Cold War Strategic Bomber Challenge

Garlicdesign

Post subject: Re: Cold War Strategic Bomber Challenge

Posted: March 22nd, 2019, 8:03 pm

Posts: 1071
Joined: December 26th, 2012, 9:36 am
Location: Germany

Hi all!

Some comments on the various entries:

MCE B5M Griofa: I have to admit only two of the six front views showed the main running gear bay in the lower side of the air intake boxes - error on my part. The idea was to rotate the main gear by 45 degrees till it rests flat below the intake channel; the wheel trolley springs would point the trolleys nearly vertically downward if not on ground (as on the TSR.2 or most jetliners). I have modified all drawings to show the intended configuration. I also have to admit that my only thought on the airflow issue was 'if stacked engines worked on Lightning, they will probably work here'. So, as usual, I was a little quick to post something not entirely thought through. Maintenance is going to be a bitch, which I considered acceptable for a heavy bomber; engines will have to be removed by pulling them out aft. Again, I thought 'can't be harder than replacing the engines of a Tu-22', and that one was successfully serviced too, so again I saw no insurmountable problems. The optimism of ignorance, admittedly.

Nakajima G14N Shirozan: Beautifully drawn and a close derivative of a real never-where (and Char's modernized version looks more feasible than the original, you have to be real good to pull that one off). The various weapons loadouts, including several types of early RPVs, are fantastic, as are the paint schemes. I'm no great fan of AU scenarios where Nazi Germany wins WWII (simply because in such a scenario, my parents could never have met and I would not exist), but it's certainly well written and really detailed.

General Dynamics AMSA Config. 2906: Never heard about that one; the configuration somehow looks awkward. As for the lack of details, I'm with Char. This is an AU challenge, not an attempt to depict a real never-were, so some artistic freedom towards details is not only allowed, but - I think - even mandatory.

Fujimoto E55 Yokai: As a virtual Vulcan clone, it should be feasible enough, but like the Vulcan, it is a 1950s design really. Drawing wise, it's well done with plausible details in the side view (although I'm not sold on the shape of the wing panels).

Hawker Siddeley HS.1110 SSR.2 Vanquish B.Mk.1/B.Mk.1A: Practically flawless; this is where my vote goes. I especially like the wheels

. I don't know if TSR.2's radar really had to be mounted in that angle and in this cone; maybe a more streamlined nose would have looked better, but that's probably just me. I'd like to see a 3-view one day.

Sosrobirowo Strategic Weapon System: Extremely creative idea and well drawn (although the top side of the B-54 looks somewhat unfinished). Not overly feasible however; 1960s tech was advanced enough to bring a cruise missile on the right course without having to strap a piloted plane on top of it, especially not one which looks to have a much smaller performance envelope than the missile. Awfully small wings on the Canberra clone, no idea if these would generate enough lift, have to ask an engineer about that.

Sud-Aviation Nuage: Like the Yokai, this one seems to predate the 60s by some years; it could easily be a late 40s/early 50s design. More detailing please, check real aircraft for hatch/marking locations. The paneling lines look rather arbitrary.

Khabarovsk B-7: Perfectly feasible concept and good-looking too, if not very survivable for the time period it is to operate in. It would likely be only used for the MPA or maritime strike role. I'm not sold on the engine arrangement; they look awfully far aft, especially the outer ones, and the inner ones seem awfully close to the main wheels, whose tyres would probably rotate through the exhaust when retracting aft into the Tupolev-like boxes (I know, not really my place to criticize that after forgetting the main wheel wells on my front view…). Drawn as well as one would expect from Golly, no complaints there.

Martin P5M Orca: Another very creative design; I'm not enough of an expert to say if a bomb bay on a floatplane can really be made sufficiently waterproof. Drawing-wise, it could use more detailing (see above); as the Nuage, the paneling looks not very realistic.

Altogether, great efforts by everyone involved, and I was really only trying to be constructive; if anyone feels offended by my criticism, that was not my intention.

Congrats to Hood and Char for what I consider the winning entries!

Greetings
GD

Top

Shipbucket

Who is online