Sadly yes, yes it is.Ooh, well if I ever get a new computer (is it too late to opt out of this adult thing?) I know what's on the top of my priority list.
Sadly yes, yes it is.Ooh, well if I ever get a new computer (is it too late to opt out of this adult thing?) I know what's on the top of my priority list.
You would have to redesing the whole fuselage to accommodate traditional bomb bay doors, because droping out of a cargo ramp usualy makes for awful precision and might get you into problems with your center of gravity during the drop. This extensive modification would most likely preclude any modification of existing airframes and would require a dedicated new variant.Can the Antonov An24/26 be transformed into a low budget bomber aircraft in 80s 90s for use by poor nations ? I know some were used informally but can it be modified to fit this role better ? What would these look like ?
I think in OTL they were used to carry bombs externally but a far larger load can be carried internally but was it technically possible?
So essentially not worth the effort, plus if their adversaries are low tech better to just roll off barrel bombs from the cargo bay ?You would have to redesing the whole fuselage to accommodate traditional bomb bay doors, because droping out of a cargo ramp usualy makes for awful precision and might get you into problems with your center of gravity during the drop. This extensive modification would most likely preclude any modification of existing airframes and would require a dedicated new variant.
While this would all be possible in theory, you would end up with very slow bombers (~450 km/h) with a mediocre service ceiling and pretty uninpressive max bombloads (~5.5 tons for the -26 likely a bit more for the -24 ).
Maybe from cargo bay as well ? As US helicopters do in OTL ?What about an AC-24? Put a couple of 23mm cannon firing out of the side windows.
What is it with the british and weird engine arrangments? Do they hate their maintenance engineers that much?The Royal Indian Flying Corps orders its first Jet Bomber as a counter to the growing strength of the New Persian Empire and the South China Federation.
That is one ugly aircraft1952
The Royal Indian Flying Corps orders its first Jet Bomber as a counter to the growing strength of the New Persian Empire and the South China Federation.
View attachment 735137
I think it's more that post war British aviation was in such dire straights that manufactures were willing to try any bit of tech or outlandish arrangement if there was a chance it would get the notice of the inept RAF leadership and get them to select the aircraft. And then if they sold it really well the inept British politicians would select the design and they may get an order large enough to keep the lights on for another few months.What is it with the british and weird engine arrangments? Do they hate their maintenance engineers that much?
Not in this case at least. I am not sure why Shorts went with the stacked engines in the Sperrin, but the spec they were responding to was for a back-up bomber in case the V-bombers didn’t work or took too long. It deliberately required straight wings and a conventional tail to reduce technical risk. Outside of the engine arrangement the Sperrin was very conventional for the late war, early post-war period. Shorts actually wanted to make a swept wing design but was refused. My guess is that Shorts saw the over and under arrangement as a Less technically risky proposition than the buried engines common to more advanced designs of the period. When they later submitted a design to the V-bomber spec, they had one version with a similar arrangement to the Sperrin with an extra engine in the tail, and a design with more familiar buried engines.I think it's more that post war British aviation was in such dire straights that manufactures were willing to try any bit of tech or outlandish arrangement if there was a chance it would get the notice of the inept RAF leadership and get them to select the aircraft. And then if they sold it really well the inept British politicians would select the design and they may get an order large enough to keep the lights on for another few months.
I think it's more that post war British aviation was in such dire straights that manufactures were willing to try any bit of tech or outlandish arrangement if there was a chance it would get the notice of the inept RAF leadership and get them to select the aircraft. And then if they sold it really well the inept British politicians would select the design and they may get an order large enough to keep the lights on for another few months.
I thought I had a plan for the Shorts SA.6 propsosal of 1945 that the Sperrin was built out of. But I am having trouble finding it. However, I have found passing reference that backed up my vague recall that it planned for buried wing root engines (6 apparently, presumably Goblins or Nenes) and swept wings based off data gained from German studies that was circulating through the British manufacturers at the time.Not in this case at least. I am not sure why Shorts went with the stacked engines in the Sperrin, but the spec they were responding to was for a back-up bomber in case the V-bombers didn’t work or took too long. It deliberately required straight wings and a conventional tail to reduce technical risk. Outside of the engine arrangement the Sperrin was very conventional for the late war, early post-war period. Shorts actually wanted to make a swept wing design but was refused. My guess is that Shorts saw the over and under arrangement as a Less technically risky proposition than the buried engines common to more advanced designs of the period. When they later submitted a design to the V-bomber spec, they had one version with a similar arrangement to the Sperrin with an extra engine in the tail, and a design with more familiar buried engines.
View attachment 735179
It's not just British engineers that made some odd choices. Can we say Foreign Object Damage?What is it with the british and weird engine arrangments? Do they hate their maintenance engineers that much?
That thing clearly just needs some kind of retractable broom in front of the engines!It's not just British engineers that made some odd choices. Can we say Foreign Object Damage?
They've still got to get at the third engine buried in the tail.That thing clearly just needs some kind of retractable broom in front of the engines!
Its at least orders of magnitude easier on the maintenance crews than the average british design though...
The Soviets had some oddballs too in the engine placement department. The Yak-15 (?) Being my fao as it's basically a prop fighter with a jet duct taped to the lower fuselage.
The Possumlodgeski Design Bureau motto:View attachment 735213View attachment 735214
View attachment 735215Most people don't know that Red Green was formerly a Soviet aircraft designer. But why else do you think he was called Red?