WI: Tri-motor combat aircraft more widely sperad?

Delta Force

Banned
There were actually proposals for trijet combat aircraft. Here are some relevant posts on the subject:

There have actually been proposals for military trijets.

North American Aviation proposed the NR-349 Retaliator, a trijet variant of the A-5 Vigilante nuclear attack aircraft, throughout the 1960s and early 1970s as a USAF interceptor. I'm not sure if the other proposals were for formal requests, but the Retaliator proposal was submitted for an official USAF advanced interceptor program in the early 1970s. There were no winners for that contract however, as the USAF decided not to procure an interceptor at that time.

I think there were also studies of trijet supersonic bombers in the United States and Soviet Union.

North American Aviation proposed the NR-329 Retaliator to Aerospace Defense Command. It would have been capable of Mach 3 performance and featured three engines (in a unique configuration I have never seen before) and have been armed with six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles.

N.A.-349%20024.jpg


N.A.-349%20025.jpg

From an older thread.

The A-5 Vigilante had an unusual "linear bomb bay" that was intended to hold a single Mk. 28 nuclear bomb and two disposal fuel tanks. It was a strange legacy of its original role as a nuclear attack aircraft, and once it was decided to use the A-5 as a reconnaissance aircraft (the RA-5) the linear bomb bay was used to store three disposable fuel tanks. It seems to be where the third engine on the Retaliator would have been.

North_American_A-5A_internal_bomb_bay.PNG
 
Italy of course had some, but that was because their engines were so under-powered the third was needed...
 
The US, UK, USSR, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslavakia, France, and Austria produced tri-motors during their heyday when engines were weak and ambitions were strong. The Australians made one much later.

Converting a Wimpy requires a structural penalty to support the engine, and deletion of a forward turret. The horsepower of a pair of Hercules is comparable to three Pegasus. There are other factors as well.

It had been suggested that the Douglas Transport be tri-engine, but Donald Douglas did the math, and history was made, with a twin.
 
(Not only) my idea is to make the engine-out situation a more comfortable thing, before going to 4-engine solution. With 3 x 1000 HP engines, an engine out means there is still 2 x 1000 HP available, a more favorable situation where 2 x 1500 HP is reduced to 1 x 1500 HP, with all the thrust being off centre in the later situation. The monoplane bomber with 3 Pegasus engines can be produced in the UK from early 1930s, unlike the bomber powered by 2 Hercules engines.
 
The Tri-lander, Drover, B727, L-1011 and DC10/MD-11 show that 3 engines is useful, but none had a forward turret. The Westland Whirlwind had only two engines, and its place on the front lines was usurped by the Tiffie, which had only one, and a flaming one at that. The choice of the Wimpy is odd, because of the build system, which never carried a dorsal turret. I haven't the inclination to examine the nose construction but I could wonder what kind of additional engine bearers would be required to mount a Pegasus. Personally, I think an earlier Hercules or Griffon engine would be favorable to a Tri-Wimp lash-up. Certainly more comfortable for the bombardier. And while the B727 was a bit of a winner, the B737 was somewhat better.
 
Top