WI more Ford Tri-Motors?

What if Bill Stout had been allowed to continue innovating after he designed the Tri-Motor airliner for Henry Ford?
Would his later airliners have smooth skins?
Would his later piston-pounding Tri-Motors have resembled BN Trilanders?
Would his jet -powered tri-motors have resembled Boeing 72s?
 
What about a variant of the DC-8 with wing pusher props? (No, that's not a wrong link; there was an airliner based on it.)
 
What about a variant of the DC-8 with wing pusher props? (No, that's not a wrong link; there was an airliner based on it.)

An airliner--presumably the DC-8, known the world over as Douglas's entry into the jetliner race, engined with four podded jets on the wing--is descended from the Mixmaster, with dual piston engines occupying much of the fuselage driving a contraprop set in the tail?

Well, the XB-42 is a Douglas design, prior to the DC-8, designed to carry loads at high speeds. One could claim it is an ancestor of the DC-8 since presumably Douglas learned a few lessons from this early attempt. Also at one point a pair of jets each in an underslung pod was attached to the wings, so I suppose that gave some insight into that aspect of the -8 too.

Still, isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim this plane as "the" ancestor when Douglas surely did design other airframes in the decade long interim between the two planes.

If the DC-8 were not based to a great extent on data, machines and experience that all came between these aircraft in that decade, why did Douglas wait and let Boeing scoop up muvh of the market.

It would be interesting to learn which designer at Douglas suggested this relationship and implied it was anything closer than a grandparent.

Or if your reference to the famous DC-8 was another mislead I'd like to know what airliner made by anyone resembles the Mixmaster! Where would the passengers even go?

In pods on the wings maybe?:rolleyes:
 
An airliner--presumably the DC-8, known the world over as Douglas's entry into the jetliner race, engined with four podded jets on the wing--is descended from the Mixmaster, with dual piston engines occupying much of the fuselage driving a contraprop set in the tail?
No, Douglas proposed an airliner derived loosely from the Mixmaster, with a longer fuselage to accomodate passengers and engines. This came after the DC-7, and was logically designated DC-8. The brilliance of the plan is shown by the fact that precisely none were ever built.

Nearly a decade later, Douglas designed an entirely different airliner to succeed the DC-7 in the jet age. Since the last DC-8 had never progressed beyond some dirty sheets of paper, they reused the designation. The only common part would be the "DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY" makers' plate - they were totally unrelated designs.
 
RLBH said:
No, Douglas proposed an airliner derived loosely from the Mixmaster, with a longer fuselage to accomodate passengers and engines. This came after the DC-7, and was logically designated DC-8. The brilliance of the plan is shown by the fact that precisely none were ever built.

Nearly a decade later, Douglas designed an entirely different airliner to succeed the DC-7 in the jet age. Since the last DC-8 had never progressed beyond some dirty sheets of paper, they reused the designation. The only common part would be the "DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY" makers' plate - they were totally unrelated designs.
Correct, & I should probably have been clearer about it.:eek: (The XB-42 page has the pic, & the piston DC-8 page doesn't...but there is a link to it.)
 
Correct, & I should probably have been clearer about it.:eek:
Um, yaaaas. Even now your reasoning in comparing a pair of central engines driving a pusher contraprop to a trimotor can only be guessed at.
(The XB-42 page has the pic, & the piston DC-8 page doesn't...but there is a link to it.)
The link isn't actually there, you know. I had to go via Mid-engined aircraft to Twin-engined single-prop pusher aircraft‎ to finally find Douglas DC-8 (piston airliner). Your mind is, shall we say...subtle and indirect?

Speculating, I suppose you suggest the piston DC-8 would have been relevant in that one virtue of a trimotor is that if one of the three engines goes out, the force imbalance of the remaining two is either zero (if it is the central one that fails) or not so bad, as one of the two remaining is the central one. This is all the more true of a cluster of internal engines driving a single central prop arrangement of course!

The trouble with a central pusher prop is that it is mounted on the tail, and thus way behind the center of mass, so when the airplane is trying to take off (or land) its angle of attack is limited by trying to avoid grinding the prop into the ground.

Another good trick a trimotor might try is shutting down one or two engines in flight to save fuel, extend endurance and possibly range (not certainly, if the loss of cruising speed is greater than the extended endurance--but I think the math for cruising speed works out to favor range as well). It depends on how much one loses to drag from the shut-down props how good an idea this is, and of course whether the airplane can stay airborne on 2/3 or even 1/3 power. I've seen pictures of trimotor designs where the two outboard engines are replaced with more powerful ones and the central engine is deleted--then of course we no longer have a trimotor.

If you want a trimotor with shaft-driven offset props, look at these monsters! Three engines in a forward bay, driving two props off to the side by a drive shaft to each.

I'm flabbergasted; I gather it is quite difficult to synchronize two piston engines to drive one shaft and here there are three engines.:eek: Apparently it worked, but if you want to have the ability to shut down one or more, well that would work best with variable pitch props which are definitely not available in a WWI context.

This picture gives the clearest idea of the arrangement... the scale is best shown here.

None of this seems to address the OP's concerns very directly though.:eek:
 
What if Bill Stout had been allowed to continue innovating after he designed the Tri-Motor airliner for Henry Ford?
Would his later airliners have smooth skins?
Would his later piston-pounding Tri-Motors have resembled BN Trilanders?
Would his jet -powered tri-motors have resembled Boeing 72s?

I don't exactly get the question. Stout was innovative before AND after Ford. The Batwing was innovative. The Ford Tri-motor was a blending of Junkers and Fokker techniques, and Stout was not tied to the tri-motor concept. If he continued being innovative, his future designs would not, and should not look like the Ford Tri-motor, and they were not. I cannot recall any Convair tri-motors off-hand.
 
As engines became more powerful and more reliable twin engine aircraft become a more effective alternative to trimotors. Twins are cheaper to operate and remove the central motor from the pilots line of vision.

He probably would have changed to a twin engine layout and changed to a smooth skin because of the better aerodynamics. It would have been interesting if he had continued a high wing design. That would have opened the possibility of some innovative military transports in time for WWII.
 
Shevek23 said:
now your reasoning in comparing a pair of central engines driving a pusher contraprop to a trimotor can only be guessed at.
I did say, "with pusher wing engines"...
Shevek23 said:
The link isn't actually there
It's right there in the infobox: developed into XB-43 & DC-8.

I'll acknowledge it was getting away from the OP...but that Islander with the fin-mounted engine...:eek::confused:
 
Top