Shipbucket

According to wikipedia, it was designed as a "fighter-bomber", so I withdraw my previous statement about it being an interceptor. And it was designed as a nuclear strike aircraft, something for which speed was obviously advantageous. It was one of the fastest aircraft of its day, so my guess is, if it came across an enemy fighter its best bet would be to turn tail and run away as fast as it could rather than stay and fight. Also according to wikipedia, the Thud also had "the dubious distinction of being the only US aircraft to have been removed from combat due to high loss rates." So, you may wish to keep that in mind. Unlike most modern combat aircraft, it had an internal bomb bay, which I suppose could be a useful feature.

I think then both me and travesty can agree on this?

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Indeed, sir.

Wow, I just noticed a whole bunch of stuff I missed the first time:

- I have never seen an aircraft with more than three landing struts, and for good reason: it makes turning a real headache. And before anybody says anything, yes, the C-5, A-380 and the bigger Antonovs have lots and lots of wheels, but they're still in line (and have independent steering anyway). And the A-340 and come to think of it the A-380 too have center legs under the wingbox (which I guess contradicts my opening statement) but they probably have independent steering too (and at least in the A-340 the result of some design compromises due to some things they didn't anticipate in the original design). The point is, the more "rows" you add, the harder steering becomes unless your design is so heavy you need independent steering all around. The B-52 is actually a very interesting solution with just two rows of landing gear (not counting the outriggers).

- the design suggests the same typical degree of automation that postwar bombers had yet has a WWII-style rear turret. Even on the early B-52s which still put the guy in the tail had radar to accompany him.

I'm sure there are other engineering gaffs I missed. But most of all rather than copy features off the B-36 or B-52 I'd like to see a little more inspiration and imagination exercised. Even just subtle changes to the shape constitute major contributions to imagination.

Just noticed the podded turbo jets under the wings. Is this a case of "six turning, four burning" or a case of "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two joking, and two unaccounted for"?

_________________
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. - Albert Einstein
The only stupid questions are the ones that go unasked.
Korean AU

Yeah, I thought about the landing gear too. I'd probably delete one set of the main landing gear, if for no other reason than to save weight. That'd save at least a couple of tons of weight. The B-36, which I keep comparing this design to for obvious reasons did just fine with one set of main gear under its inboard engines and there's really no reason why this aircraft shouldn't either.

-The landing gear is still an iffy subject. I'm not entirely sure about it yet, but my main reasoning for using it was to incraese the amount of wheels on the ground, therefore decreasing ground pressure.
-Radar in the tail.. Yeah. I'll put that in...
-As for inspiration/imagination... I'm not entirely done yet. I still have some things I want to add. Plus, it might be worth mentioning that the B-36 is my 2nd favorite bomber, then the B-52, and Tu-95 (B-17 is #1). That's where my inspiration is coming from, along with the variants of the B-36 (XC-99, YB-60) which I will use as the basis for my cargo transport, and swept wing bomber. While I agree it is quite like the B-36, the major shape of the plane came from the Model 462. So in reality, I am taking a never built design and making it into my own version. While I'm not being entirely imaginative, I still feel that this is more different than the B-52 and B-36. It is comparable in role, range, payload, and time period, but a different aicraft entirely.


Some paint schemes. (I'll add more details later, but I hope you like it)


I'll add a few fixes (like the radar in the tail), and then I'll start on my "strategic airlifter."

Now I'm not so sure about using the Thud. If anyone knows of a fighter aircraft that has had a long service life, with exceptional capabilities, and multimission capabilities, shoot.

Thanks,
-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.

Awesome paint schemes.

Hmm, a fighter about a fighter with a long service life, exceptional capabilities, and multi-mission capabilites? Let's see... You could always go with the F-4 Phantom. It's been in service for over 50 years and is still in service today. It was one of the first jet aircraft that was decent in both the ground and air combat roles. Then there's the French Dassault Mirage III, which first flew in 1956 and is still in active service. It was designed as a fighter, but has been used as a decent ground attack aircraft for decades, and it's still used as the primary fighter for a number of air forces. Also there's the F-8 Crusader, known as "the last of the gunfighters" because it was the last aircraft designed with gunfighting dogfights in mind. It was very maneuverable, light, and fast. It was primarily a fighter, but was used in ground combat roles in Vietnam and was in service with the French Navy as its primary carrier-borne fighter until the introduction of the Rafale in 1999. Anywhere, there are certainly more, but that's what I can think of right now. Something for you to look into and think about.

I'm not a huge fan of the F-4. I don't really like the way it looks.
I did consider the Mirage for a while, but I decided to leave that alone. Delta wings are a little too sleek for me .
I was thinking about doing the F-8 Crusader, and using it as the multi role fighter, and then later upgrading it into something like the XF8U-3 Crusader III.

The reason why I want to stick with an older fighter is because I'm not 'into' fighters of modern day, but I want my AU to be based in modern day. That's why we are going to use older aircraft, and keep upgrading current aircraft, rather than doing tons of R&D and replacing them every decade. Plus, if done the right way, it can actually save money. Considering the fact that Denton is not a huge nation, I think it would make sense to keep older plnes in service for as long as possible, until a replacement is truly needed.

-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.

The F-8 Crusader was a good aircraft even if that big air intake made it a little ugly. The only disadvantage I think it had was it had a fairly limited payload. However, the A-7 Corsair attack version of the aircraft could carry several tons of payload. Maybe you could come up with an aircraft that combined the best features of the F-8 and A-7. In the 1980s the US Air Force attempted to upgrade the A-7 by putting the afterburning F-100 turbofan engine from the F-15 into it, which I think nearly doubled its thrust and gave it an extra ton in payload. It was called the YA-7F. Maybe you could do something along those lines with the F-8. I'd also seriously upgrade the radar system if I were you so it could fire some decent AAMs. The F-8 could only ever carry sidewinders.