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

[Dizzyfugu]

Ambitious! 

[loupgarou]

Telescopic landing gear legs for the B-24 so it's higher on the ground and the P-80 can sit lower would solve many structural problems...
And the P-80 could be "fitted" on one side  of the center beam to avoid modifying the structure. On the other side fuel tanks, that would be more or less empty by the time the P-80 will be dropped, so no balance problems.

[Rick Lowe]

Yeah, those points make sense - the P-47s' gear shortened as it retracted, so there's precedent, and off-the-shelf methods to achieve that result.
And simply moving the -80 over is smart - no reason really it has to be on the centreline.

[Old Wombat]

I've just been going over construction photo's & plans of the B-24 & it doesn't really have a "keel" or "spine". It is a typical semi-monocoque construction, made up of segments bolted together.

The bomb rack is a rigid frame hung from the wing spar. To carry the P-80 you could build a rigid keel above &/or intersecting the wing spar from which to hang the mass of the fighter.

The aircraft would most likely have to be purpose built using the B-24 as a base, rather than modified from an existing B-24. Once the boom-keel was installed you could largely remove the entire fuselage aft of the forward bomb bay bulkhead & build a cabin for the P-80 pilot & a flat, narrow tail section (a bit like a HP Hampden on steroids). This way you could pretty much just push the P-80 into position from astern.

After all, this isn't a bomber that has to dawdle its way through enemy airspace, or loiter in enemy airspace to fulfill its function, it just has to get the fighter to enemy airspace, let it loose & bolt for home.

[zenrat]

Please Dave mount the fighter high enough in the bomber that there needs to be a hole in the top of the fuselage for the tail to poke through. 

[Gondor]

Telescopic landing gear legs for the B-24 so it's higher on the ground and the P-80 can sit lower would solve many structural problems...
And the P-80 could be "fitted" on one side  of the center beam to avoid modifying the structure. On the other side fuel tanks, that would be more or less empty by the time the P-80 will be dropped, so no balance problems.

What would be better would be no to use those new fuel tanks until the launch of the P-80 to keep the B-24 stable until the launch

Gondor

[sandiego89]

I am so glad that this proposal has got all of your thinking about it also! All these thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head!  Thanks for all the thoughts and encouragement!  Thinking is big part of Whiffing.

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.

Sorted! as Kit point out the B-24 gear retracts outwards, and looks like they will clear the P-80 wing. 

.....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.....your idea of notching the inner framework is not a bad one.......the ball turret could be a problem......
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......
One other things is your last pic ..the nose of the 80 is extremely close to the nose wheel of the 24.....
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 

Yes, yes, yes and thanks!

Yes I am cutting some major structure, but I will still have sapce either side of the P-80 for extra framing.  lots of cross bracing in the bomb bay area.

The ball turret is not a problem, it is part of the solution!  It will be removed.  The ball turret opening leaves a nice....wait for it....P-80 sized opening!

Yes- listed range on the P-80 is a all ove the place, but I recall P-80's based in Japan had a hard time having any useful combat endurance over  Korea and some P/F-80 units reverted to P/F-51's.  Regardless she needs all the help she can get and eliminating the take off, climb and much of the transit will help. 

Look at that P-80 sized hole where the belly turret goes!



   

[sandiego89]

And the P-80 could be "fitted" on one side  of the center beam to avoid modifying the structure.......

I have thought about using one side of the bomb bay or a "hip-carry" as well!

I've just been going over construction photo's & plans of the B-24 & it doesn't really have a "keel" .........To carry the P-80 you could build a rigid keel above &/or intersecting the wing spar from which to hang the mass of the fighter.

I believe the narrow "catwalk" running down the centerline between the left and right bomb bays is a structural keel.  It is only a foot or so wide, but part of the structure, 

Yes, the P-80 will hang from the spar. 

Please Dave mount the fighter high enough in the bomber that there needs to be a hole in the top of the fuselage for the tail to poke through. 

It just might!!!



 

[Gondor]

Very nice and a possible place to hang the plain if the propeller from the inboard engine doesn't hit the P-80, other than that it looks good 

Gondor

[mexchiwa]

What about on the wingtips like FICON RF-84s (it's be probably have to attach after takeoff to do that, though)

[kerick]

The "hip carry" looks interesting if you keep the P-80 vertical stabilizer as is. If you go with the P-80 tucked inside the B-24 then how about a twin tail version of the P-80 as tested on a T-33 pictured somewhere else on this site. The T-33 test had the horizontal stabilizers above the exhaust but you could put it below to help the P-80 to fit.

[sandiego89]

Dang it, just realized the P-80 almost always flew with external tanks, further reducing my ground clearance  - although some of those early jets had just inches to spare between their tanks and the tarmac, even the Mk.7 nuclear store on the F-84     

[Wardukw]

Considering how Manu different ranges we've both seen for this bird Dave it's quite possible the reason for external tanks was thr pilots didn't know either and was just playing it safe .

[Pellson]

Dang it, just realized the P-80 almost always flew with external tanks, further reducing my ground clearance  - although some of those early jets had just inches to spare between their tanks and the tarmac, even the Mk.7 nuclear store on the F-84     

T-33 tiptank setup will buy you a foot or two?

[sandiego89]

Work commenced, I am on the road at my daughters house, so away from my normal supplies.  I need to do the P-80 first as its shape will critical for upcoming surgery on the B-24.

Nose fishing weight for future possible display with gear down.  Will be gear up as a parasite hung on the B-24.




Well, about 4 minutes of build time you have a nice little airplane.