Civilian versions of bomber aircraft

Attachments

  • Victor passenger transport.png
    Victor passenger transport.png
    30.7 KB · Views: 447
  • HP.96.png
    HP.96.png
    26.8 KB · Views: 246
  • HP.101.png
    HP.101.png
    9.4 KB · Views: 219
  • HP.111.png
    HP.111.png
    43.3 KB · Views: 229
  • HP.108 INITIAL DESIGN.png
    HP.108 INITIAL DESIGN.png
    21.8 KB · Views: 215
  • HP.113.png
    HP.113.png
    14.5 KB · Views: 207
  • HP.123.png
    HP.123.png
    12.1 KB · Views: 223
Last edited:
Did this in any way influence the Hermes? The fuselage looks somewhat similar, at a first glance at least.
 
taildragger said:
Not sure if this is an actual project but it clearly depicts a 1944 concept for a Halifax-derived postwar airliner.
The Halifax vertical tail is retained to demonstrate the lineage, I suppose, but it kind of uglies up an otherwise attractive profile.
Click to expand...
It looks like HP.64 ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    79.5 KB · Views: 221
redstar72 said:
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!
Click to expand...
Regarding the PS-9:
https://elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com/2022/09/22/tupolev-ps-9-крокодил-russki-gator/
 
Let us not forget what was likely the first B-25 executive transport converion, the one done by NAA during WW II for General Eisenhower. Of course, along those lines might the two-seat P-15B conversion, "The Stars Look Down", that flew the general over the Normandy beachhead by considered an executive version?
 
I wonder if that passenger pod influenced "Lord of the Flies."

I could see that for Stratolaunch.
 
lark said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm also trying to figure that out as well?
 

Attachments

  • Valkyrie à hublots (PhR).jpg
    Valkyrie à hublots (PhR).jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 109
About the time On-Mark considered a turboprop conversion of B-26, they discovered corrosion problems with wing spars. That corrosion also killed off any more conversions of B-26s for the Vietnam War.
Please note the On Mark conversions - to executive configuration include half of a new fuselage, deeper with a pressurized cabin that extended forward under the wings. They needed to build ring frame bulkheads to carry wing spar loads around the pressurized passenger cabin.
To increase range, On Mark also developed the distinctive wing tip fuel tanks.
NUSNA_Moebius said:
Were there ever any A-26s or B-26s converted to turboprop? Seems like it would be a match made in heaven.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
elmayerle said:
Let us not forget what was likely the first B-25 executive transport converion, the one done by NAA during WW II for General Eisenhower. Of course, along those lines might the two-seat P-15B conversion, "The Stars Look Down", that flew the general over the Normandy beachhead by considered an executive version?
Click to expand...
After WW2 several more NAA B-25s were converted to executive transports. The waist gunners' cabin is plenty big enough to acommodate passengers with more headroom than needed. Mind you, it is almost impossible to squeeze forward into the cockpit. B-25s were preferred because they were a fraction of the cost of serious DC-3/C-47 Dakotas.
At least one American surgeon equipped his B-25 with w winch-down operating table for charity missions to old Mexico.
The RCAF flew B-25s as navigation trainers and light transport well into the 1950s because they were readily available and their nose-wheels made them easier to fly than most WW2-surplus airplanes.
I interviewed on retired RCAF pilot/engineering officer who loathed the walking main landing gear on Beechcraft C-45 Expeditors.
 
riggerrob said:
About the time On-Mark considered a turboprop conversion of B-26, they discovered corrosion problems with twing spars...
Click to expand...

There are conflicting stories about the On Mark 450 turboprop project. On Mark Engineering bought 19 x surplus USAF B-26s but those aircraft were to be broken up to provide parts for the 450 programme. But the On Mark 450 airframe structure was to be totally new - one assumes that this would have included completely new spars.

A new, 90"/2.28 m, circular-section fuselage was pressurized with seating for 14 passengers. The Model 450 wings would be akin to those of the On Mark Marksman but mounting Allison 501D turboprops in place of the old radials. The cost of those Allison engines in the mid-'50s was such that Model 450 operators were expected to lease these turboprops on a pay-per-hour basis.

On Mark had firms orders from US federal services contractor, Maytag Aircraft Corporation, but concluded that Allison 501D purchase costs were too high. With an unwieldy buy-the-plane, rent-the-engine in play, On Mark decided that its Model 450 was a non-starter.

-- https://napoleon130.tripod.com/id956.html

I wonder if the spar corrosion story suggests that On Mark may have also considered the economy of new fuselage and engines on reconditioned B-26 wings? Perhaps that corrosion discovery was the final nail in the Model 450 coffin?
 

Attachments

  • On-Mark-450-turboprop.jpg
    On-Mark-450-turboprop.jpg
    61.9 KB · Views: 88
Plenty of Douglas B-26 Invader were modified for civil usage.
 

Attachments

  • B-26 (6).jpg
    B-26 (6).jpg
    22.6 KB · Views: 67
  • B-26 (5).jpg
    B-26 (5).jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 54
  • B-26 (4).jpg
    B-26 (4).jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 56
  • B-26 (3).jpg
    B-26 (3).jpg
    28.1 KB · Views: 53
  • B-26 (2).jpg
    B-26 (2).jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 52
  • B-26 (1).jpg
    B-26 (1).jpg
    53.9 KB · Views: 59
In general, the civilian "bomber" I'd want is a PBY Catalina Amphibian. Outside in (insert historical paint scheme here), inside like a flying Winnebago. Give it a pair of 1200hp PT6AG engines so it'll run on diesel if I have to. Won't get anywhere fast, but will get there in style.


JohnR said:
A detail that has intrigued me for years, why did the T104 have a "bomb aimers" position?
Click to expand...
Very old comment to reply to, but it's because they didn't have a whole lot of radar navigation beacons in the Soviet Union. The navigator would line up on river forks, mountains, etc and use those as guides.
 
B-17s that were interred in Sweden were turned over to the Swedes in exchange for the repatriation of American fliers.

SAAB converted them to "Felix" airliners, Felix for Felix Hardison, US air attaché.

The story of B-17 Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby is here

https://www.historynet.com/baby-comes-back-a-b-17g-lands-in-sweden/

A couple photos here

https://secure.boeingimages.com/arc...rted-B-17F--Felix--Airliner-2JRSXLJVF4OC.html
Jan Forsgren book on the Swedish B-17s

https://www.lonesentry.com/blog/swedish-b-17-flying-fortresses.html
Regards,
 
Not sure if quite in the spirit of the question, but B-25 #44-30823 was converted post-war into a platform for aerial cinematography, with a rebuilt nose incorporating a cameraman position and once a 9-camera 360-degree Circle Vision rig deployed on a trapeze from the bomb bay

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b25registry/b25-4430823.html
It has subsequently been converted back to original configuration
 
Scott Kenny said:
In general, the civilian "bomber" I'd want is a PBY Catalina Amphibian. Outside in (insert historical paint scheme here), inside like a flying Winnebago. Give it a pair of 1200hp PT6AG engines so it'll run on diesel if I have to. Won't get anywhere fast, but will get there in style.



Very old comment to reply to, but it's because they didn't have a whole lot of radar navigation beacons in the Soviet Union. The navigator would line up on river forks, mountains, etc and use those as guides.
Click to expand...
Soviet navigators used drift sights to calculate cross-winds and time across terrain.
 
Cthell, you are absolutely correct about the Tallmantz B-25 with the cine-nose. It was an excellent aircraft, and the second to last aircraft my dad ever flew (with Frank Pine, shortly before Frank passed away). That B-25 had a lot of history.
 
Apophenia said:
There are conflicting stories about the On Mark 450 turboprop project. On Mark Engineering bought 19 x surplus USAF B-26s but those aircraft were to be broken up to provide parts for the 450 programme. But the On Mark 450 airframe structure was to be totally new - one assumes that this would have included completely new spars.
Click to expand...

Some notes about the Marksman 450 from various issues of AW&ST in 1957/58:

  • Engines were to be be Allison 501-D-21, with the gearbox relocated from above to below
  • 85hp Porsche engine in port nacelle with Vickers pump to provide 3000psi air for engine start; fully self-contained
  • Twin AirResearch superchargers for cabin pressurisation
  • 14 pax
  • 425mph cruise
  • Cabin to be built with separate internal sections; pressurisation failure in one section would permit pax to evacuate to another section, close the section hatch and re-pressurise. This was intended to avoid the emergency descent requirements otherwise mandated.
  • Folding entry stairway, port forward
  • Nose section, from aft of pilots' seats, to be grafted on from Lockheed 1649. Initially the nose sections were to be bought from Lockheed production line, though On Mark would have to reinforce the windscreens to meet CAA requirements.
  • Approximate cost $1.18 million excluding customer-specified electronics. That priced it above the JetStar's estimated completed price by about $100,000! A Gulfstream G.159 was aimed at about $900,000 fully-finished.
  • First delivery estimated May 1959, production target two per month
  • FAA type meeting was scheduled for 09 October 1957; no information about outcome

Although 'several' orders were reportedly in hand, the 450 proposal quietly disappeared sometime in 1958. Not really surprising when it was more expensive than the emergent business jets.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom