/72 MPC F-80 Shooting Star

Note this could be a total disaster. If this thread mysteriously disappears, it never happened, it was just your imagination...... 



Proposal #1.  Makes more sense, easy to display, and much less work. 



Proposal #2.  Much more work, tough to see, impractical- so this what I will go for! 





         

[Wardukw]

I like this Dave..and I like issues to sort out ..which works better.
Mounting the P80 under the B24 has its good points and bad.
The closeness of the fuselage to the ground would as you mentioned a issue.. to get the P80 inside it you would either have to jack the 24 up and roll the 80 under it or dig a pit and roll the 24 over the top ..that would mean that only airfields prepared for this task could be used where as mounting it on top could happen anywhere where they have a crane which can lift a 80 which weights a smeg under 3 tons.
The 24 would have to be heavily modified to fit the 80 inside it ..mounting it on the top is much simpler as it would sit right above the wing root which is nearly the strongest part of the plane .
As for the time the pilot would spend sitting in his cockpit over long distance flights makes no never mind as it's exactly the same as a ferry flight and at the same time the 24 can be armed and used as a bomber where as with the 80 inside it can't be much at all  because the 80 would take the entire bomb bay and waist gunners postions which would turn the 24 into more of a liability than a help.
In a emergency situation explosive bolts could be used to release the 80 and the pilot takes over from there ..with it mounted inside there's little chance of a release if something bad happens and the figther cant be released and if the crew has to leap for it their main exit point has a fighter stuck in it.

Top mounted also means a much faster release from its mothership..internally mounted is very slow and if the release  is not perfect the 80 can bounce back into the 24 from the destured air under the 24 ..top mount is the 80 matching air speed and it just pulls up ..clears the 24 and speeds away or the 24 can go into a gental dive as the 80 lifts off.
Then the 24 can bomb and the 80 can protect.
Now to the model side..it's way cooler Dave to see the 80 on the roof cause you can see it 
Underneath ya can't see do do mate and it will look like ya just glued the  wings and lower fuselage to the 24. 

[Flyer]

I agree with all the above, on top would be best.

[NARSES2]

I like the thought process behind this   

[zenrat]

What if the F-80's pilot seat was initially inside the Lib but was then raised up into the fighter's cockpit though the floor "Anderson Style"?

[PR19_Kit]

The GRB-36/RF-84K combo did have to either jack the -36 up to load the -84, or they had to position it over a specially made pit for the same purpose, so there'd be a precedent.

Ah no, your B-24/F-80 combo would BE the precedent of course. 

[Stan in YUL]

This concept has legs! Go for it.

[Gondor]

I agree with the top mounted P-80, however I dissagree with the B-24 also carrying bombs as it would need it's weight carrying capacity to carry the P-80. Any spare weight could be used to carry bombs, but the range will have been reduced because of the drag of the P-80 so how much further would the B-24 have to fly to it's target and when would the P-80 have to be released to defend the B-24? Far better to simply have the B-24 as a mother ship which releases the P-80 just outside the defenders active defence area and head home.

Gondor

[Old Wombat]

Actually, Proposal #2 makes much more sense than Proposal #1.

The B-24 won't be able to carry an effective bombload if it's carrying the P-80 .... Full-Stop! (Period! for out American cousins)

Embedding the P-80 cockpit in the B-24 gives THREE major bonuses;
1) Less drag, allowing the B-24 to travel further & faster with the P-80 attached;
2) the P-80 pilot can "relax" in the more spacious bomber until they get close to enemy controlled airspace, then he can climb into the P-80 cockpit more able to fly & fight effectively (rather than suffering fatigue & cramping from being stuck just sitting in the small fighter cockpit for hours en route to the battle space; &
3) It would be much safer to fire up the engine whilst attached to the B-24, set them at low power, then drop away from the B-24 like a big bomb, before cranking up the engine & fly up between the aircraft of the bomber formation*.




[*: This, also, allows the fighter to maintain speed should the engine fail, so that the pilot can manoeuvre around any bombers below (rather than stalling into them), & give him a chance to re-start the engine.]

[PR19_Kit]

There's one problem with this idea............

The B-24 has a major structural member running right down the centre of the bomb bay. The bombs are actually hung from it, so it must be pretty hefty. To make room for the P-80 in there you'd have to chop out the big beam, and the fuselage would probably collapse.

Sorry to go all JMN on you, but................ 

[sandiego89]

Thank you for all the well thought out comments, yes I had thought about most of these concerns already as this has been bouncing around on my head for a few years. 



Yes carrying on the underside has lots of pros and cons, and yes all of the comments for a top mounted fit do make sense, but for the reasons that Wadukw-NZ and Old Wombat outline (drag, our P-80 hero pilot being able to relax in the B-24 puffing on a few Lucky Strikes before mounting up, safety) I want to try the bottom mount.

But as Kit points out: 

There's one problem with this idea............

The B-24 has a major structural member running right down the centre of the bomb bay.....

Yes that has been my number one concern. the narrow strip down the middle of the serves as a main structural keel of the aircraft. I want it be somewhat realistic, that's why I kept rejecting the B-24 as a mother ship, but then I thought about the folks in the Hot Rod industry who notch oht the frames of Rat Rods and raise the frame above the rear axle.  The frame goes from this:   _________  to This: ___/-----\______

  I was thinking about two beams either side of the P-80 that go up and over the P-80 wing replace the keel. 

It is about the thought process and build up for me.   Yes top mount makes sense, but bottom mount is a challenge and a fun thought process.   

 

[Gondor]

If hanging the P-80 from below, you will have to position it very carefully or the wings will get in the way of the main undercarriage when it is either retracting or extending.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

The B-24's main gear retracts outwards, which could help in that respect.

[Captain Canada]

Sounds good ! I'm a big fan of both aeroplanes, so I can't wait to see more of this !

[Wardukw]

One thing which will absolutely have to done is the redesign of the entire lower fuselage..the 24 sits so low to the ground moat of the 80 will have to sit damn near completely inside the 24 and that alone is a huge problem.
Dave your idea of notching the inner framework is not a bad one and I've done that on cars to get them slammed but that's easy has hell to do ..On a plane that would be a huge redesign again ..fact it would weight more than original frame as it will require a serious amount of reinforcement so there would be no way it would just fold up on its self ..since the 80 only weights 3 tons its weight is nothing for a 24 to carry as the 24 would loose 2 to possibly 3 gun positions...the ball turret could be a problem ..all the guns ammo and their mounts and feed systems..quite alot of weight savings there alone.
With a normal bomb load the 24 has a range of about 2500 miles .. that's gonna be more of course .
The range of the P80 ive seen is all over the place from a normal range of 500 miles to 1200 miles so buggered if I know.
So if it is 1200 miles the 24 could fly a bloody good distance and the 80 could still get back home.
One thing you can try is to semi impose a profile of the 80 over a profile of the 24..will give ya the info on how much of the 80 will be inside the 24.
One other things is your last pic ..the nose of the 80 is extremely close to the nose wheel of the 24..there 3 bulk heads there which even then didn't fix the 24s weak nose gear issues.
Give ya credit Dave..this has got me thinking if it's possible and what would be needed to be done to make it possible..I love that