FA+
Shop
1134
Views
Views
48
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 836
File Size 120.7 kB
Report this content
More from baroncoon
Taking a break from 14th Century African dreamscape for a bit good old concept design brainstorming. Sometimes I'll just have an idea spring into my mind for a design and when I have a chance I like to run with it and see where I end up. Several days ago at work I was doodling away and an idea/ shape for an aircraft popped into my head after some twiddling with it this what I came up. On Turkey Day when I was not in the kitchen I was poking at it in my sketchbook.
I did not have a country, or even a world, in mind for this aircraft, but I did imagine tech level for when it comes into existence. It would be a technology period similar to that of late WWII when new concepts are being quickly developed, tested and either proven or disposed of. Turbine engines are in their infancy, and while showing great potential they still have many shortcomings. Slow to throttle response. Possessing voracious appetite and having somewhat fluctuating reliability there would be desire to exploit the new turbine engine but concerns for its shortcomings. An approach to using them might not be for pure jet bomber aircraft but as turboprop instead.
It is not an unheard of concept in reality. The Soviets developed the Tu-95 Bear intercontinental bomber that still continues to serve Russia today This bomber here was not design for such long ranges or loads, but instead was intended to serve in the more tactical role. Kind of like a turboprop version of a B-25 Mitchell, Bristol Beaufighter or A-26 Invader. It would a step between those aircraft and all jet tactical bomber like the Canberra and the Il-28 Beagle.
Since it would be often operating from rough fields the engineers were concerned with their new turbine engines possibly ingesting rocks and other debris that is usually not part of any turbine engines recommended diet! Therefore they decided to place them on top of the fuselage to reduce the risk. They knew this would cause trouble with taking care of them so they made efforts to try and reduce ground crews problems by providing built-in platforms and a gantry system to ease the operation of changing engines.
Although designed to be a bomb truck it incorporates several new ideas for its time. Instead of having the traditional downward swinging bomb bay doors it has a rotating bomb pallet similar to one found on the Martin XB-51, Martin's version of the Canberra the B-57 and the Blackburn Buccaneer. It possess early versions of ejection seats for all three members, and was one of the first aircraft in that world to employ air to air refueling capability.
It was not a perfect design and several aspects of it were changed in later versions. This earlier version is equipped with the traditional bomb sight station that make sense for traditional formation bombing which this aircraft would rarely use. Instead it often employed low level attack profiles like the A-20 Boston and the B-25 Mitchell. In later versions the front nose was solid which allowed more armament and just as important more armor!
Another role for originally intended for the aircraft was as nightfigher which is why it has a dedicated radar station in it. This role never really came into use but the radar did prove useful for night attack missions and maritime roles. Especially once it was optimized more for land and sea use.
Maritime strike was another role envisioned for this plane and its rotating bomb bay/ pallet was configured to take torpedoes when it become too dangerous for traditional torpedo attack the pallet was adapted to accept a rack semi-armor piercing rockets for anti-ship use.
In the end I imagine this aircraft being one of those designs that critics would scoff as being obsolete and antiquated compared to other newer and more dazzling designs, and yet decades later you still find them serving long after their so called "replacements" have been crushed up for recycling.
I did not have a country, or even a world, in mind for this aircraft, but I did imagine tech level for when it comes into existence. It would be a technology period similar to that of late WWII when new concepts are being quickly developed, tested and either proven or disposed of. Turbine engines are in their infancy, and while showing great potential they still have many shortcomings. Slow to throttle response. Possessing voracious appetite and having somewhat fluctuating reliability there would be desire to exploit the new turbine engine but concerns for its shortcomings. An approach to using them might not be for pure jet bomber aircraft but as turboprop instead.
It is not an unheard of concept in reality. The Soviets developed the Tu-95 Bear intercontinental bomber that still continues to serve Russia today This bomber here was not design for such long ranges or loads, but instead was intended to serve in the more tactical role. Kind of like a turboprop version of a B-25 Mitchell, Bristol Beaufighter or A-26 Invader. It would a step between those aircraft and all jet tactical bomber like the Canberra and the Il-28 Beagle.
Since it would be often operating from rough fields the engineers were concerned with their new turbine engines possibly ingesting rocks and other debris that is usually not part of any turbine engines recommended diet! Therefore they decided to place them on top of the fuselage to reduce the risk. They knew this would cause trouble with taking care of them so they made efforts to try and reduce ground crews problems by providing built-in platforms and a gantry system to ease the operation of changing engines.
Although designed to be a bomb truck it incorporates several new ideas for its time. Instead of having the traditional downward swinging bomb bay doors it has a rotating bomb pallet similar to one found on the Martin XB-51, Martin's version of the Canberra the B-57 and the Blackburn Buccaneer. It possess early versions of ejection seats for all three members, and was one of the first aircraft in that world to employ air to air refueling capability.
It was not a perfect design and several aspects of it were changed in later versions. This earlier version is equipped with the traditional bomb sight station that make sense for traditional formation bombing which this aircraft would rarely use. Instead it often employed low level attack profiles like the A-20 Boston and the B-25 Mitchell. In later versions the front nose was solid which allowed more armament and just as important more armor!
Another role for originally intended for the aircraft was as nightfigher which is why it has a dedicated radar station in it. This role never really came into use but the radar did prove useful for night attack missions and maritime roles. Especially once it was optimized more for land and sea use.
Maritime strike was another role envisioned for this plane and its rotating bomb bay/ pallet was configured to take torpedoes when it become too dangerous for traditional torpedo attack the pallet was adapted to accept a rack semi-armor piercing rockets for anti-ship use.
In the end I imagine this aircraft being one of those designs that critics would scoff as being obsolete and antiquated compared to other newer and more dazzling designs, and yet decades later you still find them serving long after their so called "replacements" have been crushed up for recycling.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 836px
File Size 120.7 kB
From watching videos of the Buccaneer and B-57 the bomb bay could be rotated into use very quickly for attack missions. There might be a slight loss in bomb load but that was offset by the ease at which payloads could be changed. With the B-57 they had multiple pallets that could be preloaded and when the aircraft returned they just quickly dropped out the old pallet and replaced it with a new preloaded one. Also it does have six additional wing hard points.
The reason 'internal' bomb bays like this were so popular in these medium range attack aircraft was that air force doctrine pretty much stated that nuclear weapons must be carried internally, and could not be carried externally. The 'Thud', and the F-111 are perfect examples of this in later jet aircraft.
Its not so much that the bomb bay is internal, but the rotating piece seams to prevent any additional payload to be able to be stored in the recess ABOVE the rotating piece. wouldn't a bomb bay with flaps(not sure if thats the right term) work better? Im just wondering if the "twist" is merely aesthetic
The B1-B "Lancer" has something similar, rather than the entire payload flipping outwards, it has the bombs on a spinning rack sort of resembling a revolver.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif.....art-bomb-3.jpg
The Avro Arrow had an internal missile rack that would drop down out of the belly, which helped with top speed as well as potentially reduce the radar signiture. Unfortunately that plane never made it into full production and damn near all evidence of the poor thing has been thrown out, so pictures of the rack in use are not easy to find in a quick google search.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif.....art-bomb-3.jpg
The Avro Arrow had an internal missile rack that would drop down out of the belly, which helped with top speed as well as potentially reduce the radar signiture. Unfortunately that plane never made it into full production and damn near all evidence of the poor thing has been thrown out, so pictures of the rack in use are not easy to find in a quick google search.
I do find it interesting that there is much talk about useful internal space when the XB-51 and the B-57 did not seem to be severely compromised it there ability to carry useful payloads? Nor was the Blackburn Buccaneer?
In fact the rotating bomb pallet of XB-51 was praised specifically since it allowed to internally carrying of oversize payloads. if larger loads were needed you just swapped the standard flush pallet for a bulged compartment pallet. Also it gave great flexibility and fast turnaround. That is why it adapted specifically to the Martin B-57 when it was chosen over the XB-51 for use in the USAF.
Volume 14 of Wings of Fame of 1999 has both an excellent article on both the Martin XB-51 and the Blackburn Buccaneer it. Both articles give fairly good descriptions and uses of the system, and how flexible and adaptable it was.
The one thing this design would be of little use to this specific aircraft of my design is that its top speed is low enough that the reduced turbulence from the rotating pallet would be of little concern.
In fact the rotating bomb pallet of XB-51 was praised specifically since it allowed to internally carrying of oversize payloads. if larger loads were needed you just swapped the standard flush pallet for a bulged compartment pallet. Also it gave great flexibility and fast turnaround. That is why it adapted specifically to the Martin B-57 when it was chosen over the XB-51 for use in the USAF.
Volume 14 of Wings of Fame of 1999 has both an excellent article on both the Martin XB-51 and the Blackburn Buccaneer it. Both articles give fairly good descriptions and uses of the system, and how flexible and adaptable it was.
The one thing this design would be of little use to this specific aircraft of my design is that its top speed is low enough that the reduced turbulence from the rotating pallet would be of little concern.
hm...no you're swiming to the deeper end of the pool an I am without my floaties XD
i was simply pointing out a simple limitation. effectively the greatest pay-load that can be carried may only be loaded on the rotating pallet as high as half the width, while another method could prove much more efficient. The only way to refute this really, is to say that to much of the apparent internal space is non exsistent. In which case, I resign and say good show, and good design.
AND NOW FOR DIAGRAMS! XD
Yours
| |
| |
| X|X |
\ XX|XX /
- - - -
Revolver
| X|X |
| XX|XX |
| XX|XX |
\ X|X /
- - - -
i was simply pointing out a simple limitation. effectively the greatest pay-load that can be carried may only be loaded on the rotating pallet as high as half the width, while another method could prove much more efficient. The only way to refute this really, is to say that to much of the apparent internal space is non exsistent. In which case, I resign and say good show, and good design.
AND NOW FOR DIAGRAMS! XD
Yours
| |
| |
| X|X |
\ XX|XX /
- - - -
Revolver
| X|X |
| XX|XX |
| XX|XX |
\ X|X /
- - - -
Interesting design overall, well done. I would have concerns over the air intakes for the engines though. You are going to have a disturbed airflow into the engines due to the vortexes coming off the sides of the canopy. The teardrop shape in fact may create a vacuum right in front of the intake. Also, you have to vent the turbine exhaust well past the propeller blades to prevent cavatation, heat damage and unwanted vectoring (the exhaust produces thrust). Thinking about it.. with so little of the propellers exposed to uninterrupted air flow just at the top of their swing could mean a loss of power in a climb.. that's a bad thing.
I look at this, and I can already hear the pilot's complaints
'Yeah you lose an engine and the whole thing will roll right over from the unexpected P factor when you've got the engines fire walled during take off. Killed two crews in the first month of deployment at my base.'
'The engines are good, but have a tendency to explode. These new turbo props are great right up until the moment they stop being so...' (B-29 aircrew had a similar complaint
'They put all this metal in the ass end for maintainability and shifted the CG back a whole ten feet past the CM. The thing breaks off so fast in a stall that if you're still in the plane after the first rotation, you ain't ever getting out.'
'Window? More like a day-night indicator' (radar/radio operator).'
Yes, we pilots love to bitch (I think you got the air foil backwards on the canard btw). Interesting thing to note, the internal bomb bay in the F-111 could have a large gun, like the A-10's, installed to do the same kind of ground attack. In a large winged canard AC like this one, you could easily do the same kind of mission.
'Yeah you lose an engine and the whole thing will roll right over from the unexpected P factor when you've got the engines fire walled during take off. Killed two crews in the first month of deployment at my base.'
'The engines are good, but have a tendency to explode. These new turbo props are great right up until the moment they stop being so...' (B-29 aircrew had a similar complaint
'They put all this metal in the ass end for maintainability and shifted the CG back a whole ten feet past the CM. The thing breaks off so fast in a stall that if you're still in the plane after the first rotation, you ain't ever getting out.'
'Window? More like a day-night indicator' (radar/radio operator).'
Yes, we pilots love to bitch (I think you got the air foil backwards on the canard btw). Interesting thing to note, the internal bomb bay in the F-111 could have a large gun, like the A-10's, installed to do the same kind of ground attack. In a large winged canard AC like this one, you could easily do the same kind of mission.
One Idea I had that was similar to what I see here was a Jet Seaplane. now, the existing attempts were pretty lame, and did not incorporate these features you are describing here. What i would see is something like the late German Volksjaeger with pontoons. I don't know if it would work or not, but the first thing you would want to do is keep the engine as far away from the spray of landing and taking off as you could, and that would mean a back mounted pylon or two like the v-1 buzz bomb, volksjaeger, or today's Warthog/thunderbolt 2. What do you think?
"In the end I imagine this aircraft being one of those designs that critics would scoff as being obsolete and antiquated compared to other newer and more dazzling designs, and yet decades later you still find them serving long after their so called "replacements" have been crushed up for recycling."
The A-10 (Warthog) pops into my head immediately. In fact, before even reading your description of this art piece I thought to myself, "How badass would it be for this big, heavily armed aircraft to fly in low and slow and just let all hell break loose.... fit that thing with a GAU-8.... Perfect."
Attack aircraft don't have to be pretty--as long as they actually do the job they were built for. Which is why I love the A-10... and people look at me funny and point at the 'cooler' looking F-22 or F-35 Lightening II, but if they only knew how much our troops appreciate the things what the Hog (and other older aircraft) can do and the failure of the 'replacements' built to take their spots.
The A-10 (Warthog) pops into my head immediately. In fact, before even reading your description of this art piece I thought to myself, "How badass would it be for this big, heavily armed aircraft to fly in low and slow and just let all hell break loose.... fit that thing with a GAU-8.... Perfect."
Attack aircraft don't have to be pretty--as long as they actually do the job they were built for. Which is why I love the A-10... and people look at me funny and point at the 'cooler' looking F-22 or F-35 Lightening II, but if they only knew how much our troops appreciate the things what the Hog (and other older aircraft) can do and the failure of the 'replacements' built to take their spots.
Think of the MH-53 or the C-130 (52 years old). Both of them, people say are ugly, obsolete (well the MH-53 was retired last year at 42 years old) and most of all, BIG. But they're still flying.
Oh, don't forget the B-52 (54 years old). A huge portion of U.S. military hardware (ok, maybe not a HUGE portion but you get the point) is equipment based on tried and true designs decades (maybe centuries) old.
Some quick facts.
M16 is 45 years old
AK-47 is 62 years old (and over 70 million working globally, which is one AK-47 per ninety-five people, impressive considering we have six billion people on this planet.)
M2 Browning is 88 years old
M1911 is 98 years old
These facts and figures do not take variants of such weapons into account.
Oh, don't forget the B-52 (54 years old). A huge portion of U.S. military hardware (ok, maybe not a HUGE portion but you get the point) is equipment based on tried and true designs decades (maybe centuries) old.
Some quick facts.
M16 is 45 years old
AK-47 is 62 years old (and over 70 million working globally, which is one AK-47 per ninety-five people, impressive considering we have six billion people on this planet.)
M2 Browning is 88 years old
M1911 is 98 years old
These facts and figures do not take variants of such weapons into account.
Yeah the A-10 has "supposedly" been getting ready for removal from service for about the last 15 years. Seems like every time they want to get rid of it they just keep finding new uses for it. Much the same way the A-1 Skyraider and the A-26 Invader kept finding work long after piston engine aircraft had been declared obsolete by armchair pilots.
In fact I imagined this aircraft soldiering on in limited war theaters until about the same "Nam" era tech level. maybe even later in some developing countries.
In fact I imagined this aircraft soldiering on in limited war theaters until about the same "Nam" era tech level. maybe even later in some developing countries.
I like the overall design, and the fact a designer actually thought about the maintenance crew is a big plus for me.
But as a Mechanic, I can see a few problems here and there. The maintenance platforms are a good idea, The blackhawk and chinhook have them built into the turbine engine cowling. The Gantry however might be a problem. For something to be able to slide and remove the engine, it would have to be stout and heavy. Which would take a bite out of the load capacity (By weight, not by mass) And having to remove the props would make it a bit longer than needed. Possible ways to make engine swaps or maintenance easy might be making them removable from inside. During use, the engines are bolted to the frame. But to remove, The track to remove the engines are installed inside, and the engines drop into the body. And depending on the size of the turbine engines, they could be delivered to ground level either through an access hatch, around truck level, or bomb bay doors onto a trolley. A bit complicated, but the individual parts would weigh less, and put less stress on the aircraft then trying to hang an engine out the back. A turbine engine that far back would likely cause it to tip back.
As for the above mentioned intake issues; The turbines could very well be around where they are, but you could move the intake openings into clean air. Not to mention the fact that the exhaust can be routed as well. Since it's a turboprop, which is an extension of the turbo shaft design, the exhaust doesn't have enough energy to be used as thrust. I'd route it else where so the blades aren't exposed to the remaining heat.
But I'm a mechanic, what would I know. n_n
Very VERY inventive design. Keep up the good work. ((I like the fact you're willing to take constructive criticism so well. A few artist tend to get moody. :P))
But as a Mechanic, I can see a few problems here and there. The maintenance platforms are a good idea, The blackhawk and chinhook have them built into the turbine engine cowling. The Gantry however might be a problem. For something to be able to slide and remove the engine, it would have to be stout and heavy. Which would take a bite out of the load capacity (By weight, not by mass) And having to remove the props would make it a bit longer than needed. Possible ways to make engine swaps or maintenance easy might be making them removable from inside. During use, the engines are bolted to the frame. But to remove, The track to remove the engines are installed inside, and the engines drop into the body. And depending on the size of the turbine engines, they could be delivered to ground level either through an access hatch, around truck level, or bomb bay doors onto a trolley. A bit complicated, but the individual parts would weigh less, and put less stress on the aircraft then trying to hang an engine out the back. A turbine engine that far back would likely cause it to tip back.
As for the above mentioned intake issues; The turbines could very well be around where they are, but you could move the intake openings into clean air. Not to mention the fact that the exhaust can be routed as well. Since it's a turboprop, which is an extension of the turbo shaft design, the exhaust doesn't have enough energy to be used as thrust. I'd route it else where so the blades aren't exposed to the remaining heat.
But I'm a mechanic, what would I know. n_n
Very VERY inventive design. Keep up the good work. ((I like the fact you're willing to take constructive criticism so well. A few artist tend to get moody. :P))
Thanks for the feedback! The gantry was not always attached to the plane but instead is detachable and is assembled when needed. I did not make that clear in the description. Also i did not show the rear jack leg that has to be deployed to compensate for the change in center of gravity when the engine is removed.
In regards to the intake I was imagining this being in the early day of turbine engine design when they were really uncertain about intake air flow and how it interacted with turbines so it was my understanding they kept things pretty simple just to eliminate potential sources of turbulence.
Very VERY inventive design. Keep up the good work. ((I like the fact you're willing to take constructive criticism so well. A few artist tend to get moody. :P))
Compared to some critiques I've gotten from commerical clients and instructors I find most of my watchers on FA to be the model of courtesy.
In regards to the intake I was imagining this being in the early day of turbine engine design when they were really uncertain about intake air flow and how it interacted with turbines so it was my understanding they kept things pretty simple just to eliminate potential sources of turbulence.
Very VERY inventive design. Keep up the good work. ((I like the fact you're willing to take constructive criticism so well. A few artist tend to get moody. :P))
Compared to some critiques I've gotten from commerical clients and instructors I find most of my watchers on FA to be the model of courtesy.
Well yes and no. Yes counter rotating props do produce a distinctive drone to them, but in the case of the TU-95 its great noise is also a result of spinning massive 18+ ft propellers which are harnessing the power of engines that produce more than 9,750HP. This aircraft has much smaller diameter props and much less mighty engines.
When was young I got to see the Red Baron Unlimited class P-51 run at Mojave Air Races. The last years of its life it ran counter rotating props with its Griffon engine. While it sound different it was not much more noisy than the other aircraft in the race.
When was young I got to see the Red Baron Unlimited class P-51 run at Mojave Air Races. The last years of its life it ran counter rotating props with its Griffon engine. While it sound different it was not much more noisy than the other aircraft in the race.
I do like the design, but as I was reading the notes the thought did occur to me that I hoped the design was channeling more AD-1 Skyraider and less XF-84H 'Thunderscreech'
(link for those who haven't heard of it)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-84H_Thunderscreech
(link for those who haven't heard of it)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-84H_Thunderscreech
Awesome concept! This thing looks very appropriate for 50s and 60s-era aircraft, which increasingly seems to be a forgotten era in aircraft design, probably because people were still trying to figure out how to use all of the emerging technologies at the time. This aircraft looks like the design team wanted to add all sorts of new concepts into it, from turboprop engines and rotating bomb bays to radar and in-flight refueling capacity. But aside from all that, it simply looks mighty, especially from head-on. I bet this bird makes quite an impression when it roars over the battlefield and drops its load upon the enemy, both to friend and foe alike!
Yeah I imagined it to be a counter-rotating prop, turboprop powered cross between a Douglas A-26 Invader and a Grumman F7F Tigercat. My dad served in the the US Air Force during the Korean War period. before that he served a period in the US Navy reserve. In Korea he had very strong memories of the Marines buzzing the USAF air base he was stationed at. The US Army was "Suppose" to provide anti-aircraft protection for the base, but the Marines found a weakness in there strategy.
The Marines would come roaring up this canyon that was below the base. Sticking to about twenty feet or less off the deck and going over three hundred miles per hour they would follow the slope into the Army positions where they had their quad 50's located. Unfortunately they could not depress them low enough to even try to get a bead on the F7F's bearing down on them, and the sight of the dual 12ft + props coming at them caused many a newcomer to dive for cover! Upon immediately cresting the slope the Tigercats would do a quick barrel roll over and proceed to mock strafe the airfield hugging the deck all the way. Then they would slam the throttles and be gone before anyone had a chance to react This occurred with annoying regularity and everyone was glad that the Chinese didn't try that with some of their Il-10s cause if they had pulled it off it would have been bad!
The Marines would come roaring up this canyon that was below the base. Sticking to about twenty feet or less off the deck and going over three hundred miles per hour they would follow the slope into the Army positions where they had their quad 50's located. Unfortunately they could not depress them low enough to even try to get a bead on the F7F's bearing down on them, and the sight of the dual 12ft + props coming at them caused many a newcomer to dive for cover! Upon immediately cresting the slope the Tigercats would do a quick barrel roll over and proceed to mock strafe the airfield hugging the deck all the way. Then they would slam the throttles and be gone before anyone had a chance to react This occurred with annoying regularity and everyone was glad that the Chinese didn't try that with some of their Il-10s cause if they had pulled it off it would have been bad!
Comments