Civilian versions of bomber aircraft

[Dronte]

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

 

[hesham]

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

 

[danielgrimes]

Development of Vickers Valiant into VC-7 / V1000

 

[archipeppe]

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.

 

[Jemiba]

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.

 

[Antonio]

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

 

[Jemiba]

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.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

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

 

[Antonio]

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.

 

[Jemiba]

From aero 1954:
A civil derivative of the Myasyshev Bounder for 75 passengers:

 

[Barrington Bond]

Handley Page Mach 3 bomber airliner.

 

[avatar]

all images from www.sergib.agava.ru

 

[avatar]

lest we forget the Platypus is a bomber too...
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2846.msg22766.html#msg22766

 

[fightingirish]

The Baade 152 was developed out of the Alexejew 150 / Junkers EF 150.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the B-58 bomber with people pod.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1960/1960%20-%202646.html

 

[Just call me Ray]

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).

 

[SSgt Baloo]

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!

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Hailing all the way from formerly East Germany....the Baade-152!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_B-152

 

[OM]

<sigh> Oh, for the Southwest Airlines version of the SR-71

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

you joke?

 

[quellish]

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!

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Avro Lancastrian (from Avro Lancaster)

Vickers Swallow (might have become TSR-2, civilian SST was also proposed by Barnes Wallis)

 

[SOC]

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

 

[robunos]

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.

 

[redstar72]

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.

 

[redstar72]

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.

 

[Jemiba]

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)

 

[redstar72]

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/

 

[JohnR]

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

 

[Kokoro]

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.

 

[Firefly 2]

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.

 

[frank]

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.

 

[Firefly 2]

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.

 

[JohnR]

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?

 

[Jemiba]

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.

 

[borovik]

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.

 

[SSgt Baloo]

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

 

[circle-5]

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!

 

[circle-5]

... 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.

 

[borovik]

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