Personnel and Cargo Pods (EXINT, GRIER, and other types)

Spey_Phantom · June 22, 2008, 06:51:04 AM

thread revival:

just got a new scanner today and i thought i would scan in this picture i have from the MANPADS concept for the harrier GR7/9

would look cool if it was used in real life, maybe a fast battlefield retrievement system

Jeffry Fontaine · June 22, 2008, 07:12:34 AM

Quote from: Nils on June 22, 2008, 06:51:04 AMjust got a new scanner today and i thought i would scan in this picture i have from the MANPADS concept for the harrier GR7/9
would look cool if it was used in real life, maybe a fast battlefield retrievement system

Do you have any better references for this pod? Something like a general arrangement drawing? I like the concept and it begs to be fabricated in scale.

Maverick · June 22, 2008, 07:37:46 AM

Looks to me like a revival of the old EXINT Pods from way back when...

Regards,

Mav

Jeffry Fontaine · June 22, 2008, 07:48:25 AM

The BAE EXINT pods look a lot like the large bulbous nose fuel tanks that are found on the Mirage and Rafale. A simple conversion to reflect a different purpose with the addition of a porthole, door, and stabilizing fin would be a quick conversion to create an EXINT pod for the Harrier.

I would still like to see something more on that other box shaped version, it appears to allow for side by side seating in the container which would dictacte something with larger dimensions to what you have provided. It would surely be a noisy ride and stress filled ride for the passengers in either version.

***oops! Found a better image of the EXINT pods and realised the cross section is more rectangular than circular.***

Hman · June 22, 2008, 08:59:39 AM

There is some more info here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1476.msg12434

I also understand KG200 used a simular system to insert spies, dropping them by parachute in a sealed pod!

Maverick · June 22, 2008, 05:05:58 PM

Darren,

The pods were trialed but not operational. They found after tests that the end result was rather dramatic to say the least and personnel were spared the trouble.

Regards,

Mav

GTX · June 23, 2008, 12:41:23 AM

Quote from: Maverick on June 22, 2008, 05:05:58 PM
Darren,

The pods were trialed but not operational. They found after tests that the end result was rather dramatic to say the least and personnel were spared the trouble.

Regards,

Mav

Actually, "KG200: The True Story" by P.W, Stahl indicates that these PAGs (as they were called - see below) were indeed used operationally:

Regards,

Greg

Maverick · June 23, 2008, 01:19:07 AM

Fair enough too I guess. Pretty much everything I'd read about the concept mentioned that there were fatalities during testing which led to their abandonment.

Regards,

Mav

Weaver · June 23, 2008, 01:48:40 AM

I remember seeing a detailed drawing of the square pod in Nils' post (havn't got a copy of it, unfortunately). The seating was for two people face-to-face, i.e. one with their back against the front bulkhead, and the other with their back against the rear one. There was oxygen equipment and a mask in each end fairing, an intercom to the cockpit, and serious sound insulation, that also stopped it from getting too cold. The principle idea discussed was for a combat SAR system that was faster and less vulnerable than a helicopter. Under the circumstances, luxury was not a priority.....

Maverick · June 23, 2008, 05:39:16 AM

How would you guide it, Duncan? Sounds almost like going back to assault gliders like the Horsa.

Regards,

Mav

Jeffry Fontaine · June 23, 2008, 06:18:44 AM

Attached are several reference images. The first of which provides an overview of British developed cargo containers that were used to supply airborne troops and partisan groups during WWII. Do you have any idea when this type of resupply container was dropped from use? I liked the versatility of this type of container since it could be carried by bomber and fighter aircraft on standard bomb racks providing an advantage in the size of the aircraft required as well as the amount of equipment and supplies to be provided in one drop.

Image two is the label that is provided in the 1/35th scale Resicast supply container set. Very expensive but it does provide several types of supply containers including the wicker basket type which predates the metal and fabric covered designs that were developed during WWII.

Image three shows a C-47 Dakota in flight with six cargo containers rigged for drop. The containers are constructed of heavy canvas instead of metal. These I believe were the American development to cut costs and save on war critical materials.

Image four is the CTU-1 or the later CTU-2 Aerial Delivery Container. Both of these are constructed of a lightweight material. Not metal and not fabric, the technical manual describes destruction of the container by burning so what ever it is, it will combust with the right application of accerlant. This container is large enough to hold an average human but it is not cleared for such operations with personnel. It is designed for carriage on any standard 14.0" bomb rack capable of holding the weight of a full container. It has been tested on the OV-1 Mohawk as well as the A-7 Corsair so it has a wide range of delivery options.
Dimensions (diameter X length):
CTU-1 -- 21.0" X 9.0' (53.3cm X 274cm)
CTU-2 -- 21.0" X 8.8' (53.3cm X 268cm)

sequoiaranger · June 23, 2008, 10:35:32 AM

I have an aftermarket set of "personnel pods" for a Ju-87 Stuka that sat on top of the wings. Sorry I don't have a picture to post, but William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich" has some. They were like a little bubble canopy where two people would be sitting, and then encapsulated. There were even "windows" on the sides so the person could see (maybe that was to avoid airsickness-- rather a bad thing when tightly enclosed in a pod!) The pods were to be detached and then parachuted. Apparently there was a problem of trying to detach them simultaneously (sequential separation would probably nearly spin the plane around!). They were not used in operations. Might be nice for "museum rides"!!

Hman · June 23, 2008, 01:43:05 PM

Snow Goose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CQ-10_Snowgoose

There is a user Manual avialable on the web... Anyway I understand that this can be launced out of the back of a C130.

Also http://www.atairaerospace.com/ have some very interesting ideas for cargo/weapon delivery
http://www.atairaerospace.com/smartbombs/ - who needs fast jets!

Maverick · June 23, 2008, 04:13:14 PM

I believe there was also a supply pod developed for Special Forces resupply during the Vietnam war that used a napalm container, the idea being that if the NVA/VC were to find the item, it couldn't necessarily be considered as a supply point rather just some nape that failed to detonate.

Regards,

Mav

Jeffry Fontaine · June 26, 2008, 03:30:38 PM

Quote from: Maverick on June 23, 2008, 04:13:14 PMI believe there was also a supply pod developed for Special Forces resupply during the Vietnam war that used a napalm container, the idea being that if the NVA/VC were to find the item, it couldn't necessarily be considered as a supply point rather just some nape that failed to detonate.

What you are describing sounds like the baggage pods that were converted from fuel tanks and fire bomb casings. The attached image of the BLU-10 250 pound fire bomb is very close to what was provided in many of the 1/48th scale Hasegawa F-16 kits which had a door engraved in the side of the pod. Other pods were fabricated from the 150 gallon and 300 gallon Aero fuel tanks that were common to the A-4, A-1, A-6, and AV-8. Again like the BLU-10, a hole was cut in the side of the fuel tank and a door fabricated to fit the portal. There is an image of one such baggage pod hanging under an F-14 in the Squadron In Action book on that subject.