B-47 Maritime patrol bomber

[chrisonord]

Whilst having a root through  my stash to see what I  can sell on and keep,  found  my old Hasegawa  B-47,  it was bought  on a whim, as it doesn't  fit in with any of my themed builds. Or does it???
I had a brain twinge,  and  thought  to myself  what could  the RAF  do with one of these,  apart from the obvious  tactical nuclear bomber role.  I  thought what about  maritime  patrol  bomber,  eith3 as a replacement or to augment the  Shackleton.. ..
I know that they needed  better  engines  as they were  slow to spool up and get  the aircraft off the ground  before  running out of  dry land.  I am sure  Rolls Royce  could provide a  better  replacement  engine,  and  armament wise it could  carry  a decent  radar and suitable anti ship  missiles,  and heavy  rockets that were available during the 1950's and 1960's .fixed  forward  cannons in the fuselage  could be fitted also. Colour scheme wise  the same  as the Shackleton 's  would  work. I am thinking  RATO bottles  wouldn't be needed if the engines  produced  enough  power, but one  would  look the part with them fitted
Chris.

[McColm]

I had a similar idea,  but create a cockpit in the fuselage rather than above it on the original layout.  Maybe you can incorporate this on your build   

[chrisonord]

The tandem layout  would be a problem for  long  haul  missions  so a different  cockpit would be better.  I will  see what I have in the spares boxes that could be used.
Chris

[McColm]

What about using the one from  a Lockheed S-3A Viking , that might fit?

[chrisonord]

That looks  good  Steve, and looks natural on the B 47 too. An S3 viking  front end would look so wrong,  as it's  lines wouldn't work with the  sleek  fuselage of the  stratojet.
Chris

[Weaver]

Four Olympus 201s would slaughter the job:

6 x J-47s = 43,200lb
Specific fuel consumption: 1.014 lb/(lbf⋅h)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 2.34


4 x Olympus 201s = 68,000lb
Specific fuel consumption: 0.817 lb/(lbf⋅h)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 3.04

You could probably de-rate them for super-high reliability.

They used to fly some pretty long mission with the tandem cockpit, so I don't neccessarily see it as a problem. The main difficulty as a maritime bomber would be metal fatigue in the thin, bendy wing at low altitudes. Maybe reduce the span a bit? (Don't tell Kit...)

Decent small anti-ship missiles wern't really around until the late 1960s. The exception was the Russians, who had US carriers to deal with, but their monsters used some pretty funky guidance systems with (for instance) the missile being manually steered by radar until it vanished off the scope or was handed off to another platform. Carrying big missiles under a B-47 would be difficult because of the short distance between the tandem main undercarriage units. Probably the best bet would be to fill the bomb bay with fuel and then carry missiles on the wing hardpoints used for external tanks. The drop tanks were massive, so you could probably get a 10,000lb missile on each one. For comparison's sake, a Russian KH-22 (AS-4 Kitchen) weighs 12,800lb.

[kerick]

This is an interesting idea. Not sure of the weapons fit but a honk'n big search radar would be mandatory. The Olympus engines sound like a great idea.

[McColm]

I read somewhere that the B-47 was fitted with the nose of a F-111, for trials.  So maybe the cockpit as well  not another future build,  I'll add it to my growing list.

[PR19_Kit]

The main difficulty as a maritime bomber would be metal fatigue in the thin, bendy wing at low altitudes. Maybe reduce the span a bit? (Don't tell Kit...)

Splutter! The very idea appals me!   

On the missile front, they did test the Bell Rascal 'under' a B-47, and that weighed 18000 lbs, but they hung it off the starboard side of the fuselage!

B-47s seemed to have had a strongpoint there because some RB-47Hs carried a MONSTER pod in the same position which was part of the 'Silver King' upgrade. I can't find a single pic of that anywhere sadly, but I can remember seeing one at Brize Norton way back, and wondered 'WTF is THAT?' 

[Dizzyfugu]

[PR19_Kit]

Brilliant! 

Thanks Thomas. 

[Snowtrooper]

IIRC the B-47 bomb bay is long enough to accept SRAM's, coming online in 1972. Just handwave that the 47 stays in service a few years longer than it did in OTL and you have at least a nuclear standoff option (Harpoon would only become available in 1977; Maverick was also available in 1972 though is a bit on the light side to hurt anything bigger than a missile boat).

Somewhat weird that for about twenty years the US relied on free-fall conventional or nuclear bombs to take out SAM-equipped Soviet warships... (OK, guided glide bombs did become available already in 1960's but their range is not much longer if launched at low altitudes.)

[chrisonord]

Harold  has hit the nail on the head with the engine problem,  I  would  like to give it better  engines  but what to use to represent them would be something that could  put  dampener on the build.  Aftermarket engine pods seem a bit thin on the ground,  unless I  could  replicate  something from styrene  tube. A wing clip and  possibly  some  sleek  wingtip tanks would make it look a lot different  too.
Chris

[Weaver]

The main difficulty as a maritime bomber would be metal fatigue in the thin, bendy wing at low altitudes. Maybe reduce the span a bit? (Don't tell Kit...)

Splutter! The very idea appals me!   

On the missile front, they did test the Bell Rascal 'under' a B-47, and that weighed 18000 lbs, but they hung it off the starboard side of the fuselage!

B-47s seemed to have had a strongpoint there because some RB-47Hs carried a MONSTER pod in the same position which was part of the 'Silver King' upgrade. I can't find a single pic of that anywhere sadly, but I can remember seeing one at Brize Norton way back, and wondered 'WTF is THAT?' 

I looked at the fuselage position for missiles. but I was concerned about ground and/or fuselage clearance. Of course, with a 10,000lb missile weight limit (assuming a pair of them) and no need to carry a big early nuke, you could easily incorporate folding fins and the like.

[Weaver]

Harold  has hit the nail on the head with the engine problem,  I  would  like to give it better  engines  but what to use to represent them would be something that could  put  dampener on the build.  Aftermarket engine pods seem a bit thin on the ground,  unless I  could  replicate  something from styrene  tube. A wing clip and  possibly  some  sleek  wingtip tanks would make it look a lot different  too.
Chris

The engine problem might not be as great as you think:

J-47:
Length: 3700mm
Dia: 933mm

Olympus 100 (I THINK the 200 was the same size):
Length : 3230mm
Dia: 1000mm

The Oympus is shorter that the J-47 and only wider by 67mm, which works out to under 1mm in 1/72nd scale.