Author Topic: Apophenia's Offerings  (Read 905842 times)

Offline Tophe

  • He sees things in double...
  • twin-boom & asymmetric fan
    • my models
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1725 on: January 26, 2018, 02:04:30 AM »
 :-* I love the one "without wind-screen". How do you call that in English? "faired-in canopy"? ("verričre intégrée" in French).

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1726 on: January 26, 2018, 03:41:42 AM »
 :smiley:
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1727 on: January 27, 2018, 08:14:45 AM »
Thanks folks. Evan: Good eye ... I knicked the original from a sideview of a Soviet A-20G with a torpedo  ;)

Of course you could always posit that construction of the heavily navalized version
woud be offloaded to someone else, so the designation would then be based on
whichever company got the contract.

That makes sense Jon. Maybe the NAF takes over Havoc production for the USN so that El Segundo can concentrate on Invaders?

GAF N-12A Outback ('Single Nomad')

No real backstory here, just a GAF Nomad with a single PT6A turboprop instead of twin Allison 250s. The idea sprang from the realization that the N-22 Nomad was roughly the same size as a Cessna 208 Caravan. So, I thought, what about a gutsier, retractable-gear equivalent to the Caravan?

Here, I've installed the same engine from the RAAF's Pilatus PC-9/A trainer - a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-62 flat-rated at 950 shp (so, 275 shp more than the Cessna's PT6A-114A). The N-22 nose has been shortened slightly (by about the same amount as the N-24 Nomad's nose was lengthened). Other than that, it's a bog standard N-22 airframe.

I'm thinking that, in Australian Army service, this N-12A Outback could have taken over for both the Nomad and the slightly smaller Pilatus PC-6 Turbo-Porter utility types. On the civilian side, the Outback could do pretty much whatever the Caravan can ... but a bit more quickly.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1728 on: January 27, 2018, 02:57:17 PM »
Nice, how about a T tail version?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1729 on: January 28, 2018, 03:46:43 AM »
 :smiley:
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1730 on: January 30, 2018, 06:27:58 AM »
More variations on the GAF Nomad theme ...

(Bottom) GAF N-32C Geelong - Also known as the Commuter, the N-32 was intended as a feederliner to replace aircraft like the de Havilland Australia Drover. As a STOL design feederliner, the N-32C Geelong 'fell between stools'. It was too small to compete with other STOL feederliners but too slow to complete with aircraft like the Cessna light twins.

The type found more acceptance as a parcel carrier - particularly as a light, nocturnal cargo aircraft. The N-32C shown here, Danish OY-JRW, found a second career as a sport parachutists' transport. With its removable cargo door and operating economy, the N-32C Geelong was better suited to this later function than to being a rather slow and underpowered feederliner.

(Top) GAF N-42A Nepal - A pressurized high-altitude derivative, the N-42A retained the N-22 Nomad's wings, powerplant, and tailplane. These were matched to an entirely new, circular-section fuselage. A lighter, narrow-track main undercarriage was introduced which retracted into fuselage-side fairings. A new, forward-retracting nose gear was also used.

The N-42A Nepal was a technical success but an economic failure. Ten (including prototype VH-NPL) were operated by Druk Air out of Kathmandu. Initially, the final three N-42As remained unsold in storage at Fisherman's Bend. Later, they flew as VIP transports in South America - one with the Peruvian Air Force, the other two with commercial operators in Chile.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1731 on: January 30, 2018, 06:30:11 AM »
Nice, how about a T tail version?

I went the bifurcation route instead  :D

The GAF Gibson was a twin-tailled variant with rear-loading. The N-23F was developed for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the rear-loading doors making it quicker and simpler to load stretchers and gurneys into the aircraft. The GAF N-23C was the standard, non-medevac cargo-carrying version of the Gibson.

The GAF N-23M was a military variant which was distinct in having an actual loading ramp (in place of simple hinged doors). The N-23M could be fitted out for medevac which dedicated mission kits but the aircraft was intended for the military utility role.

Although named for the famous and fearsome Gibson Desert, the Australian Army never adopted GAF's  Gibson moniker. Instead, the Army's N-23M was invariably referred to as a 'Twin Nomad'.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1732 on: January 30, 2018, 04:12:57 PM »

Of course you could always posit that construction of the heavily navalized version
woud be offloaded to someone else, so the designation would then be based on
whichever company got the contract.

That makes sense Jon. Maybe the NAF takes over Havoc production for the USN so that El Segundo can concentrate on Invaders?


Boeing built early model A-20s to ease Douglas production issues, so, Boeing Aircraft of Canada, Ltd. builds
the navalized Havocs alongside the Cansos and PB2Bs.

T2B-1 as the designation perhaps?, which would be appropriate on several levels as the TB-1 were
Boeing built Martin T4M.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1733 on: January 30, 2018, 06:45:32 PM »
Nice, how about a T tail version?

I went the bifurcation route instead  :D

The GAF Gibson was a twin-tailled variant with rear-loading. The N-23F was developed for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the rear-loading doors making it quicker and simpler to load stretchers and gurneys into the aircraft. The GAF N-23C was the standard, non-medevac cargo-carrying version of the Gibson.

The GAF N-23M was a military variant which was distinct in having an actual loading ramp (in place of simple hinged doors). The N-23M could be fitted out for medevac which dedicated mission kits but the aircraft was intended for the military utility role.

Although named for the famous and fearsome Gibson Desert, the Australian Army never adopted GAF's  Gibson moniker. Instead, the Army's N-23M was invariably referred to as a 'Twin Nomad'.

Now that looks so purposefully cool apophenia  :P

M.A.D

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1734 on: February 02, 2018, 08:03:42 AM »
Boeing built early model A-20s to ease Douglas production issues, so, Boeing Aircraft of Canada, Ltd. builds
the navalized Havocs alongside the Cansos and PB2Bs.

T2B-1 as the designation perhaps?, which would be appropriate on several levels as the TB-1 were
Boeing built Martin T4M.

I love the Boeing Canada scenario. Okay, ... so instead of building B-29 fuselage mid-sections when PB2B-2 production ends in 1944, Plant 3 restarts A-20 production. Let's say, stored A-20C-BO tooling is barged up to Sea Island from Boeing Seattle. Then, BACL starts cranking out T2B-1s for the USN. And maybe Boston TB Mk VIs for RCAF Western Air Command?
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1735 on: February 08, 2018, 08:06:03 AM »
The Bureau of Aeronautics struggled to find surplus production capability for the US Navy's Douglas-designed TB2D-1 shipboard torpedo bomber. The XTB2D-1 was based on the A-20G Havoc airframe but Douglas was phasing out A-20 production at its El Segundo plant in favour of the new A-26 Invader. An enquiry to Boeing paid off. Before the end of 1944, Boeing Aircraft Canada Ltd (BACL) was scheduled to have delivered its final production PB2B-2 flying boat to the USN (the last Catalina VIB to British contracts having already been completed).

Boeing Canada was scheduled to replace flying boat production with the building B-29 fuselage centre sections for its parent company. Instead, it was arranged that BACL take on Havoc production. This plan could be brought to fruition quite quickly since Boeing held tooling for the A-20 in storage outside Seattle. [1] It was arranged for jigs and tooling to be shipped north to BACL's Plant 3 on Sea Island, BC.

Initial BACL production would be for A-20L Havocs - roughly equivalent to the in-service A-20K and RAF Boston Mk Vs. Compared with A-20Ks, these R-2600-29-powered aircraft were hybrids - retained some early-model A-20C features and having the capability to carry both US and British aerial torpedoes. No A-20Ls were ever delivered to US forces. Instead, all A-20Ls were provided to allies through Lend-Lease. The RAF was scheduled to receive the first Boston TB Mk VIs but Coastal Command preferred its Bristol Beaufighter TF.Xs.

There was no prototype Boston TB Mk VI but the first aircraft was retained by BACL for test use. The next dozen Boston TB Mk VIs went to the RAF but stayed in British Columbia. These Mk VIs replaced ancient Hampden TB Mk Is used for training by No.32 OTU (RAF) at Patricia Bay on Vancouver Island. The Boston TB Mk VI was a three-seater fitted with US-supplied perspex nose caps. Fixed armament consisted to twin forward-firing 0.50-inch Browning machineguns with another pair of 'Fifties' in a Martin dorsal turret. The 18-inch Mk XII torpedo was used for training at No.32 OTU. [2]

(Top) First production Boeing Canada Boston TB Mk VI (107850) with BACL Boston Test Unit badge on its nose. Note that only the first aircraft had the enlarged, squared-off elevators (which were found to be unnecessary).

Other than No.32 OTU, BACL Bostons were surplus to British needs. Later Bostons were diverted for use by RCAF Western Air Command. These were all 2-seat Boston TB Mk VIAs which had 'solid' noses armed with eight 0.50-inch Brownings. The TB Mk VIA retained its torpedo lugs but there is no record of operational RCAF Boston TB Mk VIAs carrying torpedoes. Assigned to No.8 (BR) Squadron at Sea Island, the RCAF TB Mk VIAs flew patrol missions. Schemes to produce dual-control trainer model Boston T Mk VIBs and cannon-armed TB Mk VICs were eclipsed by the pressing need for carrier torpedo bombers for the impending invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Boeing Canada T2B-1 for the US Navy

'Productionizing' the Douglas-designed shipboard torpedo bomber took longer. The first Sea Island-built T2B-1 was not delivered to the US Navy until July 1945. The T2B-1 was virtually identical to Douglas' XTB2D-1 prototype other than incorporating some Boston TB Mk VI components. The first T2B-1 was deliver to NAS Seattle at Sand Point Airfield where VT-70 had been formed to operate these shipboard torpedo bombers. Actual training of VT-70 took place at NAS Whidbey Island - first on A-20J Havocs on loan from the USAAF, then on actual T2B-1s as they arrived from British Columbia.

Plans were underway to develop a more advanced version - the T2B-2. This variant differed in having a more advanced defensive armament system. The T2B-1's Martin dorsal turret was to be replaced by a remotely-operated General Electric system based on that of the A-26 Invader. In place of the Invader's twin GE turrets, the T2B-2 would have only the dorsal components. The Central Fire Control System was adjusted to compensate for the 'halved' GE Mark 33 gunsight (employing only the upper half of the Invader sight). An order was placed for an XT2B-2 prototype to demonstrate the remotely-operated armament system.

T2B-1 production was proceeding slowly when the Pacific War ended in mid-August 1945. Remaining production orders for the A-20J Havoc were cut by the end of the month. US Navy contracts for the T2B-1 were cut in September 1945 as was the development contract for a prototype XT2B-2 meant to demonstrate the more advanced defensive armament system. A final dozen semi-completed T2B-1s were delivered to the US Navy but went almost immediately into storage before scrapping. And that seemed to be the end of the Boeing Canada Havoc story.

All production contracts for Boeing Canada-built A-20L Havocs [3] were cancelled in late August 1945. As Lend-Lease aircraft, all RCAF Boston TB Mk VIAs were to be returned to the US (where most would be scrapped before the year was out). Contracts for USN T2B-1s were amended in Sept 1945 while the development contracts for the XT2B-2 prototype were cancelled outright. Twenty near-completed T2B-1s were finished and delivered to the US Navy by the end of Oct 1945. Those aircraft went directly into storage and the career of the 'Sea Havocs' seemed to be at an end.

Post-WW2 Use of the Boeing Canada 'TBs'

With the end of the Lend-Lease arrangement, the RCAF lost most of its land-based maritime patrol capability - not only the Boston TB Mk VIAs had to be returned but also those Lockheed Venturas and Consolidated Liberators which Canada was unwilling to pay for. In the heady days immediately following the end of the war, most of the RCAF patrol fleet was eliminated. Boeing Canada was also at a loss with the completion or cancellation of all of its production contracts. BACL was also left with large stocks of semi-completed T2B-1 components. In early 1946, Boeing proposed that the most complete 'Sea Havocs' be finished as RCAF maritime patrol aircraft.

The first Boeing Boreal Mk.1MR for the RCAF was a hybrid of Boston VI and T2B-1 features. The fixed wings were those of the Boston, while the fuselage was based on that of the carrier aircraft. The forward fuselage fuel tank of the T2B-1 was eliminated, allowing a third crew position directly behind the pilot. That third crew member operated the ASV (Air-to-Surface-Vessel) radar - a US AN/APS-3 (ASD-1) set. The radar radome was retractable - occupying, when retracted, what would have been the forward section of a Boston's bomb-bay.

The Boreal Mk.1MR were assigned to the newly-formed No.407 (Maritime Reconnaissance) Squadron based at Comox, BC. [4] Later, the terminology would be changed to 'Maritime Patrol' and the Boeings were redesignated Boreal Mk.1MP. The aircraft performed well but were really too cramped for the maritime patrol role. Despite this rather serious limitation, a naval variant of the Boreal was also devised for use by the Royal Canadian Navy.

The Boeing Boreal Mk.2 for the RCN was essentially the same as the RCAF Mk.1 but re-introduced the folding wings of the T2B-1 and featured ASW equipment. This included a retractable MAD 'stinger' in the tailcone and extended nacelles with aft-launched sonobuoys. Like the RCAF Boreal Mk.1, the Navy's Mk.2 were equipped as maritime patrol aircraft. However, the Boreal Mk.2 had catapult lugs allowing it to operate from aircraft carriers. At that point, the RCN's shipboard ASW requirement was being fulfilled by its Grumman Avengers and the Navy saw no need for twin-engined carrier aircraft.

The Boreal Mk.2A was a short-term conversion fitted with the Avenger's lightweight AN/APS-4 (ASH) radar. Although slight, that ASV's performance loss was deemed unacceptable and benefits were marginal. With the ASD-1 set re-installed, the test aircraft was returned to Mk.2 standard.

(Bottom) Boeing Boreal Mk.2 of FRU 745 at Shearwater, Nova Scotia. Note the retracted ASD-1 radar and disabled Martin turret used as an observation cupola. For some reason, '465' has had its retractable MAD tail boom removed.

The Boreal Mk.2 flew with two RCN Fleet Requirement Unit squadrons - FRU 743 at Dartmouth, NS and, later, FRU 745 at Shearwater, NS. The Fleet Requirement Units were composite squadrons with the Boreals operating alongside the preferred, single-engined Avengers. With the Boreals, the RCN found itself flying similar aircraft to the RCAF in an identical role. In a unique division of labour, the RCN Boreal Mk.2s flew medium-range maritime patrol missions off the East Coast, while RCAF Boreal Mk.1MP were their West Coast counterparts - with detachments flying from Prince Rupert and Sea Island before being moved to RCAF Station Comox.

The Boeing Boreal was really too cramped for its patrol role. RCAF crews preferred the more capacious Lancaster 10MR while RCN crews want out of 'landman' operations altogether. The Navy crews got their wish in the RCN's 1951 re-organization of its air assets. The Navy's Boreal Mk.2s were passed on to the RCAF to back up the Boreal Mk.1 fleet. Most of the Mk.2s were stripped of useable spares (and employed as ground instructional airframes). Even so, the RCAF Boreals were living on borrowed time.

No.407 (MR) Squadron had initially fallen under Western Air Command. When WAC was disbanded in March 1947, No.407 (MP) came under 12 Wing (Comox) of North Western Air Command. NWAC was itself disbanded in August 1951 and, in the re-organization, No.407 (MP) Squadron gave up its Boreals. There were a range of replacement plans [5] but, in a final indignity, the Boreals were replaced by Beech Expeditors.

____________________________________________

[1] At the Seattle plant, Boeing had built 165 x Boston Mk.IIIA for the RAF and another 139 x A-20C-BO Havocs.

[2] There was provision for twin wing racks (for 500 lb GP bombs) but these were never fitted to TB Mk VIs.

[3] With RCAF requirements satisfied, it was planned to divert future A-20L-BOs to the Soviet Union via Alaska.

[4] No.407 (MR) initially fell under Western Air Command. When WAC was disbanded in March 1947, No.407 (MP) came under 12 Wing (Comox) of North Western Air Command

[5] One unrealized RCAF plan was to re-equip No.407 (MP) with North American Mitchell Mk.IIs and IIIs. Alas, the RCAF brass regarded VIP Mitchells as sacrosanct and there were insufficient aircraft in the photographic sections and auxiliary squadrons to replace the Boreals.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1736 on: February 09, 2018, 01:42:48 AM »
How about some in post war civilian service - maybe for aerial survey work, water bombing, mail transport etc?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Tophe

  • He sees things in double...
  • twin-boom & asymmetric fan
    • my models
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1737 on: February 09, 2018, 01:21:13 PM »
The Boreal is lovely thanks! :-*

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1738 on: February 10, 2018, 07:51:27 AM »
How about some in post war civilian service - maybe for aerial survey work, water bombing, mail transport etc?

Hmmm ... I considered a waterbomber but decided that the Havoc/Boreal couldn't compete with the fire-fighting Mitchells. Good suggestions, though, on survey and postal work  :smiley:
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1739 on: February 11, 2018, 03:24:55 AM »
Some aircraft that did survey work in Canada were quite brightly coloured (hint, hint):

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline AXOR

  • Our returned Monkey Box man
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1740 on: February 11, 2018, 06:53:00 AM »
Great looking airplane this Boreal
Alex

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1741 on: February 20, 2018, 08:13:25 AM »
When the Pacific War ended in August 1945, Boeing Canada was working on a range of advanced projects based upon their Boston and T2B airframes. The unbuilt T2B-2 for the US Navy has already been discussed. Other projects were aimed at RCAF requirements. One proposed a 'de-navalized' T2B-1 for the land-based maritime patrol role (which would emerge in its postwar developed form as the Boeing Boreal Mk.1MR).  Another was for fully modernized Boston for anticipated use in the then-forthcoming invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The proposed Boston B Mk VIII [1] involved a series of studies in slightly different configurations. Regardless of the chosen final configuration, the Boston B Mk VIII would be a hybrid of Boston and T2B-2. The engines would either remain R-2600s or, if Ottawa decided to standardize on British powerplants, would switch to the Bristol Hercules XVII. [2] Over-target performance was to be enhanced through the use of booster turbojets. Several layouts were investigated - including a single, tail-mounted jet (3,100 de Havilland Ghost or 3,830 lbf GE J33) or twin engines (2,000 lbf Rolls-Royce Derwent Is or 2,000 lbf GE J31s). Twin jets would either be installed on the wing tips or in extended engine nacelles. [3]

Boston B Mk VIII defensive armament would be as per the T2B-2 but the forward fuselage and wings would be that of the RCAF TB Mk VIA. The upper fuselage decking was lowered with the existing Boston pilot's enclosure being replaced by a fully-blown canopy. To test the latter feature, a single Boston B Mk VIA was set aside for trials. This aircraft was fitted with a sliding canopy from a P-51D Mustang fighter. It was hoped that this airframe might also test the T2B-2-style armament installation as well but the War ended before this could be done. [4]

'Photo Ops' - A Postwar Career Change

The 'Bubble-Top' Boston B Mk VIA (which never received a distinct designation) had remained with Boeing Canada for trials but was declared surplus by the RCAF in November 1945. The following year, Boeing was approached by Vancouver-based Fairchild subsidiary, Aerial Surveys Ltd. [5] In response to this query about surplus Bostons for conversion for photo survey work, Boeing recommend the 'Bubble-Top' Boston. Aerial Surveys Ltd agreed but pressed for a quick delivery. The aircraft was pulled from 'the weeds' behind Boeing Canada's Plant 3 on Sea Island and restored.

Boeing installed a trio of Fairchild cameras - one  K-18 and two K-22s - in the Boston's bomb bays. In transit, the lens were protected by the bomb doors. On the 'run in', these doors were opened, ready for photography to begin. Photography was controlled from the former bomb-aimer's position. The former gunner's position was converted into a rear compartment for use by a camera tech when operating away from home base.

(Top) 'Bubble-Top' Boston of Aerial Surveys Ltd. Note 'totem' emblem on fin and pilot's crude 'drift gauge'.

The 'Bubble-Top' Boston entered Aerial Surveys service as CF-EZH in late August 1946. The modifications were seen as a great success ... when they worked. Aircraft performance was seen as somewhat lacking (the revised 'Bubble-Top' was lighter than a service Boston but still struggled for higher altitudes). Heating of the camera installation also had to be adjusted but the key complaints was that the crew could not reach the cameras in flight. Still, the Boston could do jobs that Aerial Surveys' Anson 552 CF-DLF (ex-RCAF Mk.V 12356) could not manage.

The Boston served with Aerial Surveys until December 1948 when it was written off at Edmonton. Flying in cold, clear weather, the last photographic flight was a complete success. However, on landing, the Boston ran into frozen slush on the runway. The nose wheel gear collapsed and the forward fuselage was kinked. The Boston was judged uneconomical to repair and struck off. The Boston's registration was transferred to a second Anson while its role was taken over by the faster, higher-flying Lockheed Lightning, CF-JJA.

A second 'Boeing Havoc' made it into the aerial survey business. Spartan Air Services of Ottawa, Ontario sourced a US Navy-surplus Boeing T2B-1 from a scrap dealer in Oregon. Life the Aerial Surveys aircraft, cameras were fitted in the bomb bays (although, in this installation, the bomb bays were fixed). As CF-HMK, the T2B-1 flew out of Rockcliffe airfield. Despite appearances, the Spartan 'T2B-1P' was a two-seater. The rear position was occupied by the navigator who also operated as a camera tech. However, actual photography operations were all handled by pilot - a rather inefficient arrangement.

(Bottom) Spartan Air Services T2B-1 in RCAF trainer yellow with nacelles sprayed black (to camouflage exhaust staining). CF-HMK was scheduled to be repainted in silver dope but this was never done.

Spartan, having tried the T2B-1, P-38 Lightning, and Sea Hornet, concluding that the de Havilland Mosquito best suited its photographic needs. CF-HMK was offered to the Ontario Provincial Air Service as a potential water-bomber conversion. This never happened and the T2B-1 mouldered away behind Hangar 2 at Rockcliffe airport. The Spartan T2B-1 was finally sold for scrap at some point in the mid-'50s.

_______________________________________

[1] The 'missing' Boston TB Mk VII was a re-engining study for the Boston TB Mk VIA

[2] The more powerful Bristol Centaurus was also considered but, ultimately, rejected as requiring too much structural work to strengthen the Boston nacelles.

[3] A third option of mid-span jets was rejected early on due to an excessive drag penalty revealed during NRC wind tunnel tests.

[4] Booster jet installations were to be trialled on a second Boston TB VIA airframe but this was never done.

[5] Technically, Aerial Surveys Ltd was jointly owned by British Fairey Air Surveys and camera-supplier, Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc of Los Angeles.

_______________________________________
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1742 on: February 20, 2018, 08:17:45 AM »
Argentinian COIN - the FMA IA 55 Pülü

In 1962, Córdoba-based DINFIA (Dirección Nacional de Fabricación e Investigación Aeronáutica) began studies for counter-insurgency aircraft to satisfy a Fuerza Aérea Argentina requirement for a new avión de ataque y apoyo cercano (attack and close support aircraft).  The two most promising concepts were selected for refinement. The FAA's preference was for a twin-engined design - the AX-2 (Ataque Experimental 2). However, budgetary constraints forced the service to select its second choice - the less expensive, single-engined AX-1.

Initially, the Ataque Experimental 1 was presented in two forms. DINFIA pushed the larger AX-1A which was powered by a 930 shp Turbomeca Bastan VI-A turboprop (in common with the IA 50 Guaraní II utility transport). However, the slightly smaller Astazou-powered AX-1B was chosen for development. DINFIA's Fábrica Militar de Aviones constructed a prototype AX-1 as the FMA IA 55. Powered by a French 840 shp Turbomeca Astazou XIV, the IA 55's crew of two sat in tandem beneath a side-hinged canopy. A 'tail-dragger' arrangement was chosen for short-field performance.

An FAA technical assessment team tested the prototype IA 55 at Córdoba before making a range of recommended changes. Most critical to the FMA design team, the FAA's critique recommended the adoption of a tricycle undercarriage. That, and a demand for modern ejection seats for the crew, required a major redesign of the IA 55. FMA then put forward its proposed IA 55A, which adopted a tricycle landing gear and lightweight 'extraction' seats for the crew. These modest changes did not satisfy the FAA's assessment team.

A more radical re-design was the IA 55B Pülü. [1] This design had the IA 55A's lengthened forward fuselage but also introduced a completely new rear fuselage and T-tailled empennage. The cockpit section was lengthened to accommodate twin Martin-Baker ejection seats, the rear seat being slightly raised to improve forward vision. The outer wing panels were also revised, reducing the IA 55A's leading edge sweep for c/g reasons. The FAA approved the IA 55B Pülü design and the type entered full-scale production at Córdoba in 1966.

Reality Check: The FMA IA 55 was a real project. When I first heard about the IA 55, I assumed that it would look like a single-engined Pucará. Then I saw a 3-view drawing. Other than that distinctive Astazou intake, the IA 55 would have looked nothing like the Pucará. My 'first prototype' is basically what the FMA plan looked like. My 'IA 55B' is closer to what I'd initially imagined for the IA 55 project.

___________________________

[1]  Pülü means 'Wasp' in Mapuche, an indigenous language from south-western Argentina.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline john_matthews129

  • IS the Thunderchief!
    • Matthews Aviation Art
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1743 on: February 20, 2018, 11:55:28 AM »
That has to be one really wide bubble canopy on the Boston.  Really like it though!  Perhaps a smaller bubble on the left half of the fuselage?  Or two, one for the pilot and another for the co-pilot, sort of like on the Douglas Mix-Master. 

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1744 on: February 21, 2018, 01:36:28 AM »
 :smiley:
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1745 on: February 23, 2018, 05:58:39 AM »
That has to be one really wide bubble canopy on the Boston.  Really like it though!  Perhaps a smaller bubble on the left half of the fuselage?  Or two, one for the pilot and another for the co-pilot, sort of like on the Douglas Mix-Master.

John: Actually, the A-20 Havoc didn't have a co-pilot (that was one of the benefits of its planned replacement - the A-26 Invader). Still, you're right about that bubble canopy needing to be wide.

At its widest point, the P-51D fuselage was only 34-35" (0.86-0.88 m) while the A-20 was 49" (1.24 m). Both types had fuselages that tapered inward towards the top so the measurement across the canopy sills would be narrower. (Does anyone know the A-20 fuselage's exact width across the sill at the top of Station 37? Unfortunately, AN 01-40AL-2 doesn't give cockpit dimensions.)
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1746 on: February 23, 2018, 06:42:57 AM »

John: Actually, the A-20 Havoc didn't have a co-pilot


As shown well here:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1747 on: February 24, 2018, 02:13:46 AM »
Lancaster Plus - Boeing Canada's belated RCAF MPA contender

With Boreal production ended, Boeing Aircraft of Canada Ltd found itself primarily engaged as an MRO facility. One RCAF contract was won to refit and refurbish wartime Canso amphibians for the SAR role. Ironically, few of the airframes involved were Boeing-built - most had been Canso As constructed by Boeing Canada's Montreal-based rival, Canadian Vickers (by that time, renamed Canadair). That contract kept the doors open on Sea Island but head office in Seattle was getting nervous about its Canadian operation.

Boeing was well aware that Canadair was studying advanced, long-range anti-submarine warfare aircraft to replace the wartime Lancasters. Boeing Canada itself had submitted ASW studies to AVM EW Stedman at the RCAF Research and Development Branch. [1] Those concepts had been rejected and Boeing Canada began studying another concept involving modernizing the existing RCAF Lancaster 10MR fleet.

Boeing was also well aware of tests underway in Eastern Canada of RCAF Lancasters converted to test turbojet engines. In both cases, the Lancs had their outboard Merlins replaced by Canadian-made jet engines. Meanwhile, in the UK, Lancasters and Lancastrians had been converted to trial twin Rolls-Royce Nene turbojets. This was the same engine type meant to enter service with RCAF Canadair-built CL-30 Silver Star jet trainers. Boeing Canada management sensed an opportunity.

'Two Turning, Two Burning' - Boeing Canada's Chimeric Lancaster concept

Boeing Canada placed a formal request the RCAF for the loan of Lancaster Mk.10-O testbed, FM205. [2] This was declined - although unflown as a jet trial aircraft, FM205 remained on loan to Avro Canada's Orenda Gas Turbine Division. Nor, RCAF Staff hastened to add, did the Air Force have any other Lancasters which it could spare. Fortunately, Boeing Canada had already anticipated this outcome and begun making enquiries outside the country. Feelers put out to Vickers-Armstrong paid off.

Lancaster 'half-jet' conversions in the UK dated back to 1945. [3] Just after the war, Vickers converted Lancaster C.I VH742 to twin Nenes on behalf of Rolls-Royce. That aircraft was later returned from Hucknall to have its Nenes replaced with new Rolls-Royce Tay turbojets. The Tay installation was complete by August 1949 but was never flown (Rolls-Royce had shifted its attention to the Avon). Might Boeing Canada be interested in VH742? 'Yes', was the quick reply!

Broken down for shipment by sea, Lancaster C.I VH742 arrived at Boeing's Sea Island plant in late July 1950 ... complete with its original Rolls-Royce Nene installation. In the meantime, Boeing Canada design staff had been collecting other components for its mixed-power Lancaster concept. Streamlined Lancastrian nose and tail fairings arrived from the UK well before VH742. [4] A scrapped, Victory-built Lancaster centre section had already been sourced from a farmer in central Alberta. The latter formed a test rig for the trial installation of much larger Wright R-3350-32 radial engines in the inboard positions (even de-rated, the R-3350s were much more powerful than the original Merlins). [5]

Boeing Aircraft of Canada enters the Jet Age (sort of)

By the time VH742 rolled back out of Boeing's Plant 3 as CF-ARM, the Lancaster had undergone a major transformation. As expected, she was fitted with inboard R-3350 radials inboard with Nenes underslung outboard. The 'spare' Lancastrian fairings had been converted into new crew positions. In the tail, the rear observer would lie prone on a 'couch' with an unobstructed view of the sea below and behind. Up front, the Lancastrian nose baggage door 'lid' was replaced by a single glazed cap for the bomb-aimer. Behind him sat the navigator in a new, B-17-style position (complete with overhead sighting bubble). [6]

As expected, CF-ARM flew "like a rocket". Flying solely on the twin Wright radials, performance was at least as good as the RCAF's standard, 4-engined Lancaster 10MR. More of a novelty for pilots was the speed and lack of vibration that came with flying on the Nene jets alone. Detail work was needed on the R-3350 installation - to improve engine cowling - and it was suggested that the slightly higher all-up weight may require substitution of the sturdier main undercarriage from the Avro Lincoln bomber. That would prove prophetic.

On 13 April 1951, CF-ARM was returning to Sea Island after an uneventful test flight along the West Coast of Vancouver Island with RCAF observers on board. Landing in gusty conditions, the starboard main gear started to began to retract. The damage was done by the ground-loop that followed. The starboard wing tip dug in to the soggy turf alongside the runway. The starboard Nene installation ended up taking much of the aircraft's weight while the starboard prop blades also took a beating. Fortunately, the portside undercarriage held.

Onboard RCAF officials praised the crew's reactions in their report but Ottawa took a harder line. The RCAF Brass didn't appreciate Boeing Canada going behind their backs - as they viewed the overseas purchase of VH742. The April 1951 accident gave the Department of National Defence a perfect excuse to distance themselves even further from the Boeing Canada concept. Ottawa made clear to Boeing Canada that no funding, support, or other RCAF involvement should be expected in future. RCAF planners also briefed against the Boeing Canada proposal in Parliamentary committees during the following year. April's minor ground-loop incident grew into 'proof' of the waste and danger inherent in rebuild programs. The politicians bought it ... and then bought the RCAF lovely, new P2V-7 Neptunes. [7]

__________________________

[1] Boeing Aircraft of Canada put forward two distinct ASW concepts for study by the RDB. The 'Budget Model' was a comparatively simple rebuild of available USAF-surplus B-17G airframes (a second variant of which was also put forward to bolster RCAF SAR capabilities). The second concept involved a major rebuild of surplus US B-29 airframes. Neither concept appealled to the RCAF RDB.

[2] FM205 had its outboard Merlins replaced by Chinook engines. FM205 never flew in this configuration because Avro Canada had already moved on to 'productionize' the Orenda turbojet.

[3] Single-jet test installations in Lancasters (and other bomber types) dated back to the war years.

[4] VH742 itself had already been converted to 'Nene-Lancastrian' standard (as had PD167 and VH737).

[5] Boeing Canada reasoned that de-rated Wright R-3350s should not over-tax the Lancaster since the  centre section had been originally designed for the Vulture-powered Avro Manchester.

[6] Observation blisters were also planned for the rear fuselage sides but never installed. Likewise, the wooden wingtips were to be replaced with metal extensions complete with bulbous tip fuel tanks.

[7] Deliveries of RCAF Neptunes didn't begin until 1955 ... which resulted in a modest degree of satisfaction for Boeing Canada. Desparately short of spares for the aged RCAF Lancaster Mk.10MR fleet, the Department of National Defence had to spend top-dollar to buy the stored wreck of CF-ARM for parts.

__________________________
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 03:57:32 AM by apophenia »
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline Tophe

  • He sees things in double...
  • twin-boom & asymmetric fan
    • my models
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1748 on: February 24, 2018, 02:05:51 PM »
Interesting... ;)

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #1749 on: March 24, 2018, 06:27:29 AM »
Forgotten Fokker Fighters - the Fokker D.25 Story

In 1938, Fokker chief designer Dr-Ing Erich Schatzki began work on a new 'jockey' fighter. The scheme was intended to make use of as many components as possible from the advanced, all-metal D.23 (D.XXIII) push-pull fighter. [1] The new light fighter concept sprang, in part, from Fokker's marketing department which saw potential for a sale to the French Armée de l'Air.

The initial concept was conceived as a light fighter with full metalen constructie. This light fighter would use the forward Walter Sagitta I-SR engine and cowling; cockpit; outer wing panels, main undercarriage (rearranged as a conventional 'tail-dragger'); and rudder of the D.23. This design would receive the retroactive designation Ontwerp 157-A. [2] French interest in the Dutch light fighter was lukewarm at best. Perhaps discouraged, Schatzki left Fokker to design the more conventional Koolhoven FK.58 fighter - also aimed at the French market.

Fortunately for Fokker, the Dutch Inspectie der Militaire Luchtvaart (IML) saw potential in the concept as an advanced trainer which could act as an emergency fighter in wartime. However, Fokker design staff quickly realized that they could not meet planned costs with all-metal construction. The opportunity was taken to redesign their light fighter using more conventional - for Fokker - mixed construction.

The result, created under the leadership of Ir. Marius Beeling, was the Ontwerp 157/gc (gemengde constructie or mixed construction) later redesigned Ontwerp 157-B. Beeling's proposal was a near-complete redesign. The fuselage was now a welded steel-tube structure. The D.23-style engine installation remained unaltered. However, the positions of the cockpit and fuselage fuel tank were reversed. Moving the cockpit aft also left space for an armament of twin, cowl-mounted 13,2 mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns.

Four Ontwerp 157-B variants were offered. Ontwerp 157-B/1 and 'B/2 featured aluminum-skinned steel-tube fuselage structures. They differed in Ontwerp 157-B/1 have a new outward-retracting undercarriage while Ontwerp 157-B/2 had a simpler, fixed and spatted undercarriage. Ontwerp 157-B/3 and 'B/4 were, respectively, the retractable- and fixed-undercarriage versions of a variant with a fabric-covered fuselage structure.

(Top) Conceptual Fokker D.25 fighter (in its Ontwerp 157-B/2 form)

In the case of fixed-gear variants, the wing would have an entirely wooden construction (akin to that of the in-service D.XXI). For the retractable-gear variants, wing construction would be mixed - having wooden spars and ribs with plywood covering. Small fuel tanks could be added aft of the outward- retracting undercarriage main legs. Although no immediate order was placed, the Ontwerp 157-B/3 concept was given approval by the IML. For future orders by the Luchtvaart Afdeeling (LVA), the light fighter was assigned the designation D.25.

On yer pins! - Baby-steps with the Fokker D.21/il

To test the concept, the IML recommended testing the new undercarriage on a converted D.XXI fighter. Accordingly, Fokker pulled the D.XXI-1E1 prototype in for second rewinging [4] and ordered scaled-up undercarriage legs from SFMA Messier. It was soon found that the standard D.XXI wing could not easily accommodate the retractable undercarriage. A redesign was undertaken whereby a welded steel-tube truss was substitued for the D.XXI's solid wood front spar. This revised wing was complete by the time the retractable undercarriage was delivered by Mssrs Messier.

As a private venture demonstrator, the former D.XXI-1E1 prototype was assigned the civil registration PH-OKR. It was also redesignated D.21/il - for intrekbaar landingsgestel or retractable landing gear. A relatively straightforward conversion, the D.21/il flew before the more advanced D.23 prototype. In March 1939, the D.21/il was demonstrated at Soesterberg before officials from the Ministrie van Defensie (MvD) and members of the LVA. A demonstrated speed advantage of 35 km/h over in-service LVA D.XXIs was hard to ignore.

(Bottom) Fokker D.21/il demonstrator as reviewed at Soesterberg, 03-05 March 1939

In an 03 April 1939 meeting with the IML, Ir. Beeling had to acknowledge that the unarmed D.21/il carried little in the way of military equipment. However, the Fokker chief designer was comfortable guaranteeing that a derivative fighter would deliver a 25 km/h  speed advantage over the D.XXI. It would also be more manoeuvrable - since the armament would need to be grouped closer to the centreline in the fuselage. By the end of the meeting, Fokker had a development contract for a new D.26 fighter.

(To Be Continued ...)
__________________________________

[1] Originating as Fokker's Ontwerp 155, the twin-boomed  D.23 fighter prototype flew in 1939.

[2] The original Ontwerp 157 was an enlarged D.23 proposal intended for the French.

[3] In this, the IML was advised by the Wetensch.Afd. - the Science Department of the Ministrie van Defensie.

[4] The D.XXI-1E1 prototype had already been trial-fitted with a new revised-profile wing which was not proven successful.

__________________________________
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."