Denton Army Air Force Drawings

You could give it a hinged, swing-away tail section like the Canadair CL-44. That would probably be the easiest way to modify a bomber into a transport aircraft. Here's a decent picture of one: http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/me ... utaway.jpg

Or you could significantly enlarge the fuselage, make it a double-decker and put clamshell doors on the lower deck below the flightdeck like the C-124 Globemaster II. Not really sure which would work better, but the first option would probably be easiest.

I have been busy with school lately, so I haven't been drawing much. I have been trying to make this air force as realistic as possible, so I have been thinking about several things.
Since I do plan to field a B-29/B-50 like bomber, do you think I should just make that the Strategic Airlifter? The way I see it, basing the cargo aircraft off of the B-29/B-50 design would have better air lifting capability than something based on the 187. Mainly because of use from unprepared air strips that would at max be about 5500 feet (because that's what most of our outlying islands have anyways), having the smaller aircraft would be an advantage. The problem there is range.
As it is, the Denton Armed Forces is a security contrator for a friend of mine who has created his own AU country. His country is near Great Britain, and mine in the Pacific. Because the DAAF is always trasnaporting goods back and forth, the range is important, so that makes it a valid argument to use the 187 as a cargo transport. What do you think? Should I just field both or go with one or the other?

The B-50esque cargo aircraft would not have the payload capability nor range of the 187esque cargo aircraft, but can take off in significantly less runway (4500-5500 compared to 8500-9500). The range and cargo carrying capability of the 187esque cargo aircraft would be unparalleled, but it can't land on unprepared airstrips or take off in less than 5500 feet. Well, now we can do two things. Add JATO bottles to the back of the aircraft, and add more wheels.
Well the Jato bottle thing is pretty self explanatory, I mean just look up the B-47 or watch Strategic Air Command.
As you know already my first few 187s had a quad bogie design, and you all said it wouldnt work. I just remembered, though, that all 4 bogies are inline, like the aircraft that klagldsf mentioned (A340 which has only 3 but my agrument still stands). Turning should not be a problem. It only becomes a problem when the bogies are offset like on a 747 (2 outsides are forward of the 2 insides). The rear bogies have to turn, otherwise the 747 nose wheel would just skip along the ground. As for the extra weight, I'm already pulling 110000 lb of bombs, 205000 lbs of fuel and the 195000 lb aircraft, so a few extra tons wont be anything, and I'm pretty sure the ground will thank the aircraft for the lower ground pressure.

I'm really looking for someone to prove me wrong, or tell me my logic is straight. I have so much stuff I'm trying to figure out with my country amd all other aspects of the AU that sometimes I get myself confused and forget to double check.

travestytrav25, I think that's what I'll do, although I will go with a double bubble fuselage like on the C-97/377 (lower fuselage 12.5ft, upper fuselage 16.5 or 18.5 feet). On later versions, I will put the hinged tail section, but on ealier aircraft, they will rely on a cargo lift under the front fuselage, and a ramp with clamshell doors in the tail section.

Thanks for your feedback!
-EZ-

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

You might want to consider also the B-36/ C-99 family of aircraft. Intercontinental range, massive capacity FTW.

_________________
In Hoc Signo Vinces

By This Sign You Will Conquer

The 187 (the bomber I drew) is basically our version of the B-36. I'm just wondering if I should go with something like the XC-99, or something more like the C-97, or go with both?

Hmmm, yeah, that's a tough call to make. Historically, none of the massive cargo aircraft that had more than 4 propeller engines were ever really successful. That's why the XC-99 never became the C-99. Just looking at the costs, a B-36 cost over $4 million when they were made, whereas a C-97 cost $1.2 million. I don't know how much the C-99 would have cost had it gone into production, it might have been less than the cost of the bomber, but still, you're looking at being able to buy at least 3 C-97-type aircraft for the price of 1 C-99-type aircraft

Well, in reality the XC-99 was only cancelled because the US did not need a 'long range strategic airlifter.' Had the US actually kept it, I am sure it would have been a very successful plane in it's time.

As for cost, as a general rule, the military budget has been 5% of our total GDP, which translates into 50 billion dollars today. In the 1950s-60s era it would be around 5 billion. Lets take 5% of that 5 billion and we get 250 million to buy cargo aircraft. Lets say we have already used 200 million to buy some of the smaller ones so we have 50 million, multiplied by 5 years to buy large cargo aircraft. That brings us back to 250 million. So in the 1955 to 1960 time period we can have up to 250 million going towards buying large cargo aircraft, so I don't think buying both of them is any problem.

To get an idea of some numbers, I'll say that the C-97 costs 1.5 million, and the C-99 costs 4.0 million. With those numbers, I can buy either 40 C-97s or 15 C-99s for the price of 60 million. If I went with both, then total price for 40 C-97s and 15 C-99s would be 120 million. The ratio for the price is 1 C-99 for 2.67 C-97s.

For some more accurate numbers regarding aircraft payloads, the C-99 (my plane) will carry 150,000lbs with a 10,500nm range. The C-97 would carry 40,000 lbs at 5000nm range. With that, the ratio of cargo carried is 1 C-99 to 3.75 C-97s, and the C-99 can still go twice the distance. Of course that doesn't even matter when you consider that the C-97 could take off in 5500 feet, and the C-99 in 9500 feet.

I guess at this point, I could probably go with both..

Well, your logic seems to be pretty well thought-out to me. If your nation can afford to buy both without screwing up your defense budget, and has a genuine need for both of them, then build both of them. That's what I would do.

Well, I was bored, and didn't want to do any designing, so I just modified what I had. I decided to work on the 87-004 'Condor' and model it earlier in it's life. There are still some details, but it is pretty much done. This version has the 35 cylinder radials(7 row, 5 cylinders per row), and no tip tanks.
[ img ]

-EZ-

That dude is pretty damn tall...

ProkhorVLG wrote:

That dude is pretty damn tall...

Someone already mentioned that. If you compare him to the scale ruler up at the top, he's about the size of an average to tallish man, so the scale is correct.

Anyway, I like the slight redesign, ezgo. I was never a fan of the wingtip tanks, LOL. And I like the engines, a very unique design.

Shipbucket

Who is online