Register here

Author Topic: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft  (Read 40085 times)

Offline Dronte

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Argentinean ugly bird
Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« on: April 01, 2006, 09:38:41 am »
Why to spend money in a development from zero if military designs can adapt?
 

Proposals for a SST based on the North American XB-70 Valkyrie (I cannot avoid to imagine to the boys of Green Peace in a MIG-31 with the colors of the rainbow trying him to give hunt to one of these apparatuses)  ;D
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 04:10:08 pm by Stargazer2006 »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2007, 10:26:43 am »
Hi,

I found in Flightglobal site an artist picture for a civil version of
Boeing B-47 bomber and also a civil version of Northrop B-49.
The lockheed also had a jet airliner of 1949.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1950/1950%20-%200378.html
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 04:11:12 pm by Stargazer2006 »

Offline danielg

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2007, 02:33:04 am »
Development of Vickers Valiant into VC-7 / V1000

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1474
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2007, 04:16:07 am »
Nice shots hesham.

I knew about the project to convert XB 35 into civil airliner and, of course, at least Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser was directly derived from B 29/B 50.
Also Russians did a lot of developments of their bomber into civil airliners, starting by Tupolev Tu 16 and Tu 20, in mid '50s.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2007, 11:52:23 am »
In the current issue of Air International a proposed conversion
of the TupolevTu-22M3 Backfire into a bizz jet for 12 to 18
passengers, designated Tu 344 is mentioned.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3306
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2007, 01:13:07 pm »
There is a beautiful colour pic from A Tu-344 desktop model on page 127 Red Star Volume 24 "Tupolev Tu-144" which is a highly recomended book for unbuilt projects enthusiasts.

Another B&W photo on page 102 with a brief description on the project.

Both pics are also available following this link of our great forum:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1411.0.html
 ;D


Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2007, 11:53:47 pm »
Ah, thank you, had used the search function, but found no direct hit amongst the lots
for " tu 344", sorry  ...

Indeed, was it really intended as a civil transport ? Or was it just a kind of a fast military
communications aircraft ? Ok, for all those russian nabobs, money may not matter and
so, maintenance and fuel costs either, but I can't see a real market for such an aircraft.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2008, 10:10:13 am »
Hi,

a three civil version derivative projects fron Boeing B-47.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1950/1950%20-%200860.html

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3306
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2008, 10:46:58 am »
Jens,

the Tu-344 was a bizjet not a military aircraft project. However, as a straightforward adaptation of a combat aircraft its shortcomings for the bizjet role were so evident that it never progressed from the desktop model stage.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2008, 11:24:11 am »
From aero 1954:
A civil derivative of the Myasyshev Bounder for 75 passengers:
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 927
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2008, 11:27:23 am »
Handley Page Mach 3 bomber airliner.

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

avatar

  • Guest
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2008, 11:43:24 am »
all images from www.sergib.agava.ru



avatar

  • Guest
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2008, 11:52:40 am »

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2058
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2008, 01:25:06 pm »
The Baade 152 was developed out of the Alexejew 150 / Junkers EF 150.
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2008, 10:59:38 am »
« Last Edit: November 21, 2010, 07:30:21 am by hesham »

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2008, 01:18:34 pm »
According to the book "Soviet SST: The Techno-Politics of the Tu-144" by Howard Moon (Amazon.com link, it's a really good book I highly recommend it), such an arrangement with a B-58 and a "people pod" was considered for President Kennedy but dropped as it was feared the safety record of the B-58 was unsatisfactory (though I'm not aware of any hull losses off the top of my head).
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline SSgt Baloo

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
    • Alpha Quadrant Institute of Technology.
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2009, 12:35:18 pm »
According to the book "Soviet SST: The Techno-Politics of the Tu-144" by Howard Moon (Amazon.com link, it's a really good book I highly recommend it), such an arrangement with a B-58 and a "people pod" was considered for President Kennedy but dropped as it was feared the safety record of the B-58 was unsatisfactory (though I'm not aware of any hull losses off the top of my head).

ISTR hearing that the B-58 had a fragile nose gear strut that was prone to collapse unless you set her down just right. The passenger pod still seems like a cool use for the bird though!
"A boy carrying a cat by the tail is learning something he can learn no other way." --Mark Twain

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2009, 01:05:01 pm »
Hailing all the way from formerly East Germany....the Baade-152!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_B-152
« Last Edit: August 04, 2009, 01:10:06 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2009, 07:56:02 pm »
<sigh> Oh, for the Southwest Airlines version of the SR-71  :D

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2009, 01:24:50 pm »
you joke? :o
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2034
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2009, 03:09:09 pm »
According to the book "Soviet SST: The Techno-Politics of the Tu-144" by Howard Moon (Amazon.com link, it's a really good book I highly recommend it), such an arrangement with a B-58 and a "people pod" was considered for President Kennedy but dropped as it was feared the safety record of the B-58 was unsatisfactory (though I'm not aware of any hull losses off the top of my head).

Sometime in the early/mid 90s AvWeek had a short piece about a Russian "people pod" that could be carried on bombers. It was (as I recall) a cylinder about 20 feet long, carrying 6-8 people side by side in Soyuz-derived seats. The idea here was that small rescue teams could be dropped into remote disaster areas quickly. The AvWeek piece showed the pod, it was not clear if it was a mockup or a flight vehicle. I have never been able to find anything else in the open literature on this.

That's one way to convert a bomber!

Offline Hammer Birchgrove

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2009, 04:22:32 pm »
Avro Lancastrian (from Avro Lancaster)

Vickers Swallow (might have become TSR-2, civilian SST was also proposed by Barnes Wallis)
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 06:27:05 am by Hammer Birchgrove »
To the heroism of the Resistance Fighters -- past, present and future -- this post is respectfully dedicated.

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1167
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #22 on: August 06, 2009, 01:54:39 am »
There was an SST derivative/relation of the XB-70 studied at one point.

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1722
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #23 on: August 06, 2009, 10:31:29 am »
Airliner versions of V-Bombers :-

Avro 722 Atlantic,

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,482.0/highlight,avro%20atlantic.html

Putnam's 'Avro', page 475, 'Stuck on the Drawing Board', page 13.

Vickers VC5 and VC7,

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1067.0/highlight,v%201000.html

Putnam's 'Vickers', pp.565-571, and 574, 'Stuck on the Drawing Board', pp.38-42, and 245.

Handley-Page HP.97,
Putnam's 'Handley-Page', pp.498-499, 'Stuck on the Drawing Board', pp 47-49.

HandleyPage HP.111,
Putnam's 'Handley-Page', pp.527-528, 'Stuck on the Drawing Board', page 50.

Cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline redstar72

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
  • Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2009, 09:56:09 am »
About Baade 152 / VEB-152. Though it was derived from Alexeev-Baade "150" bomber, it couldn't be considered as a version or a modification of "150". Only principal aerodynamic scheme and basic principles of design were inherited, but any "150" aggregate or assembly unit wasn't taken directly. The "152" was considerably larger (especially its fuselage - 31.3 m instead of 26.7 m in length, 3.3 m instead of 2.6 m in diameter), heavier, and it had 4 engines while the "150" had only 2. Also it has classic-mounted horisontal tail, instead of T-tail of the "150".

About Tupolev: Almost all his bombers had civil derivatives, and it was beginned not in middle 1950s, but in late 1920s. The first Tupolev airliner, 9-seat trimotor ANT-9 from 1929, was derived from R-6 (ANT-7) twin-engine recon/bomber aircraft: the wing and tail unit were the same, combined with new fuselage. Also engines were different: while R-6 had two inline 630-hp M-17s (Soviet license-built BMW-VIs), the ANT-9 had three radial engines: 3x230-hp Gnome-Rhone Titan on a prototype, 3x300-hp Bessonov M-26 on serial aircrafts. But the M-26 engine was unsuccesssful, and in 1931 a version called PS-9 was designed; it had two M-17s and the powerplant was completely taken from the R-6!

The 32-seat ANT-14 Pravda from 1931 was derived from the famous TB-3, with the same wings and many other aggregates. Another Tupolev bomber legend of 1930s, the SB (ANT-40), also had a civil "brother" - it was 10-seat ANT-35 (PS-35), the first Soviet twin-engine high-speed airliner. The passenger version of TB-7 (ANT-42, later renamed into Pe-8) was also projected, but left unbuilt. And the civil "brother" of Tu-4 was Tu-70 prototype from 1946.
Best regards,
Alexander

Offline redstar72

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
  • Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2009, 10:09:55 am »
In 1954-55, the Myasischev OKB designed M-29 - an airliner version of well-known M-4 Bison strategic bomber:
http://avicopress.ru/plane.php?id=169
The M-29 was designed also in military transport version, but both were unbuilt.
Best regards,
Alexander

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #26 on: August 07, 2009, 11:47:43 am »
As built and unbuilt aircrat are already mixed up in this thread, we shouldn't
forget the Tu-104 as the civil version of the Tu-16 Badger.
(Photo from http://www.airplane-pictures.net/image28659.html)
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline redstar72

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
  • Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2009, 12:26:09 pm »
Yes, of course. The Tu-104 is based on Tu-16, while the Tu-114 is a Tu-95 version.
I didn't mention this because it is common known (I think).
Also, Archipeppe mentioned this in the beginning of this theme:

Also Russians did a lot of developments of their bomber into civil airliners, starting by Tupolev Tu 16 and Tu 20, in mid '50s.

Here is a photo of Tu-114 in Monino Air Museum. The photo is from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Tupolev-Tu-114/1316972/L/
Best regards,
Alexander

Offline JohnR

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 353
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2009, 01:57:20 pm »
A detail that has intrigued me for years, why did the T104 have a "bomb aimers" position?

Offline Kokoro

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2009, 03:10:16 pm »
Yes, of course. The Tu-104 is based on Tu-16, while the Tu-114 is a Tu-95 version.
I didn't mention this because it is common known (I think).

Its the two Tu-116 few people have heard of.

Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2009, 03:33:52 pm »
A detail that has intrigued me for years, why did the T104 have a "bomb aimers" position?

For the navigator, to see which way they are heading?

I always gathered it was because the plane simply used the nose section of a bomber.

Offline frank

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 618
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2009, 06:33:21 pm »

       I don't think it was the nose section of a bomber, I don't think it would have interchanged, it's just that they liked to put the nav in the nose. Remember, pure transports not derived from bombers, like the An-8, 10, 12 & 22 & Il-76 used the same set-up.


A detail that has intrigued me for years, why did the T104 have a "bomb aimers" position?

For the navigator, to see which way they are heading?

I always gathered it was because the plane simply used the nose section of a bomber.

Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2009, 03:48:50 am »
You are correct.
I can honestly not think of a logical reason for a cargo plane to have a glass nose other than a help for low level cargo drop operations ( although it must be said that western cargo planes don't seem to need this for such operations).
I simply do not know. The thought I mention above is entirely speculative.

Offline JohnR

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 353
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2009, 08:59:38 am »
Do the aircraft listed not have nav/weather radars, if so the were is the antenna located; which is western aircraft located in the nose?

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2009, 10:39:37 am »
At least in the case of the Tu-104 (and in several other soviet a/c)
the nav/weather radar was located in a fairing under the nose, just
behind the glazed nose.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2009, 01:59:16 pm »
Its the two Tu-116 few people have heard of.
Unlike the Tu-114 aircraft "116" (two copies) are almost entirely consistent with the constructive TU-95, with the exception of built-hermetic cabins with windows, the volume of 70.5 m3.
  Another project Tupolev Design Bureau in March 1945 invited the engineer Nikolai Kirsanov (the future chief designer of the plane TU-142).
The original modification of aircraft "62 T" / TU-2 T in high-speed passenger aircraft, designed to transport 15 people.

Offline SSgt Baloo

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
    • Alpha Quadrant Institute of Technology.
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2009, 11:57:05 am »
A detail that has intrigued me for years, why did the T104 have a "bomb aimers" position?

That was so they could drop passengers off between scheduled stops. ;D
"A boy carrying a cat by the tail is learning something he can learn no other way." --Mark Twain

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2009, 12:42:32 pm »
There was an SST derivative/relation of the XB-70 studied at one point.

Attached is a manufacturer's model of the North American Aviation M-3000, the direct civilian variant of the XB-70 bomber.  The fuselage "hump" was increased in size, to accommodate 48 passengers (an un-modified hump could only fit 36 passengers).  Even then, the M-3000 had one J-93 engine for every eight passengers -- not your ideal, eco-friendly carbon footprint.  With the M-3000, the U.S. could have had the ultimate, trisonic SST in service by 1965-66, a full decade before Concorde!
« Last Edit: August 13, 2009, 03:05:34 pm by circle-5 »

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2009, 12:52:12 pm »
... And here is a North American Aviation artist rendering of an M-3000 SST in flight. This is the 76-passenger variant, with an even bigger fuselage "hump".  While still capable of Mach 3 flight, this larger variant was rejected early because projections showed the range would be reduced to 3600nm.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 07:30:07 pm by circle-5 »

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2009, 12:58:56 pm »
from book "NA XB-70 Valkyrie" by D. Jenkins and T. Landis
___________________________________
Tu-134 SST (the first with this name)
For the foundation was taken into one of the options for the project "106" aircraft "106A".
Have been worked out four options for the project: two with two engines NK-6 and two with four engines WD-19R2.
Work stopped at the preliminary design.
from "Aviation & Cosmonautic mag. # 10/99
____________________________________
Tu-135 SST

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2009, 05:32:46 pm »
Model of Tupolev Tu-134 supersonic transport (SST).

NOTE: Although seller claims that model is authentic and accurate, the reader should be aware that the authenticity and accuracy of this model is in question. It may have been manufactured by another party without license.

Source: http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=28_39_38_100&products_id=2485
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 05:37:33 pm by Triton »

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2011, 05:05:59 pm »
Hailing all the way from formerly East Germany....the Baade-152!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_B-152

Was the "Baade" name official? In Interavia N°2, 1961 (French edition), the aircraft was presented as the "VEB Flugzeugwerke Dresden Type 152".

Offline taildragger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 168
  • You can count on me - I won a contest
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2011, 02:41:57 am »

       I don't think it was the nose section of a bomber, I don't think it would have interchanged, it's just that they liked to put the nav in the nose. Remember, pure transports not derived from bombers, like the An-8, 10, 12 & 22 & Il-76 used the same set-up.


A detail that has intrigued me for years, why did the T104 have a "bomb aimers" position?

For the navigator, to see which way they are heading?

I always gathered it was because the plane simply used the nose section of a bomber.

My theory is that Soviet airliners were designed for a secondary role as bombers.  Not a real fight-your-way-to-Berlin sort of bomber, but a bomb truck suitable for level bombing from undefended airspace (E. Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Afghanistan) with external stores.  The greenhouse nose, with it's flat panel, would allow use of a visual bomb sight from the navigator's position.  I've got no direct evidence for this theory but offer the following:
- Is a greenhouse nose really necessary for any sort of civil visual navigation and worth the cost?  I don't recall any Western airliners employing this feature, even going back to the 1930's when navaids were primitive and it wouldn't have been that costly.  Putting a greenhouse nose on a high-subsonic speed, pressurized airliner imposes penalties in weight (compared to a pressure bulkhead and plastic nosecone), drag (from the radome which is typically relocated to project outside of the aircraft's natural contours), safety (birdstrikes on plexiglass), maintenance and internal arrangement (the navigator has to have an access route).  
- I believe that Aeroflot aircrew positions were filled by Soviet Air Force personnel on normal career rotation, or at least on reserve status.  Certainly they all ultimately had the same employer.  This would make a reserve bomber force easier to implement.
- I've seen a photo of a Tupolev airliner (Tu-124, I think) in Soviet Air Force service with an external store (some sort of electronics) under a wing.  Granted, an airliner can be relatively easily modified to hang electronics under a wing, but the installation could also have used pre-existing hardpoints intended for bombs.
If Aeroflot did provide a reserve bomber force, I've never read anything about it.  This could be because Aeroflot is still around today, such an arrangement could still be in place (this might explain retention of older types that other airlines parked long ago), and widespread knowledge of a role as a combat arm of the Soviet/Russian Air Force could be a negative in the business world.
The above is speculation, of course.  Does anyone have actual information on the topic?    
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 02:47:44 am by taildragger »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2011, 03:52:56 am »
I don't think, that those glazed nose positions on soviet airliners and transport indicates
the intended use as make-shift bombers, their general thinking, how navigation without
the use of radar should be done. If you look at soviet transports up to the Il-76, they
all featured glazed noses, at least in the case of the An-22 with an additional weather/
nav radar, that maybe would have been sufficient for an improvised use as a bomber.
BTW, the "Baade 152" featured a glazed nose, too, and quite probably wasn't intended
to be used as a bomber, as the SU would hardly have allowed the GDR to build indigenous
military aircraft .
About the designation, I don't think the designation "Baade 152" was an official one. If you
have a look at http://www.skybird-ev.de/152/qb.htm, a list of sources about the
"152", the designation "Baade 152" isn't used in contemporary sources.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Maveric

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1714
  • Fight for yor Right!
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2011, 12:36:11 pm »
FliegerRevue Extra Nr.1/1991 use only "152", sometimes "Typ 152", but no Baade 152!
I see you on the dark side of the moon.

Offline taildragger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 168
  • You can count on me - I won a contest
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2011, 02:34:52 am »
I don't think, that those glazed nose positions on soviet airliners and transport indicates
the intended use as make-shift bombers, their general thinking, how navigation without
the use of radar should be done. If you look at soviet transports up to the Il-76, they
all featured glazed noses, at least in the case of the An-22 with an additional weather/
nav radar, that maybe would have been sufficient for an improvised use as a bomber.
BTW, the "Baade 152" featured a glazed nose, too, and quite probably wasn't intended
to be used as a bomber, as the SU would hardly have allowed the GDR to build indigenous
military aircraft .

Jemiba,
A couple of further points in support of my theory:
- A brief review of Soviet airliners' glazed noses shows that most, if not all of them, had an optically flat panel.  As I'm sure you know, these panels were used on bombers to provide visual bombsights with a view free of the distortions (primarily refraction) inherent in curved panels.  I'm not that familiar with aerial navigation, but it seems to me that this sort of precision is more suited to "where's it going to impact?" than "where are we?".
- In Tupolev designs, the optically flat panel might have just been a holdover from their bomber origins.  Airlifters such as the An-12, An-26 and Il-76 had no bomber ancestry but still have the optically flat panels.  Maybe they had some utility in lining up for airdrops, but I wouldn't think so.  As covered in the thread on Operational Turboprop Bombers (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9943.0/all.html), Antonov created a bomb truck version of the An-12 in the wake of the Indo-Pakistan War.
- Smaller aircraft such as the An-26 and Il-14, which one might expect to operate in more austere conditions and therefore have greater need for visual navigation, didn't have glazed noses.  Due to their shorter range and lower payload, they would be less useful as bomb trucks though.
- Regarding the Baade 152, the pictures I've seen don't show an optically flat panel and a glazed nose doesn't make an airplane a bomber.  The Germans may have just been following established Soviet practice, whatever the reasons for the Soviet practice were.  I don't doubt that the greenhouses were were used as navigator's stations - I'm just speculating that that navigation may not have been the only reason that they were designed in.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 08:54:48 am by taildragger »

Offline redstar72

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
  • Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2011, 05:15:02 am »
Something more about the "152" and its bomber precursor "150".
Here you can see real differences between the two...
Best regards,
Alexander

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2011, 06:10:26 am »
Excellent! This is the first time I've seen both designs superimposed. I didn't think they were that different in size.

Offline Nico

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 260
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2011, 10:31:52 am »
I found another version of the artist's impression of the commercial derivatives of Boeing B-47 Stratojet.
It appeared of Flight (14-20 February 1990) but I have only this bad photostat
Nico

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #50 on: May 30, 2011, 08:34:38 am »
I have reworked the aircraft that's in the foreground, which to me looks more like a six-engined B-52 than a B-47 derivative...

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #51 on: May 30, 2011, 09:46:30 pm »
More iterations of the Boeing Model 473 can be found here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,567.0/highlight,boeing+473.html

If someone comes up with more material about the "civil B-47", I think, it should be posted there,
so that this thread remains a general overview of the original topic.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 259
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2011, 09:53:26 am »

There was an SST derivative/relation of the XB-70 studied at one point.


Attached is a manufacturer's model of the North American Aviation M-3000, the direct civilian variant of the XB-70 bomber.  The fuselage "hump" was increased in size, to accommodate 48 passengers (an un-modified hump could only fit 36 passengers).  Even then, the M-3000 had one J-93 engine for every eight passengers -- not your ideal, eco-friendly carbon footprint.  With the M-3000, the U.S. could have had the ultimate, trisonic SST in service by 1965-66, a full decade before Concorde!



... And here is a North American Aviation artist rendering of an M-3000 SST in flight. This is the 76-passenger variant, with an even bigger fuselage "hump".  While still capable of Mach 3 flight, this larger variant was rejected early because projections showed the range would be reduced to 3600nm.

Here are a couple of photos at the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archive photostream at Flickr featuring both the model and illustration of the M-3000 with aviation executive James R. Pfeiffer.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/5021503400/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/5020895885/in/photostream/


Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2012, 04:01:57 pm »
A picture of the Handley Page HP.97 project (a civilian Victor) from an old split-up topic:

Quote from: Dronte
Why to spend money in a development from zero if military designs can adapt?
 
HP.97 derived of the HP Víctor (it exists another version of simple cover of this design)

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2012, 04:10:27 pm »
Just discovered this very interesting thread.  I was told by an Aeroflot employee, many years ago, that Soviet Union civil aircraft used a military style drift sight in the nose, for navigation between navaids.  This could explain the optically flat panel.
Bill Walker

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #55 on: May 11, 2012, 04:53:28 pm »
Factory model of the Vickers V.1000 (VC-7), proposed passenger derivative of the Valiant bomber.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 01:01:40 am by circle-5 »

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1474
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2012, 07:28:11 am »
I have reworked the aircraft that's in the foreground, which to me looks more like a six-engined B-52 than a B-47 derivative...

Nice!!

It looks like a sort of XB-52 with six engines and a fuselage section modified like the Model 377/C-97.

Offline BillRo

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2012, 09:42:17 am »
Here is a comparison between the Vickers V 1000 and the Valiant showing that they were really separate designs, rather than a new fuselage on existing wings and tails as was the case for many other civilian projects.

Offline RAP

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 500
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2013, 05:23:39 pm »
Here is a short article on the Baade-Bonin BB-152 which includes a little development history. 

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #59 on: January 22, 2013, 01:23:19 am »
I think, regarding the "152" (see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5943.msg171861.html#msg171861 )
just as a conversion from a bomber somewhat means doing the designers inustice, as it was a an independent
design, I think. Of course it used principles, that could be found in the last Junkers jet bomber designs, but that
can be said, too, when we compare, say the Boeing B-47 and the 707.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023

Offline RAP

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 500
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2013, 09:24:20 pm »
XB-70 with fake windows added to simulate civil design.  Sorry that I don't have any other details on the photo.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 02:01:45 pm by RAP »

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #62 on: October 12, 2013, 10:55:07 am »
Can we expand the scope of this interesting thread to include conversions of bombers to high speed transports?  The Howard series of Ventura and Harpoon conversions, and the On Mark conversions of the A-26 have always fascinated me.  Are there other similar conversions or projects out there?



Bill Walker

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #63 on: October 12, 2013, 11:43:39 am »
Can we expand the scope of this interesting thread to include conversions of bombers to high speed transports? 

Cannot see a problem, as long as at least the conversions are postwar designs and maybe the bomber were
still in military use then. Not sure, that the B-17 would qualify, as it's main career as a bomber was over with
the end of the war, I think.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Online GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2514
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #64 on: October 12, 2013, 11:47:04 am »
XB-70 with fake windows added to simulate civil design.


Interesting.  Any details?

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #65 on: October 12, 2013, 11:59:40 am »
With about 70 cm spacing of the windows, seat spacing probably would have been adequate
for tourist class only ! :(
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #66 on: October 12, 2013, 12:49:55 pm »
Perhaps, but at Mach 3, with a couple flutes of Krug, there would have been little time to get uncomfortable.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #67 on: March 25, 2014, 06:06:53 am »
Hi,


from Warbird Tech XB-70 Valkyrie book,here is a three version of M-3000,as
a capacity of carrying passengers.

Offline Cy-27

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 511
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #68 on: March 25, 2014, 06:27:23 am »
Another image of the model Handley Page HP 97 Victor civil derivitive from a 1954 Handley Page Bulletin (No 215).
 
Carrying 120 passengers it would have operating costs of £14 per passenger!

Offline famvburg

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 312
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #69 on: March 25, 2014, 06:42:56 am »
There were a number of corporate conversions to B-25s and A-20s. An A-20 used to sit abandoned in a field across the runway at my airport until the early '70s. It was later restored and put on the airshow circuit in the early '80s, IIRC. There was at least one Martin B-26 converted. The one that the Confederate Air Force had was a corporate conversion when they got it. Not that their B-24 was a true B-24 but it was a corporate aircraft when they got it, IIRC. ISTR a number of B-17s were converted. Some PBYs were converted, many to exotic "flying yachts". Howard Hughes had a B-23 and I think there were others converted. As long as we've added this "category", maybe we should include all of the bomber types that were converted to firebombers. There were a couple of other outfits besides On Mark that converted A-26s but I can't recall who they were. Lear converted some Lockheed Twins in addition to Howard.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 06:56:50 am by famvburg »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #70 on: March 25, 2014, 09:35:41 am »
The Fortress Executive as envisioned by a Boeing artist.

Quote
"In a move to generate some sales to civilian business, Boeing circulated this drawing of their postwar "Fortress Executive," advertising the availability of surplus B-17s for peacetime conversion. On paper the idea looked good, but the B-17 was just too big a machine for a company aircraft and not big enough for commercial airlines."

Quote and image from "A Fortress Is Forever" by Peter M. Bowers in Wings, February 1977.

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3306
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #71 on: March 25, 2014, 10:09:13 am »
Great contribution!, many thanks

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #72 on: March 25, 2014, 02:04:12 pm »
Avro Lancastrian - Lancaster bomber converted for civilian use. Image source https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/7/7a/Avro_691_Lancastrian_I-DALR_Alitalia.jpg

Avro York - transport that used Lancaster wings + empennage mated to a new fuselage. Not really a converted bomber, but it used a lot of Lancaster bits so I thought to include it for completeness' sake. Image source http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Avro_685_York_G-AMXM_Hunting_Clan_Ringway_27.08.55_edited-3.jpg

Avro Lincolnian - Lincoln converted for civilian use. Image source  http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1318576F.jpg

Handley Page Halton - Halifax converted for civilian use. Image source http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/MM/MM-64/0214-03-1-1.jpg

Slightly surprised these didn't get mentioned earlier.
<edit> attached images instead of linking them.
<edit2> Hammer Birchgrove mentioned the Lancastrian earlier: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3126.msg64156.html#msg64156
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 09:48:50 am by Arjen »

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #73 on: March 25, 2014, 03:44:17 pm »
Did the 'executive' FW Condor ex-Nazi big-wig conversions captured intact - see any post-war service?
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #74 on: March 26, 2014, 09:28:02 am »
Hi,


the Boeing Model 473 aircraft project,from Airpower 5/2004.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2014, 10:14:27 am »
This is probably out of place in a Postwar Aircraft Projects thread, but as redstar72 strayed into prewar territory earlier in this topic (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3126.msg64340.html#msg64340)...

Handley Page built lots of O/100 and O/400 bombers at the end of Word War 1, some little-used, others not even delivered.
Three designations for different conversions, in chronological order:
O/7 - converted O/400 to carry mainly passengers
O/11 - converted O/400 to carry mainly cargo and ~ 3 passengers in a sparsely furnished cabin at the back, as well as 2 passengers in the cockpit. Brrr.
O/10 - initially converted O/11 to carry mainly passengers, when Handley Page realised 1920 summer traffic allowed for more flights. Subsequently more O/400 were directly converted to O/10 configuration

Image source: http://flyingmachines.ru/Images7/Putnam/Bi2Mono/16-2.jp

Offline Ardavan.K

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 148
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2014, 11:16:53 am »
Proposed civil version of canceled Tupolev Tu-64. Originally posted by redstar 72.

Quote
As it was typical for Tupolev OKB, a civil passenger version of Tu-64 was also projected. This 50-52-seat aircraft was called Project 66 or Tu-66. The inicial design was made in Autumn, 1944, and the works were stopped at the same time as on the military version. The drawing is from "Aviatsia i Kosmonavtika" No. 7-1998.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7138.msg61521.html#msg61521
Aeronautics was neither an industry nor a science.
It was a miracle.


Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #78 on: November 08, 2014, 07:27:03 am »
Also from Kryl'ya Rodine 9/2000,


here is the Tupolev Tu-66 in details.

Offline MaxLegroom

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Why not?
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #79 on: November 08, 2014, 04:11:34 pm »
Hi,


anther model to NA M-3000 SST aircraft.


http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=D-MDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=popular+mechanics+1963&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VRj_U6LtFerB0QWO2oGYBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%201963&f=false
That probably isn't another M3000 idea, but possibly a wind tunnel model of the Boeing 733, in a very early form.  Still, the article you linked to did show how we intended to use B-70 research to build an SST. 

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #80 on: June 01, 2016, 06:32:11 am »
Model of Tupolev Tu-134 supersonic transport (SST).

NOTE: Although seller claims that model is authentic and accurate, the reader should be aware that the authenticity and accuracy of this model is in question. It may have been manufactured by another party without license.

Source: http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=28_39_38_100&products_id=2485

By the way,

there is anther version of Tu-134 SST Project,but fitted with four VD-19R2 engines.

http://testpilot.ru/russia/tupolev/134/134.htm

Offline RAP

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 500
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2017, 10:13:14 am »
Thought I'd seen something on the forum about a civilian B26 but could not find it.  Hope this is not a double post, if so remove.

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #82 on: October 30, 2017, 10:08:37 am »
Here's a few civil conversions of the A-26/B-26 for your perusal.  I know I have one of the Volitan conversion - has something of a pregnant belly look to it.  Will look for that and post it.

Enjoy the Day!  Mark
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 10:25:26 am by Mark Nankivil »

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #83 on: October 30, 2017, 11:05:10 am »
It's not exactly a secret, but let us not forget that the Learjet 23 used the aerodynamic surfaces and tip tanks of the Swiss P-16 strike fighter.  It made for a very strong wing on the Learjet.

Offline NUSNA_Moebius

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #84 on: October 31, 2017, 01:07:02 pm »
Were there ever any A-26s or B-26s converted to turboprop?  Seems like it would be a match made in heaven.

Offline Motocar

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 532
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #85 on: October 31, 2017, 05:15:59 pm »
Two projects Conavir passenger aircraft that give rise to civilian versions, neither was built beyond the proposal the F-106, in one case and in the other case the Astrojet, starting from a B-58 that was something more serious. The F-106 was a proposal to create an executive Jet SST after the conversion of a fighter that eliminated the weapons hold and took advantage to install a pressurized cabin to carry passengers, while the Astrojet was a medium SST plane with J58 engines in its civil version and should have benefits not negligible.

Both models are the product of speculative tweaks made by Motocar

Offline Motocar

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 532
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #86 on: October 31, 2017, 05:24:35 pm »
A small US firm Jet Craft 2 Executive also proposed converting old deHavilland Vampire trainers into executive jet planes, built one as a mockup to prove its feasibility, years later languished in a Las Vegas airport, modified by Motocar to recreate that proposal
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 05:29:27 pm by Motocar »

Offline Zeppelin

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #87 on: October 31, 2017, 09:58:30 pm »
A detail that has intrigued me for years, why did the T104 have a "bomb aimers" position?

I always assumed the Soviet commercial craft kept the glass nose so in any emergency, they would always have a ready stock to requisition back for any military use?

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #88 on: November 01, 2017, 12:44:30 am »
Those were navigator's stations. An 22 has one, Il 76 has one. Imagine using those as bombers - impractical doesn't begin to describe that idea. Transports can be requisitioned for military use, but even Western military transports have done without glass noses since forever.

Offline riggerrob

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #89 on: November 01, 2017, 01:33:13 pm »
Were there ever any A-26s or B-26s converted to turboprop?  Seems like it would be a match made in heaven.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.
They might have contemplated converting A-26 to turboprops, but no prototype ever flew. Basically, A-26 were fading from service about the same time decent turboprop engines arrived on the market. Up until 1970, military-surplus radial engines were still cheaper than turboprops. By the time decent turboprop engines came available - during the 1960s - the youngest A-26 airframe was 20 years old. A few A-26 refurbishment contracts were abandoned when they discovered corrosion.

The only WW2-vintage airplanes that were converted to turboprop - in significant numbers - were DC-3/C-47 transports. One project used RR Dart engines, another used a trio of Pratt&Whitney PT6A engines, but the only conversion still available is done by Basler. When a DC-3 arrives at the Basler shop in Oshkosh, it is gutted, overhauled, the forward fuselage extended (for balance) and a pair of PT6A engines installed.

A few Beech 18, C-45 and AT-11 light twins were re-engined with turboprops, most notably by Westwind (P&WC) and Volpar (Garret AirResearch). Most of those converted airframes were produced after WW2. I have a hundred  jumps from a Westwind Beech and hundreds more from piston-pounding Beech 18s. Thankfully, Beech 18s have retired from the skydiving scene. Hardly any still haul freight or passengers.

Offline riggerrob

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #90 on: November 01, 2017, 01:55:33 pm »
Here's a few civil conversions of the A-26/B-26 for your perusal.  I know I have one of the Volitan conversion - has something of a pregnant belly look to it.  Will look for that and post it.

Enjoy the Day!  Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------

Those Volitan conversions look a lot like On Mark conversions.
On Mark conversions were mainly for executive transport ... up to a dozen executives. The first On Mark modification was a steel ring spar that allowed passengers to walk from the aft cabin to the cockpit. They also allowed the bomb bay to carry passengers in comfort.
On Mark installed pressurized cabins in a few A-26.
On Mark also re-militarized a batch of A-26s for the Republic of South Viet Nam Air Force ..... except that they were flown by USAF pilots. On Mark Invaders had solid noses, tip tanks and rocket rails under the outer wings. On Mark Invaders flew similar ground-attack missions to AD-1 Skyraiders and T-28D Trojans. Pistons were preferred for their longer loiter time and better manuverability in VN mountains.

Offline Deltafan

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 688
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #91 on: November 01, 2017, 06:26:20 pm »
Convair project passenger aircraft that give rise to civilian version, (...) the Astrojet, starting from a B-58 that was something more serious. (...) the Astrojet was a medium SST plane with J58 engines in its civil version and should have benefits not negligible.

model is the product of speculative tweaks made by Motocar
Thanks Motocar.

I allways liked this project from the B-58. It would have been a perfect civilian jet for a science fiction movie or comic :)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 06:28:53 pm by Deltafan »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4055
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2017, 01:18:08 am »
Convair project passenger aircraft that give rise to civilian version, (...) the Astrojet, starting from a B-58 that was something more serious. (...) the Astrojet was a medium SST plane with J58 engines in its civil version and should have benefits not negligible.

model is the product of speculative tweaks made by Motocar
Thanks Motocar.

I allways liked this project from the B-58. It would have been a perfect civilian jet for a science fiction movie or comic :)

Or for Alternate History stories, it's a Goldmine !

my take on F-106 SST and question were sit the Stewardess ?


From
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14214.msg140541.html#msg140541
I love Strange Technology

Offline Deltafan

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 688
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #93 on: November 05, 2017, 06:34:18 am »
Excellent ! ;D

For those who don't know this postwar civilian flying body (derivative of Belgian striking-looking models) :

https://www.bedetheque.com/albums-204-BD-Natacha.html
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 06:59:44 am by Deltafan »

Offline RAP

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 500
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2017, 08:05:58 am »
Another article on civil B26.

Offline taildragger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 168
  • You can count on me - I won a contest
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #95 on: November 06, 2017, 10:22:50 pm »
I allways liked this project from the B-58. It would have been a perfect civilian jet for a science fiction movie or comic :)
[/quote]

I've always wondered about the purpose of the stylish fins attached to the wingtip-mounted engines on some of the B-58 airliner concepts.  It seems like they would complicate and impose loads on the nacelle structure, but why?
They seem too close to the longitudinal centerline to add significant stability and predated (I think) the science on winglets.  I wouldn't think that two symmetrical fins would be an effective winglet arrangement and I don't think I've ever seen any sort of winglet on a supersonic aircraft.  OK, maybe the folding wingtips on the B-70 were a sort of winglet, but I think that their purpose was to interact with shockwaves not to increase the effective aspect ratio.  Maybe they create some sort of dihedral of anhedral effect.
Or, since these were just concept drawings, maybe they were added as a cosmetic touch - they do look good.
Any insights? 
« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 08:06:43 pm by taildragger »

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #96 on: November 07, 2017, 12:20:01 am »
The Ye-155-R1 (MiG-25 prototype) didn't have outboard engines, but on its wingtips it had some strange appendages as well:

Offline Cy-27

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 511
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #97 on: November 07, 2017, 11:23:06 am »
The Ilyushin Il-28 was adapted for mail plane use by Aeroflot as the IL-20 or IL-28P (Pochtovy / Mail). A few Il-28s were civilianised and the Aeroflot crews found them easy to fly. Conversion for Aeroflot crews started in October 1953 and the mail services began in 1954. The type carried Pravda and Izvestiya publications from Moscow to Irkutsk. One of the Il-28P carried a civil style colour scheme with red cheatline, blue pinstripe as well as Aeroflot logos and titles (cn 54006104). I know there is a photo of the Aeroflot liveried nose of construction number 54006104 in the book Ilyushin Il-28 Beagle  (Airlife) by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Komissarov.

A similar mail service was operated by the Tu-104G which was a demilitarised Tu-16. Both types helped the basic jet training of the airline crews before the advent of the Tu-104.

Offline Deltafan

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 688
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #98 on: November 08, 2017, 09:16:58 am »
Quote from: Deltafan
I allways liked this project from the B-58. It would have been a perfect civilian jet for a science fiction movie or comic :)

I've always wondered about the purpose of the stylish fins attached to the wingtip-mounted engines on some of the B-58 airliner concepts.  It seems like they would complicate and impose loads on the nacelle structure, but why?
They seem too close to the longitudinal centerline to add significant stability and predated (I think) the science on winglets.  I wouldn't think that two symmetrical fins would be an effective winglet arrangement and I don't think I've never seen any sort of winglet on a supersonic aircraft.  OK, maybe the folding wingtips on the B-70 were a sort of winglet, but I think that their purpose was to interact with shockwaves not to increase the effective aspect ratio.  Maybe they create some sort of dihedral of anhedral effect.
Or, since these were just concept drawings, maybe they were added as a cosmetic touch - they do look good.
Any insights?
I remember (there are maybe other that I don't know or don't remember) only the Russian Myasischev M-50 and the French SNCASO Trident as supersonic jets with wingtip-mounted engines (the Tsybin NM-1 was a subsonic model for the never flown Tsybin RSR).
For the "stylish fins", I can only said that in my book on the B-58 (Convair B-58, Jay Miller, Aerofax Inc/Midland) it's wrote that the nacelle-mounted winglets, for the transport passengers (Mach 2.5) 58-9 project, were for "improved directional stability".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-50
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 08:14:09 pm by Deltafan »

Offline famvburg

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 312
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #99 on: November 10, 2017, 06:44:57 pm »
There was a proposed turbo prop civil A-26, I believe by On-Mark. The excellent Crowood book on the A-26 has a bit of info and a drawing.

Offline famvburg

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 312
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #100 on: November 10, 2017, 06:52:24 pm »
A bit of trivia. A-26 N6840D was owned and operated by a company in my town in the 1960s, possibly as photographed here. It has been restored as a Korean War B-26 and can be seen on the airshow circuit as The Spirit of North Carolina.

Offline RAP

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 500
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #101 on: December 01, 2018, 11:12:54 am »
Aviation Week drawing from 1957 of BB-152.

Offline MaxLegroom

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Why not?
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #102 on: December 04, 2018, 05:59:40 am »
Weren't the Boeing 307 and 377 both built using the wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers of bombers (B-17 and B-50 respectively)?  Did I miss someone mentioning this?

Offline famvburg

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 312
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #103 on: December 04, 2018, 11:00:18 am »
The original 377 used B-29 wings, engines and tail. So did the Tu-70.

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #104 on: December 04, 2018, 02:15:32 pm »
Is the someone who ever have seen an illustration,or who haves more info of
the civil transport version of the Short Sperrin ?

Thanks in advance.

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #105 on: December 04, 2018, 02:55:25 pm »
An ancient thread was dug out. Let's thus mention that the He 111 was also built and intended as fast passenger and postal aircraft. It was less economical than Ju 52/3m (and less safe), though.

There are plenty photos of He 111C on the web, so I won#t post any here. You should look at them, it was probably the best-looking passenger aircraft of the 30's (despite the Condor)!

Offline sienar

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 481
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #106 on: December 04, 2018, 08:21:30 pm »
The 111 was designed as a passenger plane like how the 109 was designed as a fast mail carrier.

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1474
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #107 on: December 08, 2018, 12:47:21 pm »
The 111 was designed as a passenger plane like how the 109 was designed as a fast mail carrier.

Please do not forget the famous Dornier Do-17 airliner..... ;D

Offline Artie Bob

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft
« Reply #108 on: December 08, 2018, 01:38:43 pm »
In the early 1950s, I was a line boy at one of the two major airports in Louisville, Ky.  During the week before the Kentucky Derby, it seemed like every executive aircraft in the USA flew in (surely an exaggeration)!  I remember executive conversions of B-23, -24,-25 and even a Martin B-28 with a large oval window in the aft fuselage. there were several Douglas B-26s (aka A-26), but IIRC, the most common executive conversions were Lockheed Venturas.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob