Another one of my attempt at coloring a plane for TWR timeline:
Russian Republic Bomber.jpg

The VA (Vladivostok Aviators) Stervyatnik of the russian republic capable of having conventional bomber or nuclear capability.
 
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?
 
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?
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 ).
 
Last edited:
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 ).
So essentially not worth the effort, plus if their adversaries are low tech better to just roll off barrel bombs from the cargo bay ?
Maybe better investment to make a more deadly version of “barrel” bombs , pack more shrapnel/ explosive and/or add fins for more accuracy during drops ?
 
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.
What is it with the british and weird engine arrangments? Do they hate their maintenance engineers that much?
 
What is it with the british and weird engine arrangments? Do they hate their maintenance engineers that much?
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.
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.

ADA54AEC-4707-4873-A766-01896AE96F65.jpeg
 
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.

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
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.

With Hindsight, it might have been better for the Air Ministry to put in a spec for a jet powered heavy bomber in 1944 or 45 to go along with the spec that spawned the Canberra. It’s understandable whey they didn’t, as the potential for Jet engines in long range or high payload operations was not yet clear. The main focus was on more short ranged burst speed. But if they had then the SA.6 or something similar from another company would probably be the result.

With the Sperrin, the prototypes were built on jigs. This extended the prototyping stage but it meant that production would be much quicker if the type was needed. It’s estimated that an operational squadron could have been fully equipped with Sperrins by late 1953. ITTL they could have probably had them equipped in 1952, wich would give the RAF their interim jet bomber until the V-bombers are available. And probably remove the need for the Valiant (unless you really use a crystal ball and build it as the low altitude B2 variant from the start).
 
One of 15 Armstrong Whitworth Argosy aircraft operated by the C.I.A's private airline Air America prior to delivery to the US. The British Government was less than impressed when one painted in fake British civil markings crashed in Laos in 1965. In 1974 the surviving aircraft are sold to the Philippine Air Force.

1650391220414.png
 
Last edited:
It's not just British engineers that made some odd choices. Can we say Foreign Object Damage?
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 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.
1650396027627.png
1650396060387.png

1650396104339.png
Most people don't know that Red Green was formerly a Soviet aircraft designer. But why else do you think he was called Red?
 
Last edited:
Top