Aerotech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 259 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2560 times:
I know this is a bit far fetched, but I'm wondering if you guys have any input on what is in my opinion, a perfect transplant. Take the T-56 off a C-130, and put it on a P-51! The cowling is almost identical, the weight is almost the same, but you could get almost 4 times as much power. Is there something I'm missing that just wouldn't make it work? Thanks
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2488 times:
Torque....I wonder if the engine would be way way too torquey for that airframe. Stability also suffers anytime to increase the horsepower on an engine.
The biggest turboprop conversion that I know of is the T-53 engines, same ones that where used on the OV-1 that where used on a couple that where converted for a possible ground support aircraft in Nam.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Aerotech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 259 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
Well, I remeber where they put a PT-6 on a Mustang, and tried to breath military life back into it, but it didn't work. It was all politics. I thought of torque being hellaciously extreme for such a small airframe, but could they A)Make the rudder much larger, and B)advance the power very slowly. It would only take 25-30% power to get it off the ground. It seems like a great idea for Reno. The T-56 would have no problem pulling a Mustang along well over 500.
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2485 times:
>The T-56 would have no problem pulling a Mustang along well over 500.
Would probably require an entirely new propeller designed for higher IAS' than any current propeller used on T56 engines. Not sure if anybody's got the money to invest in that for such a small market, but makes for a very interesting theory.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2471 times:
The problem with Reno is that it is all Av-gas..No Turbine catagories.
The other problem is where to direct the exhause from that big engine. On a T-56 it goes straight out of the back. You could fit a diverter and blow it over one of the wings but then you lose the "jet effect" of the engine. I dont' think you could route it under the cockpit.
With a smaller PT-6 say that 1100 hp one that was on the Dash 7's you don't have an exhaust routing problem because of the way the exhausts are on that engine. Also you could eliminate the venteral radiator scoop with would sleep up the airframe even more then it is with a Merlin in it....
Here is a neat thought. How about a Mustang with with a Napier Sabre in it? When the motor actually runs it should be a screamer.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2469 times:
Aerotech,
This has always intrigued me, but it is problematic.
The Westland Wyvern was a British carrier-based attack aircraft. It was operational during the Suez situation in the mid-50s, and was semi-successful as a single engine turboprop combat aircraft. If I recall correctly, they encountered and solved many of the problems of applying a high-torque powerplant to this type aircraft. To do this, it had an extremely large vertical stabilizer and contra-rotating props. They were left with problems regarding engine spool-up for wave-offs and engine surging that bashed the pilots head around the cockpit.
The Piper Enforcer from the mid-60s is an aircraft similar to what you are describing. It was a Mustang with a turboprop engine, though as I recall it wasn't a T-56. The T-56 would be way too powerful for an aircraft the size and weight of a Mustang for anything but straight line dashes-if you could keep it straight!
Please note the above is from memory, but it should be generally accurate.
TomH
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2464 times:
The Enforcer was first proposed,and built,by Cavalier.It was powered by a Rolls Royce Dart turboprop and gave the plane a "dash speed of 470 knots" according to my sources.No HP given.
Two planes were taken over by Piper in the early -70's,and at least one was present at Vero Beach in the summer of -76,when I saw it.at that time it wasn't flying any more.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2462 times:
FBU 4Ever!,
Like most things, it was a bit more complicated, at least according to my Putnam. The Cavalier Company flew a RR Dart-powered P-51 (1750 SHP) as the Turbo Mustang III in 1968. In 1971 Piper acquired the rights to the design from Cavalier, and in 1983 two Piper PA-48 Enforcers flew powered by Lycoming T-55 engines (2455 SHP). Oddly, I didn't see listed much of an improvement in performance over the WW II era Merlin-powered jobs. That can possibly be explained by a drastic gross weight increase of nearly double that of the P-51D!!
TomH
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 259 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
