Fighter aircraft with 'car door' entry

[Nigel Bunker]

I was building an Airfix Typhoon and my mind wandered. Apart from early Typhoons (plus Tornado), P-39/P-400 Airacobra (plus Airabonita) and P-63 Kingcobra, were any other WW2 single engined fighters fitted with car door type entries?

Regards

Nigel

[tempestfan]

If your definition includes sporty-car style wing doors, one could possibly say early Mustangs - but that's not quite what you're after. I don't think any other type of the "western" combattants had real "car doors", but I'm not all that sure about the USSR and Japanese. I'm thinking of a pressurized high altitude interceptor, but I have no idea which one. I had also the idea that the Fokker D.XXIII could be a candidate, but it hasn't and is twin engined anyway.

[MilneBay]

Was not the prototype P47 fitted with a car type door and a sliding canopy. The door was was quickly replaced.

[RaidZero]

I was always curious about one thing: if they put car doors on a plane, why not make them open like the doors of the '40s, with the hinge in the back, but open like in modern cars, with the hinge in front?

If I would be a pilot, I would want the door to have the hinge in the back, so when I open the door, the air stream picks it and tears it off the hinges to allow an easy exit.

The way they were designed in the P-39 and the Typhoon the pilot would have to fight the airstream to open the door.

[woody37]

Could you not wind the window down and climb out ?

[brewerjerry]

Hi

From memory of researching a typhoon 1940's crash many years ago, the car door was jettisonable, as i talked to someone who found one shortly after the aircraft that was abandoned and crashed.

cheers

jerry

[MilneBay]

As also was that of the P39.

[Edgar]

[venomvixen]

If I would be a pilot, I would want the door to have the hinge in the back, so when I open the door, the air stream picks it and tears it off the hinges to allow an easy exit.

It would quite happily tear an arm off too.

[Work In Progress]

That is true. It is good design practice that whatever knobs or cables are fitted for the pilot to pull on to provide a canopy/door jettisoning mechanism, that those knobs or cables do not depart with the door/ canopy. Otherwise on any sort of high performance aeroplane they are likely to depart with bits of pilot attached.

[pigsty]

One other consideration on hinge position is what happens if you inadvertently take off with the door partly open. I know from personal experience that the slipstream stops you pushing out a front-hinged door enough to allow you to slam it shut. But, while it flaps about a bit, it does at least stay attached. You can land again, shut it properly this time, and all's well. A rear-hinged door would be off into the undergrowth half the time and, while you could still land fine, your aircraft would be U/S for a bit while they fitted a new one.

[venomvixen]

One other consideration on hinge position is what happens if you inadvertently take off with the door partly open. I know from personal experience that the slipstream stops you pushing out a front-hinged door enough to allow you to slam it shut. But, while it flaps about a bit, it does at least stay attached. You can land again, shut it properly this time, and all's well. A rear-hinged door would be off into the undergrowth half the time and, while you could still land fine, your aircraft would be U/S for a bit while they fitted a new one.

"Thou shall carry out thou cockpit checks lest thou embarrass thou self greatly"

or, if piloting one of my charges

"Thou shall locketh the door lest Danni beat thou to death with the broken bit"

Edited August 13, 2014 by venomvixen

[Flankerman]

Slightly off at a tangent.......

I'm no pilot (despite my avatar!), but I can remember reading in a flying magazine a tip about landing a Cessna 172 that had lost its brakes.

The article recommended using both side doors as airbrakes on touchdown in such a situation.

Dunno how practical it would be - and obviously a last-ditch thing - and it could only happen on a front-hinged door.

Ken

Edited August 13, 2014 by Flankerman

[Edgar]

Confession time. As a small child, I would occasionally be allowed a ride in my uncle's Austin, which had front-opening doors and a running-board. One day, pre-seatbelts, I thought it would be a good idea to open the door and stand on the running-board, to make a quick departure as we stopped. I got that, alright, finding myself rolling across the other side of the (thankfully empty) road. I never dared admit to the family how stupid I'd been, and, years later, never argued against the introduction of seatbelts, either.

[MilneBay]

Don't call them suicide doors for nothing.

[gingerbob]

The boat I run has a large-ish aft-hinged door, and if you don't close it when pointed the right way to wind direction, it can take quite some effort.

On the 172, I don't advise opening those door-brakes until you're on the ground!

bob

[wellsprop]

Am I missing something here, re the brakeless 172?

You test your aircrafts brakes IMMEDIATELY after first moving from where it was parked, so, if the brakes have failed, 1 - you will be going so slow youl roll to a stop and 2 - you won't be taking off.

Furthermore, if brakes fail whilst taxiing, you'll know about it before taking off so therefore you wouldnt take off. You can't (and don't) test brakes whilst airbourne, meaning the only time to discover a brake failure is upon landing - at which point I'm certain the immediate concern is not opening the doors (rolling o to the grass wouldbe better).

Ben

[Flankerman]

Don't shoot the messenger !!! - I'm only posting what I remember reading - which may be a bit rusty.

Whatever the reason for doing it - I certainly remember reading about using the doors as 'airbrakes' - maybe only as a last resort.

So I might be wrong about the brake failure thing - but opening the doors was certainly mentioned.

Ken

[Work In Progress]

Furthermore, if brakes fail whilst taxiing, you'll know about it before taking off so therefore you wouldnt take off. You can't (and don't) test brakes whilst airbourne, meaning the only time to discover a brake failure is upon landing -

I agree that using the doors to brake an aeroplane is a bit fanciful as apart from anything else in a side by side high wing Cessna it implies that you have an equally strong, competent and well co-ordinated passenger. if you have directional control, running on to the grass and there is a goodly area of it available, may be a good option, as may be turning off the fuel and knocking off the ignition.

However, there are pre-landing checks relevant to braking, depending on aircraft type. Even on a PA28 or other simple hydraulically braked type a couple of quick pumps of the toe brakes on the downwind leg will at least reveal whether you have hydraulic pressure in the brake lines. If they don't return (as with a car system) then you either have a fluid loss or a cylinder seal failure.

On types with more complex hydraulic systems or pneumatic brakes you check the system pressure on downwind (and will have been doing so throughout the flight).

Pre-landing awareness of any of these situations gives you options, including diverting somewhere roomier and/or more into wind. I've had one complete in-flight brake system failure, which meant a late change of plan in a Yak-52, because with no nosewheel steering and no brakes you have no possibility of maintaining directional control once on the ground in a crosswind. I've also has a situation in a Super Cub where on the downwind leg one heel brake gave resistance and the other offered none. No real problem in that case as I was landing in a fairly large field but I needed to land in a direction relative to the wind that ensured I would not need to use the dead brake for directional control on the landing run.

PS, while your taxiing brake test should of course not be artificially delayed, you should not always do it IMMEDIATELY after moving off the chocks. In some situations, like the outdoors parking at Cambridge, you might well be in a situation where braking acts on one side but not the other, thus neatly pivoting you towards a nearby parked aeroplane. Always wait to do the brake check in a position where an unplanned swing will not harm anything. Especially in tailwheel types or those with free-castoring nosewheels.

[wellsprop]

I agree that using the doors to brake an aeroplane is a bit fanciful as apart from anything else in a side by side high wing Cessna it implies that you have an equally strong, competent and well co-ordinated passenger. if you have directional control, running on to the grass and there is a goodly area of it available, may be a good option, as may be turning off the fuel and knocking off the ignition.

However, there are pre-landing checks relevant to braking, depending on aircraft type. Even on a PA28 or other simple hydraulically braked type a couple of quick pumps of the toe brakes on the downwind leg will at least reveal whether you have hydraulic pressure in the brake lines. If they don't return (as with a car system) then you either have a fluid loss or a cylinder seal failure.

On types with more complex hydraulic systems or pneumatic brakes you check the system pressure on downwind (and will have been doing so throughout the flight).

Pre-landing awareness of any of these situations gives you options, including diverting somewhere roomier and/or more into wind. I've had one complete in-flight brake system failure, which meant a late change of plan in a Yak-52, because with no nosewheel steering and no brakes you have no possibility of maintaining directional control once on the ground in a crosswind. I've also has a situation in a Super Cub where on the downwind leg one heel brake gave resistance and the other offered none. No real problem in that case as I was landing in a fairly large field but I needed to land in a direction relative to the wind that ensured I would not need to use the dead brake for directional control on the landing run.

PS, while your taxiing brake test should of course not be artificially delayed, you should not always do it IMMEDIATELY after moving off the chocks. In some situations, like the outdoors parking at Cambridge, you might well be in a situation where braking acts on one side but not the other, thus neatly pivoting you towards a nearby parked aeroplane. Always wait to do the brake check in a position where an unplanned swing will not harm anything. Especially in tailwheel types or those with free-castoring nosewheels.

Good point about the swing. I'm only used to flying a Pa28 (solo soon!) nosewheel linked to rudder and have always been taught at Kemble to test brakes once of chocks, as its a difficult turn onto the taxiway before quite a downhill taxi

The pre landing checklist is just toes off brakes and check parking breal off.

ANYWAY[/] why did the USA use car door type whereas only Hawker used car door on there early Tiffie?

Ben

[Work In Progress]

Probably best not to use a single type's published checklist as a basis for generalisations about airmanship.

[bentwaters81tfw]

When I was learning to fly back in the 70's, in class we were told of the 2 American instructors who took a 172 up, inserted the control locks, and landed using engine power and the doors for control. They had calculated it was possible, so tested the theory.

[venomvixen]

A Cessna uses a calendar for an air speed indicator.

Why on earth would it need brakes?