Martin-Baker push-pull twin-boom fighter

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
18 February 2006
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
118
Website
www.kristofmeunier.fr
I found that on the Web, seeming serious. A push-pull interpretation of the twin-boom pusher?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40933081@N04/5233569371/
 

Attachments

  • MartinBaker.JPG
    MartinBaker.JPG
    43.9 KB · Views: 421
A provisional drawing of it was in my book "The end of Forked Ghosts" following words of Tony Butler, but I never saw such a precise drawing, and the mention of 2 side-by-side cockpits. I may have to update my drawing collection.
 

Attachments

  • MB_pp.GIF
    MB_pp.GIF
    121.4 KB · Views: 278
You're right Tophe,

It's a very good find about a real project.Thanks a lot for sharing.
In a book about Martin-Baker , the cockpit is
described as follow...Enclosed side -by-side seating
in cockpit with clear view bubble canopy...
 
lastdingo said:
The common reason for counter-rotating propellers is to cancel torque - what's the reason here?

Reduce the size of the prop disc.
 
To reduce the size of the prop disc, a 6-blade single propeller would do as fine as two 3-blade (contra-rotating) propellers, no?
 
Tophe said:
To reduce the size of the prop disc, a 6-blade single propeller would do as fine as two 3-blade (contra-rotating) propellers, no?

No. To first approximation, the fewer props you have, the more efficient. If you could get away with a *single* prop, you'd do well. However, the number of props is tricky... it depends on flight conditions, engine power and so on, and these are all over the place for *any* aircraft.

Plus, while a six-bladed prop might be smaller in diameter than a three-bladed prop, that doen't mean it'll weigh less. And it certainly doesn't mean that it'll be less complex or require less maintenance.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Plus, while a six-bladed prop might be smaller in diameter than a three-bladed prop, that doen't mean it'll weigh less. And it certainly doesn't mean that it'll be less complex or require less maintenance.

Let's put it this way: if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!
 
There's this Cessna 337, not to mention all those nice Dornier flying boats. Push-pull was a big thing in pre-war flying boats.
 

Attachments

  • cessna_337_skymaster.jpg
    cessna_337_skymaster.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 251
Yes, the Skymaster. I'm silly because I was about to mention it in the above post and then forgot about it...

Oh, the Dorniers. Yes! You're right. And they flew pretty well it seems. Now from a technical viewpoint, what is the effect of the front propellers' air stream hitting the rear ones? Is there any consequence, either positive or negative? I should imagine the stream is pretty much absorbed into it and it might even make it work better, but that's pure conjecture, so if anyone with knowledge on the subject could clarify this particular point, I sure would appreciate it.
 
Strictly as a layman: Dornier tried push-pull in the 335 which was one of the fastest prop-fighters ever, De Havilland made an even faster twin-prop with their Hornet. I don't think propellor-efficiency is fundamentally compromised by either configuration.

One big advantage for the Hornet was field of vision, the pilot of a 335 was stuck behind that long nose. Rolling inertia should be smaller for the 335. I guess much depends on what you want to use the aircraft for.
 
I updated my twin-boom 1939-45 collection at http://cmeunier.chez-alice.fr/update_FG.htm
Here is a bigger view:
 

Attachments

  • r_MBpp_d.JPG
    r_MBpp_d.JPG
    40.2 KB · Views: 242
Stargazer2006 said:
Let's put it this way: if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!

Dornier Wal, Dornier 18, ...
 
lastdingo said:
Stargazer2006 said:
Let's put it this way: if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!

Dornier Wal, Dornier 18, ...

Yep, all the examples you guys have provided are true, but apart from the Cessna Skymaster, they're all mostly from Dornier, so it's still quite a scarce configuration... and one can hardly call the Wal a "production type"!
 
Stargazer2006 said:
if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!
On the contrary, if such a layout were THAT bad, why Burt Rutan would have used it nowadays for its 309th design (Adam M309)?
 
Stargazer2006 said:
... and one can hardly call the Wal a "production type"!

Of the Do J/Do 15 about 250 were built. Not a very large figure, but if production number is
the scale to speak of a "production type", thats certainly enough. Add about 170 Do 18, principally
very similar, around 20 Super Wal, and the handful of Do 26, you'll get a production number, that
would make at least nowadays producers dream.
But push-pull wasn't only a theme for Dornier, just remember the Latécoère 21 and 521, or the
Farman F.22 series. What actually is quite rare are twin-engined types with engines in the nose
and in the rear. Maybe because those engines occupy space in the fuselage, that could be used
for carrying passengers/payload ? Another argument against fuselage mounted push-pull engines,
as already mentioned by Arjen, could be obstructed forward view, but AFAIK both civil examples,
that readily come to my mind (Cessna Skymaster, Matra Moynét Jupiter) were marketed with the
argument "safety of two engines in an aircraft, which handles like a single-engined one (or even
better)".
 
Tophe said:
Stargazer2006 said:
if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!
On the contrary, if such a layout were THAT bad, why Burt Rutan would have used it nowadays for its 309th design (Adam M309)?
Not to mention the Model 76 "Voyager".
Photo NASA via Wikipedia
 

Attachments

  • 766px-Voyager_aircraft.jpg
    766px-Voyager_aircraft.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 294
Jemiba said:
Stargazer2006 said:
... and one can hardly call the Wal a "production type"!

Of the Do J/Do 15 about 250 were built. Not a very large figure, but if production number is
the scale to speak of a "production type", thats certainly enough. Add about 170 Do 18, principally
very similar, around 20 Super Wal, and the handful of Do 26, you'll get a production number, that
would make at least nowadays producers dream.
But push-pull wasn't only a theme for Dornier, just remember the Latécoère 21 and 521, or the
Farman F.22 series. What actually is quite rare are twin-engined types with engines in the nose
and in the rear. Maybe because those engines occupy space in the fuselage, that could be used
for carrying passengers/payload ? Another argument against fuselage mounted push-pull engines,
as already mentioned by Arjen, could be obstructed forward view, but AFAIK both civil examples,
that readily come to my mind (Cessna Skymaster, Matra Moynét Jupiter) were marketed with the
argument "safety of two engines in an aircraft, which handles like a single-engined one (or even
better)".

Thanks Jens. I wasn't aware that there had been so many Dornier Wal aircraft. But then again I'm really not into German aircraft in general, so I've got a lot to learn on that subject!

Don't get me wrong, Tophe. I absolutely LOVE push-pull designs, and the aircraft that Rutan designed for Adam was just beautiful. I just keep wondering why there are not more proponents of that configuration if it is such a safe and economical layout... :-\
 
As allways, almost, there are good points and there are bad points. You know that very few pushers get into mass-production, mostly because of problems to cool down the rear engine (and to bail out for the pilot if military), and these push-pull layout with engine at the rear of the pod belongs to that category.
 
The list is longer than people think, and this isn't exhaustive:

Handley Page V/1500 - production (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Bristol Braemar - flew (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Grahame-White Ganymede - flew (n.b not an inline design, 2xtractor, 1xpusher)
Tarrant Tabor - flew, briefly (2xtractor/Pusher Pairs + 2 tractor only)
Short Singapore II - production (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Short Sarafand - flew (3xtractor pusher pairs)
Airspeed AS.47 - proposal
CAMS 33 - production
CAMS 51 - flew
CAMS 53 - production
CAMS 55 - production
CAMS 58 - flew (1 or 2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Latécoère 24 - flew (2xtractor, 1xpusher)
Latécoère 340 - flew (2xtractor, 1xpusher)
Latécoère 550 - flew (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
DFW R.I - flew (2 tractor, 2 pusher propellers, 4 engines in fuselage)
Siemens-Schuckert R.VIII - built, did not fly (2 tractor, 2 pusher propellers, 6 engines in fuselage)
Zeppelin Staaken R.V - production (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Kogiken Plan VI Heavy Bomber - Design Study (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Kogiken Plan I Type A/B High Speed Heavy Bomber - Design Studies (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Kogiken Plan II High Speed Heavy Bomber - Design Study (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Kogiken Plan VIII High Speed Reconnaissance Plane - Design Study (2xtractor/pusher pairs)
Tachikawa Ki-94-I - proposal
Fokker D.XXIII - flew

If we include mixed-power, jet-prop pairings then it gets even longer (I'm restricting this list to deliberately designed inline pairings, not instances of jets being added to the wing of existing aircraft outboard of the original engines).

Convair XP-81 - flew
Curtiss XF15C - flew
Ryan FR1 Fireball - production
Ryan F2R Darkshark - flew
Martin P4M Mercator - production (2xtractor/jet pairs)
Miles M.58 - proposal
Fairey N.7/43 Part II/III - Design study
Fairey O.5/43 - proposal
Fairey S.11/43 - proposal
Westland S.11/43 - proposal
Breguet Vultur - flew

There are also some conceptual similarities with the tandem-tractor or tandem-pusher designs such as the Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster, Kawasaki Ki-64, Fairey Strikefighter, Fairey O.5/43 and Vickers Scheme D/E bomber with two separate engines driving what looks like a standard contra-rotating propeller, but is actually two separate engine and propeller installations inline. And you could expand that further to include designs such as the Bristol 100 ton bomber, Bristol Britannia Blackburn B-54 and Fairey Gannet where there two separate engines or an engine with two independently operating halves driving a contraprop through a combining gearbox
 
Dear DWG,
your list is interesting, while going in many different directions.
Let me try to focus on the Martin-Baker push-pull way:
- twin-engine
- with nose propeller & central pusher propeller at the rear of the pod
- twin-lateral-booms to carry the tail.
In this group, I count:

Cessna 336/337/327/377/O-2 Skymaster: production
IAI Malat/Hunter: production
Canaero Dynamics Toucan : production
Adam M309/A500 : production

Canton-Unné 1910 : flown ?
Queen Twin-Monoplane (aspect unknown, to be confirmed): flown
RBVZ/Sikorsky S-19: flown
Blériot 125: flown
Bryant 1927 : flown
Fokker D-XXIII: flown
Tupolev ANT-23/I-12: flown
Moskalyev SAM-13: flown
Meyer-Reichelt Doppelrumpfmodell : flown ?
Powers Bashfort MiniMaster : flown
Schweizer SA 2-38 Condor: flown

Deville D4-S2 (aspect unknown, to be confirmed): project
Lado-Borkowsky Helicoplan 700ch : project
Caproni Ca.150 : project
Lockheed 1937 : project
Pemberton-Billing push-pull fighter: project
Junkers EF-112 : project
Tachikawa Ki-94-I : project
Airspeed AS.47 : project
Mitsubishi Harry Type O : project
Silverstein D130651 : project
Flight Ideal Fighter : dream
Murine 335 Eagle Mk III : dream
Wadleigh Patent US6367738: project

Below: the first of them all, from Aviation Magazine #681 of 1976
 

Attachments

  • r_Canton-Unne.JPG
    r_Canton-Unne.JPG
    56.8 KB · Views: 234
Yes, thanks to correct that ;D.
Explanation: I personally count this Savoia as several-boomer rather than twin-boomer, because the main booms are hold themselves by vertical beams, and the grand total holding the tail is (somehow, ±) "several booms". But the main design is twin-boom you are right. ;) As well, I count the Rutan/Scales Voyager as triplex-boomer but many ones put it in the twin-boom class.
Of course, I do not forget also the Martin-Baker push-pull but here were counted just cousins of it.
But I forgot a Dornier "Schneider Modell" (project), I plan to update my 'twin-boom files' this year at last... :-\
 

Attachments

  • Dornier Schneider_.JPG
    Dornier Schneider_.JPG
    33.1 KB · Views: 253
Tophe said:
Dear DWG,
your list is interesting, while going in many different directions.

The common factor is that they all represent mechanisms to solve the same engineering problem, delivering the power of two separate engines out of a single longitudinal structure, whether that be a fuselage pod, full fuselage or nacelle.
 
Just in case they might help.

P
 

Attachments

  • 3BSPWW2.jpg
    3BSPWW2.jpg
    132.8 KB · Views: 396
  • 4BSPWW2.jpg
    4BSPWW2.jpg
    119.7 KB · Views: 177
  • 6BSPWW2.jpg
    6BSPWW2.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 158
Mole said:
Flitzer said:
Just in case they might help.

P

By the way, is your web site down? I get a generic placeholder at www.flitzerart.com. :-(

It's been down for a couple of years now.
It's a long story :eek:
A guy at work in our IT department used to sort all the techical bits of getting it up and keep it running and he set it up.
However he left without leaving an contact address, so it sort of died.

Many thanks and glad they helped. Justo did a lot on these too.
P
 
That's too bad, but there must be other solutions, even free ones. Perhaps one of the forum members could help get you set up?
 
Thanks Mole.
One day I'll get round to it.
Using a free site as you suggest may be one way.

Oooops, its gone off topic. Apologies.
Peter
 
Dear Flitzer,
you provided such a great enrichment to the MB-PP subject that you are forgiven. You helped us, if we may help you this is a good return. ;)
 
I am glad I just discovered (Google-ing) 2 new push-pull twin-boomers, in the UAV sub-class like the Hunter while very different:
(the push-pull layout still seduces designers, it was not wrong)
 

Attachments

  • PP-UAV.JPG
    PP-UAV.JPG
    123.9 KB · Views: 164
Back then, there were still other unknown push-pull twin-boomers. This A-27 though seems a what-if dream of those times, not a model copying the true North American A-27 (aspect unknown to me):
from http://www.antiquemodeler.org/sam_new/approved_lists/adl-gas/oldtimer.html
 

Attachments

  • a27date.JPG
    a27date.JPG
    110.4 KB · Views: 179
Well, the true A-27 was a T-6 derivative, less interesting than this push-pull oddity...
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-27
 
Back
Top Bottom