Register here

Author Topic: Civilian versions of bomber aircraft  (Read 40082 times)

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?

Online 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 N2, 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 »

Online 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 ...