Simple idea: What about RAAF B-17s instead of B-24s but in the same schemes:
A-26 would have been a good number for an RAAF A-26 Invader
Why the B-17 freighter conversions? You could buy C-47s and C-46s for peanuts, which were turnkey freighters, with two less engines to deal with.
Quote from: kim margosein on January 11, 2021, 12:19:13 PMWhy the B-17 freighter conversions? You could buy C-47s and C-46s for peanuts, which were turnkey freighters, with two less engines to deal with.More range, perhaps? Or simply cargos that a C-47 or C-46 couldn't carry?
There used to be a hilarious error on Wikipedia B-17 page: namely, that two B-17's would have been operated post-war by Finnish Air Force as target tugs. (IRL they were Saab B17's.) Still, that did made me think for a while...
Interesting fact: the RAAF did allocate an "A" number to the B-17: A26. It was not used though.
Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 03, 2021, 02:19:01 AMInteresting fact: the RAAF did allocate an "A" number to the B-17: A26. It was not used though.Now you're going to get me into trouble with my neighbour ! .... I'll have to do one right now instead of cleaning up the garden Oh yes, Boeing did originally think of twin tails !
Looks strangely modern like that.