1945-1950 All Weather Close Air Support Jet

KJ_Lesnick · January 12, 2014, 07:42:19 AM

Ultimately the XB-51 would be built around this role, but frankly it sucked: It was too big, too heavy, and flimsy: While the English Electric Canberra sort of filled the role it was actually mostly used as an interdictor, not a CAS aircraft.

I'm wondering if we'd actually built a plane around the following traits

Light and strong as possible
Good fuel fraction for the necessary low altitude range (a couple hundred miles)
Necessary payload (4,000 to 6,000 pounds)
4 x 20mm cannon

What kind of plane we'd get instead of going totally oversized with a 10,400 pound maximum load, and 8-10 guns or something like that.

I doubt the USAF would have gotten anything as awesome as the A4D Skyhawk but I'm thinking something like a mini-Canberra, maybe a mini Intruder could have been produced...

kerick · January 12, 2014, 09:47:30 AM

Maybe some scale-o-rama with a Skyhawk cockpit and an Intruder fuselage and wings? Sucks that I don't have an Intruder in the stash.

KJ_Lesnick · January 13, 2014, 07:53:42 PM

Kerick

Wouldn't a scale-o-rama Canberra, some T-37, and F2H/De Havilland Vampire traits...

Nose and cockpit of a T-37 scaled up a skosh
B-57's wings scaled to weight without the engine pods
Engine in wing-root, wing-root blended to fuselage in an F2H/Vampire-ish way

What do yo uthink?

Weaver · January 13, 2014, 08:11:13 PM

You could start with the old Revell fit-the-box scale B-57 (1/80-oddth scale) and scaleorama it to 1/72nd, the main change being a 1/72nd canopy (single or twin). Going further, you could remove the inboard wing sections to bring the engines next to the fuselage, then cut new bays in the outer wings for the original undercarriage.

Captain Canada · January 13, 2014, 10:17:13 PM

Avro CF-100 Canuck. Big plank of a wing and 8 guns in the belly already

rickshaw · January 13, 2014, 11:16:06 PM

Quote from: Captain Canada on January 13, 2014, 10:17:13 PM
Avro CF-100 Canuck. Big plank of a wing and 8 guns in the belly already

It's a good plane but as the USAF pointed out, it's not very good as an all weather intruder, which is why the Canberra won. The USAF fixed the the three main problems with the Canberra - poor vision, poor air brakes and the bomb bay doors and created an excellent aircraft for the role which like the original was very amenable to turning it's hand to other tasks. The XB-51 was under-developed and too big, really.

KJ_Lesnick · January 14, 2014, 10:51:19 AM

Captain Canada

As I understand it the payload specs were inadequate...

Rickshaw

QuoteIt's a good plane but as the USAF pointed out, it's not very good as an all weather intruder, which is why the Canberra won.

When you say night intruder, do you mean a night fighter? Because as I understand it the B-57 was designed to be an all-weather interdictor...

QuoteThe USAF fixed the the three main problems with the Canberra - poor vision, poor air brakes and the bomb bay doors

I assume poor-vision had to do with the weird cockpit set-up; I'm unsure what kind of air-brakes the Canberra had to begin with; and I honestly have no idea what problems existed with the Canberra's bay...

QuoteThe XB-51 was under-developed and too big, really.

Oh yeah.

Out of curiosity what range requirements were needed down-low with the specified payload?

jcf · January 14, 2014, 11:11:58 AM

He means exactly that, intruder, as in intruding into enemy territory.
The contest which the Canberra won was for a new intruder aircraft
to replace, wait for it, the Douglas B-26(A-26) Intruder.

BTW the XB-51 was not designed for all-weather CAS, as the concept
barely existed and the period technology was certainly not even close to
being able to accomplish that mission. the XB-51 was in essence an
updated Marauder; a fast, medium attack-bomber.

KJ_Lesnick · January 14, 2014, 11:53:11 AM

joncarrfarrelly

QuoteHe means exactly that, intruder, as in intruding into enemy territory.

I just wanted to clarify -- I've heard the term night-intruder and often it meant a night fighter.

QuoteThe contest which the Canberra won was for a new intruder aircraft to replace, wait for it, the Douglas B-26(A-26) Intruder.

Invader actually :p

Quotethe XB-51 was in essence an updated Marauder; a fast, medium attack-bomber.

The B-26 had it's place in the history books, but I personally think more highly of the A-26, and the De Havilland Mosquito

rickshaw · January 14, 2014, 04:30:46 PM

Kendra/Robynn, Jon has already answered your question about the term "intruder". Essentially it is an aircraft tasked with interdiction behind the enemy's lines. The term "intruder" was what the RAF called the mission in WWII.

I am unsure why you claim the Canberra has a "weird cockpit setup". Considering when it was designed, it's actually quite a good cockpit setup. Remember, we're talking the end of WWII and as a replacement for the Mosquito in a high altitude role. Problem was, it just didn't work very well. Pilots often complained of poor visibility out of the "fish bowl". Because of it's double walled construction, gun sights were prone to distortion. The Navigator and Bomb Aimer were always suspicious about the ejection system but at least they had ejector seats (compared to the V-bombers). It just looks "weird" to American eyes.

sandiego89 · January 14, 2014, 05:26:59 PM

Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 12, 2014, 07:42:19 AM
Good fuel fraction for the necessary low altitude range (a couple hundred miles)
Necessary payload (4,000 to 6,000 pounds)
4 x 20mm cannon

Douglas F3D Skynight meets most of your criteria. Or if you can settle for piston power (which was still quite acceptable to CAS in 1945-1950 period), a multi seat A-1 Skyraider with a podded radar would do the trick.

A major conflict with your desires in that time frame is with avionics. You express desire for a small A-4 sized aircraft, but want all weather avionics. Those vacuum tube days required large avionics bays, and large radar dish sizes, and a second crewmember to turn all those knobs- all driving up the size of the aircraft.

Canberaa and Skynight are quite respectable for the period.

kerick · January 14, 2014, 05:42:03 PM

Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on January 13, 2014, 07:53:42 PM
Kerick

Wouldn't a scale-o-rama Canberra, some T-37, and F2H/De Havilland Vampire traits...

Nose and cockpit of a T-37 scaled up a skosh
B-57's wings scaled to weight without the engine pods
Engine in wing-root, wing-root blended to fuselage in an F2H/Vampire-ish way
What do yo uthink?

That would be a different looking bird than an Intruder but just as whiffable. I say go for it!

PR19_Kit · January 14, 2014, 06:03:46 PM

Quote from: rickshaw on January 14, 2014, 04:30:46 PM
Kendra/Robynn, Jon has already answered your question about the term "intruder". Essentially it is an aircraft tasked with interdiction behind the enemy's lines. The term "intruder" was what the RAF called the mission in WWII.

I am unsure why you claim the Canberra has a "weird cockpit setup". Considering when it was designed, it's actually quite a good cockpit setup. Remember, we're talking the end of WWII and as a replacement for the Mosquito in a high altitude role. Problem was, it just didn't work very well. Pilots often complained of poor visibility out of the "fish bowl". Because of it's double walled construction, gun sights were prone to distortion. The Navigator and Bomb Aimer were always suspicious about the ejection system but at least they had ejector seats (compared to the V-bombers). It just looks "weird" to American eyes.

The pilot didn't sit in the centre if the 'fish bowl' cockpit, which can hardly have helped the distortions caused by the canopy. But if you look into the entrance hatch you can see why he's offset, it was to leave enough room for the Nav/Bomb Aimer to a) get to his seat behind the pilot and b) to enable him to pass by to the bomb aiming position in the nose.

The US B-57B versions centralised the pilot but then they didn't have bomb-aimers as such and entry was via the canopy itself.

The offset pilot's position is the reason why the B(I)8 and PR9 have the asymmetric canopies too, the pilot's in exactly the same position as in the bomber versions, it's just the canopy has been moved to match his position.

Weaver · January 14, 2014, 06:26:41 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 14, 2014, 06:03:46 PM

The offset pilot's position is the reason why the B(I)8 and PR9 have the asymmetric canopies too, the pilot's in exactly the same position as in the bomber versions, it's just the canopy has been moved to match his position.

Actually, he isn't: in the B(I).8/PR.9, the pilot is further back than in the B.2. He's in essentially the same position as the B.2's left rear seat, with his back to the sloping pressure bulkhead.

PR19_Kit · January 15, 2014, 01:48:56 AM

Quote from: Weaver on January 14, 2014, 06:26:41 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 14, 2014, 06:03:46 PM
The offset pilot's position is the reason why the B(I)8 and PR9 have the asymmetric canopies too, the pilot's in exactly the same position as in the bomber versions, it's just the canopy has been moved to match his position.

Actually, he isn't: in the B(I).8/PR.9, the pilot is further back than in the B.2. He's in essentially the same position as the B.2's left rear seat, with his back to the sloping pressure bulkhead.

But he's STILL offset to te left, which was my original point...... [Sigh]