Consolidated Vultee (Convair) XP-81

[Justo Miranda]

From
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation
-Airpower
-Warplanes of the Second World War-Volume four
-Aviation Heritage vol2.n6
Post-1

 

[Justo Miranda]

From
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation
-Airpower
-Warplanes of the Second World War-Volume four
-Aviation Heritage vol2.n6
Post-2

 

[Just call me Ray]

I'm sorry, but, from an airflow standpoint that's the most horrendous design for an air intake I have ever seen.

 

[fightingirish]

Here the pictures at the SDASM Archives.
Link: http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=49487266%40N07&q=XP-81&m=text

 

[airman]

Only 13 aircraft were ordered but only two completed , but i don't know if there was a contract for more airplanes of this type !

 

[Steve Pace]

Frank W. Davis? If so, it's the first ever picture of him I've seen.

 

[hesham]

From Steve Ginter's book,

here is an early drawing to XP-81 and its variants.

 

[blackkite]

Thanks!! Interesting side view.

 

[Apophenia]

This may be pedantic but I believe this thread's title is misleading.

The XP-81 was Convair's Model 102 but it was my understanding that the Vultee designation sequence ended with the Model 90 (XA-41) dive bomber. The Model 102 designation therefore originated with Consolidated.

Edit: Title modified

 

[hesham]

This may be pedantic but I believe this thread's title is misleading.

The XP-81 was Convair's Model 102 but it was my understanding that the Vultee designation sequence ended with the Model 90 (XA-41) dive bomber. The Model 102 designation therefore originated with Consolidated.

Edit: Title modified

Not exactly my dear Apophenia,

the Vultee after Model 90 was still designing aircraft up to Vultee XA-44,which
later became Consolidated-Vultee Aircraft Corporation from 1943/3,and it was
still carried that name until 1954,to be called Convair.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Turboprop and turbojet? that's different...

 

[Justo Miranda]

Turboprop and turbojet? that's different...

Turboprop

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The remaining airframe of one XP-81 was recently salvaged and is undergoing a restoration

 

[Arjen]

I assume the top image is from the fifties or sixties?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I assume the top image is from the fifties or sixties?

Actually, they were fairly recent. The XP-81 airframe was quite strongly made and survived in the Mojave Desert conditions very well. Thankfully, it wasn't used for gunnery practice.

Convair XP-81

Note: This aircraft is currently in storage.The Convair twin-engine XP-81, tested in 1944-1945, was powered by a conventional turbojet engine and also a turboprop engine in which most of the power was

www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

 

[Arjen]

The H-21's shadow - when did the last one fly? <edit> I just learned there's one airworthy H-21 left. </edit>
Nice to read about the XP-81's salvage.

 

[Apophenia]

This may be pedantic but I believe this thread's title is misleading.

The XP-81 was Convair's Model 102 but it was my understanding that the Vultee designation sequence ended with the Model 90 (XA-41) dive bomber. The Model 102 designation therefore originated with Consolidated.

Edit: Title modified

Not exactly my dear Apophenia,

the Vultee after Model 90 was still designing aircraft up to Vultee XA-44,which later became Consolidated-Vultee Aircraft Corporation from 1943/3,and it was still carried that name until 1954,to be called Convair.

Mod: Thanks for the title change

hesham: Thanks for that. Do you know what Vultee designation would have been given to the XA-44 concept before Model 102 was applied in the Consolidated sequence?

 

[hesham]

hesham: Thanks for that. Do you know what Vultee designation would have been given to the XA-44 concept before Model 102 was applied in the Consolidated sequence?

No my dear Apophenia,but I think in late V 90s ?.

 

[Nahida1645]

hesham: Thanks for that. Do you know what Vultee designation would have been given to the XA-44 concept before Model 102 was applied in the Consolidated sequence?

No my dear Apophenia,but I think in late V 90s ?.

Model 112 under continuation of Vultee model number sequence?

After Consolidated and Vultee aircraft merged they created a new model list based on the Vultee sequence, but started at 100

 

[Scott Kenny]

Turboprop and turbojet? that's different...

Turboprop

Right, turboprop in front and turbojet in back.

 

[hesham]

hesham: Thanks for that. Do you know what Vultee designation would have been given to the XA-44 concept before Model 102 was applied in the Consolidated sequence?

No my dear Apophenia,but I think in late V 90s ?.

Model 112 under continuation of Vultee model number sequence?

After Consolidated and Vultee aircraft merged they created a new model list based on the Vultee sequence, but started at 100

Hi Nahida1645,

to know more about Consolidated-Vultee and Convair,please see;

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/general-dynamics-aircraft-model-series.27156/

 

[ACResearcher]

Outstanding news about the XP-81 hulk.

I just hope they don't decide they want to fly it.

AlanG

 

[T. A. Gardner]

As far as the engines went, both the TG-100 turboprop and J31 were in essence the same jet engine only the TG-100 added a gearbox to drive the propeller.

 

[hesham]

From, The American Fighters.

 

[hesham]

From, Lost Fighters.

 

[P-STICKNEY]

As far as the engines went, both the TG-100 turboprop and J31 were in essence the same jet engine only the TG-100 added a gearbox to drive the propeller.

Since the TG-100 is an axial flow engine, developed by the team at Schenectady, New York, and the J31 was a centrifugal flow (Whittle type) developed by the team at Lynn, Massachusetts, (And that TG-100 development started before I-16 / J31 development) Thqt's not really the case. Confusion is easy - the Military Designation for the TG-100 was T31. The reason for this was that Turboprops and Straight Jets have separate designation lines - 'J' for Jet, 'T' for Turboprop, with Army / Air Force contracts using odd numbers beginning with 31 and Navy contracts using even numbers beginning with 30.
The Schenectady Team developed the axial TG-180 / J35 at the same time that Lynn was developing the I-40 / J33.

 

[Archibald]

It's amazing it survived ! Reminds me of the XF-90 that survived too - on a nuclear test range.

 

[hesham]

From a book about Vultee.

 

[Arjen]

@hesham From Vultee Aircraft 1932-1947 by Jonathan Thompson, Narkiewicz//Thompson 1992.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Since the TG-100 is an axial flow engine, developed by the team at Schenectady, New York, and the J31 was a centrifugal flow (Whittle type) developed by the team at Lynn, Massachusetts, (And that TG-100 development started before I-16 / J31 development) Thqt's not really the case. Confusion is easy - the Military Designation for the TG-100 was T31. The reason for this was that Turboprops and Straight Jets have separate designation lines - 'J' for Jet, 'T' for Turboprop, with Army / Air Force contracts using odd numbers beginning with 31 and Navy contracts using even numbers beginning with 30.
The Schenectady Team developed the axial TG-180 / J35 at the same time that Lynn was developing the I-40 / J33.

TG 100 Turboprop. Sure looks like a J31 to me...

 

[sienar]

TG 100 Turboprop. Sure looks like a J31 to me...

Does it really?

Lots of early turbojets/props use individual cans instead of an axial combuster... and lots of sources say the TG 100 was an axial compressor...

 

[Apophenia]

TG 100 Turboprop. Sure looks like a J31 to me...

Sienar beat me to it. I was going to say ...

There is a family resemblance for the combustion cans on all early GE turbine engines - regardless of their compressor arrangement. So, you'll see that same annular arrangement of combustion chamber sets on the J31, TG-100, J35, or J47.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Does it really?
View attachment 719028
Lots of early turbojets/props use individual cans instead of an axial combuster... and lots of sources say the TG 100 was an axial compressor...

An interesting read on this:

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4306.pdf

I also see the confusion here. I see an "axial" compressor system as inline with the turbine and the combustors inline between the two. The TG 100 still uses a centrifugal configuration with the cans arranged around the compressor even though it is inline with the turbine.

General Electric T31 (TG-100) Turboprop Engine, Cutaway

airandspace.si.edu

There's a cutaway of the compressor here, and it is indeed axial but the flow is still centrifugal. That is, it pushes the compressed air out to the edge and into the burner cans arranged around it. These then exhaust into the turbine section. As I said, I see an axial turbojet as one where the burners are inline between the compressor stage and the turbine rather than arranged around the compressor section.

I see the TG 100 as something of a compromise. It still uses the centrifugal burner can arrangement with an axial compressor most likely as a conservative measure between the Whittle engine and a true axial turbojet which GE, when the TG 100 was being designed, really lacked good data on.

I think we're mostly talking past each other here.

 

[Scott Kenny]

An interesting read on this:

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4306.pdf

I also see the confusion here. I see an "axial" compressor system as inline with the turbine and the combustors inline between the two. The TG 100 still uses a centrifugal configuration with the cans arranged around the compressor even though it is inline with the turbine.

General Electric T31 (TG-100) Turboprop Engine, Cutaway

airandspace.si.edu

There's a cutaway of the compressor here, and it is indeed axial but the flow is still centrifugal. That is, it pushes the compressed air out to the edge and into the burner cans arranged around it. These then exhaust into the turbine section. As I said, I see an axial turbojet as one where the burners are inline between the compressor stage and the turbine rather than arranged around the compressor section.

I see the TG 100 as something of a compromise. It still uses the centrifugal burner can arrangement with an axial compressor most likely as a conservative measure between the Whittle engine and a true axial turbojet which GE, when the TG 100 was being designed, really lacked good data on.

I think we're mostly talking past each other here.

What matters is the shape of the compressors.

For example, the T53 is a hybrid, it has both axial stages and one final centrifugal stage. Then the compressed air is routed past the combustors in a reverse flow pattern to shorten the engine overall, with the side effect of making the combustion section rather fat in diameter. 5 axial stages, 1 centrifugal stage, and then two stage compressor and two stage power turbines.

The T56 as used on P-3s and C-130s is straight axial flow, no centrifugal stages at all. 14 compressor stages, 4 turbine stages (usually, some variants have 2 power turbine stages and 2 compressor turbine stages)

The T31 does not have a single centrifugal stage in it, it's pure axial flow.

 

[sienar]

I also see the confusion here. I see an "axial" compressor system as inline with the turbine and the combustors inline between the two. The TG 100 still uses a centrifugal configuration with the cans arranged around the compressor even though it is inline with the turbine.

Then you are using a definition of axial and centrifugal that is different from everyone else.

 

[P-STICKNEY]

TG 100 Turboprop. Sure looks like a J31 to me...

Don't be fooled by the can-type burners, (Which are behind the compressor section, wouldn't be much use, otherwise) and the large turbine section - that turbine has to be powering both the compressor and the prop shaft.