thread revival:
just got a new scanner today and i thought i would scan in this picture i have from the MANPADS concept for the harrier GR7/9 :mellow:
would look cool if it was used in real life, maybe a fast battlefield retrievement system :rolleyes:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi307.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn292%2FNilssteyaert%2Fmisc%2Fmanpadssml.jpg&hash=958c81e1e4886a9ad34b939a26232b785509674f)
Quote from: Nils on June 22, 2008, 06:51:04 AMjust got a new scanner today and i thought i would scan in this picture i have from the MANPADS concept for the harrier GR7/9
would look cool if it was used in real life, maybe a fast battlefield retrievement system
Do you have any better references for this pod? Something like a general arrangement drawing? I like the concept and it begs to be fabricated in scale.
Looks to me like a revival of the old EXINT Pods from way back when...
Regards,
Mav
The BAE EXINT pods look a lot like the large bulbous nose fuel tanks that are found on the Mirage and Rafale. A simple conversion to reflect a different purpose with the addition of a porthole, door, and stabilizing fin would be a quick conversion to create an EXINT pod for the Harrier.
I would still like to see something more on that other box shaped version, it appears to allow for side by side seating in the container which would dictacte something with larger dimensions to what you have provided. It would surely be a noisy ride and stress filled ride for the passengers in either version.
***oops! Found a better image of the EXINT pods and realised the cross section is more rectangular than circular.***
There is some more info here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1476.msg12434 (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1476.msg12434)
I also understand KG200 used a simular system to insert spies, dropping them by parachute in a sealed pod!
Darren,
The pods were trialed but not operational. They found after tests that the end result was rather dramatic to say the least and personnel were spared the trouble.
Regards,
Mav
Quote from: Maverick on June 22, 2008, 05:05:58 PM
Darren,
The pods were trialed but not operational. They found after tests that the end result was rather dramatic to say the least and personnel were spared the trouble.
Regards,
Mav
Actually, "KG200: The True Story" by P.W, Stahl indicates that these PAGs (as they were called - see below) were indeed used operationally:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fca15%2FPAG001.jpg&hash=b996171d90a0e4f6d4e23eff4ad67515d84e23a7)
Regards,
Greg
Fair enough too I guess. Pretty much everything I'd read about the concept mentioned that there were fatalities during testing which led to their abandonment.
Regards,
Mav
I remember seeing a detailed drawing of the square pod in Nils' post (havn't got a copy of it, unfortunately). The seating was for two people face-to-face, i.e. one with their back against the front bulkhead, and the other with their back against the rear one. There was oxygen equipment and a mask in each end fairing, an intercom to the cockpit, and serious sound insulation, that also stopped it from getting too cold. The principle idea discussed was for a combat SAR system that was faster and less vulnerable than a helicopter. Under the circumstances, luxury was not a priority.....
How would you guide it, Duncan? Sounds almost like going back to assault gliders like the Horsa.
Regards,
Mav
Attached are several reference images. The first of which provides an overview of British developed cargo containers that were used to supply airborne troops and partisan groups during WWII. Do you have any idea when this type of resupply container was dropped from use? I liked the versatility of this type of container since it could be carried by bomber and fighter aircraft on standard bomb racks providing an advantage in the size of the aircraft required as well as the amount of equipment and supplies to be provided in one drop.
Image two is the label that is provided in the 1/35th scale Resicast supply container set. Very expensive but it does provide several types of supply containers including the wicker basket type which predates the metal and fabric covered designs that were developed during WWII.
Image three shows a C-47 Dakota in flight with six cargo containers rigged for drop. The containers are constructed of heavy canvas instead of metal. These I believe were the American development to cut costs and save on war critical materials.
Image four is the CTU-1 or the later CTU-2 Aerial Delivery Container. Both of these are constructed of a lightweight material. Not metal and not fabric, the technical manual describes destruction of the container by burning so what ever it is, it will combust with the right application of accerlant. This container is large enough to hold an average human but it is not cleared for such operations with personnel. It is designed for carriage on any standard 14.0" bomb rack capable of holding the weight of a full container. It has been tested on the OV-1 Mohawk as well as the A-7 Corsair so it has a wide range of delivery options.
Dimensions (diameter X length):
CTU-1 -- 21.0" X 9.0' (53.3cm X 274cm)
CTU-2 -- 21.0" X 8.8' (53.3cm X 268cm)
I have an aftermarket set of "personnel pods" for a Ju-87 Stuka that sat on top of the wings. Sorry I don't have a picture to post, but William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich" has some. They were like a little bubble canopy where two people would be sitting, and then encapsulated. There were even "windows" on the sides so the person could see (maybe that was to avoid airsickness-- rather a bad thing when tightly enclosed in a pod!) The pods were to be detached and then parachuted. Apparently there was a problem of trying to detach them simultaneously (sequential separation would probably nearly spin the plane around!). They were not used in operations. Might be nice for "museum rides"!!
Snow Goose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CQ-10_Snowgoose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CQ-10_Snowgoose)
There is a user Manual avialable on the web... Anyway I understand that this can be launced out of the back of a C130.
Also http://www.atairaerospace.com/ (http://www.atairaerospace.com/) have some very interesting ideas for cargo/weapon delivery
http://www.atairaerospace.com/smartbombs/ (http://www.atairaerospace.com/smartbombs/) - who needs fast jets!
I believe there was also a supply pod developed for Special Forces resupply during the Vietnam war that used a napalm container, the idea being that if the NVA/VC were to find the item, it couldn't necessarily be considered as a supply point rather just some nape that failed to detonate.
Regards,
Mav
Quote from: Maverick on June 23, 2008, 04:13:14 PMI believe there was also a supply pod developed for Special Forces resupply during the Vietnam war that used a napalm container, the idea being that if the NVA/VC were to find the item, it couldn't necessarily be considered as a supply point rather just some nape that failed to detonate.
What you are describing sounds like the baggage pods that were converted from fuel tanks and fire bomb casings. The attached image of the BLU-10 250 pound fire bomb is very close to what was provided in many of the 1/48th scale Hasegawa F-16 kits which had a door engraved in the side of the pod. Other pods were fabricated from the 150 gallon and 300 gallon Aero fuel tanks that were common to the A-4, A-1, A-6, and AV-8. Again like the BLU-10, a hole was cut in the side of the fuel tank and a door fabricated to fit the portal. There is an image of one such baggage pod hanging under an F-14 in the Squadron In Action book on that subject.
G'day Jeffry,
Whilst I'm aware of the baggage pods in USAF service I wasn't aware of their Navy use. That said, from what I've read, the pods I was mentioning weren't 'baggage' pods per se, but rather pods specificially developed for SF resupply allowing 'deniable' resupply missions. Were these to have doors specifically fitted, I think it would detract from the covert nature of the mission. I'd expect instead that the pods would merely have a break point at a natural join in their construction.
Regards,
Mav
The Navy also had a jet starter unit that was built around an Aero fuel tank shape. Fitted with a nose cap over the air intake and tail cone for the exhaust it also had four wheels and a pair of suspension lugs to fit it to a standard bomb release unit. It was designed for deployment to forward bases to support operations while the remainder of the squadron's support equipment was stuck in transit.
All of these fuel tank shapes were quite robust in construction due to the need to withstand maneuvering while attached to the aircraft. If jettisoned in flight, they would impact with the ground and remain relatively intact unless there was a full load of fuel inside, then it might be quite different. Fire bombs on the other hand would not survive such an impact due to the nature of their construction which was designed to come apart on impact with the ground expelling the incendiary materials in the process. Construction of a cargo container for covert resupply missions sounds more like a case of improvisiation and not necessarily doctrine. Which is similar to what took place during the siege of Khe Sanh, the Marines were resupplied by air and several expedient means of supplying water were attempted. One of the more successful was to use the artillery propellant containers (aka powder cans or powder tanks) for the 155mm and larger artillery systems. These containers were simply rolled out the back of the helicopter from a relatively low altitude and they survived the fall to be recovered by the troops on the ground.
More recent expedient means of delivery have been developed where the material in this case MRE meals for humanitarian missions were simply placed in large cardboard boxes called a "Tri-Wall" container and released from the back of the aircraft. The MRE meals and the Tri-Wall container separated after release and the MRE Meals decended to the ground individually to be gathered up by the people that were to receive them.
The mock up of the EXINT pod is now on dispaly at the Gatwick Aviation museum (at least it was a couple of year back, in the room gatherng dust with the engine collection). It would look pretty good on a Harrier GR7/9, the mock seems to be made of plywood....
Colin
Found these on Secret Projects, a Fairey Barracuda & a Ju-88 Stuka with different types of personnel panniers:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FFaieryBarracudawithpassengerpods.jpg&hash=e46d1f6f947437f4f735b9c5e5bd369aebbd0b61)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FJu-88Stukawithoverwingpassengerpods.jpg&hash=0ff122b24559ef7ba8c01cfe1b70947d0f228a5d)
And a pic showing just how cosy Avpros EXINT pods would have been! :blink:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FEXINTPod-1.png&hash=64aebd122791c8cdaafca4d2909694f935f732ae)
The infamous Spitfire 'Body Bag'. These date from 1943 (there seems to be an earlier proposal for similar bags in 1940). Exercise Spartan one of the largest pre D-Day exercises had been carried out & it was intended that when France was invaded, Squadrons would relocate with little support from elsewhere. They basically had to take what they could carry with them, including personell.
In order to increase the amount of ground crew that could travel with the squadron, it was proposed that they would travel in canvas bags that simply rested on the wing. A large strap was hooked around the cannon & a smaller one attached to the trailing edge. And that was it, nothing much to prevent the bag moving about & God forbid if the stitching wasn't up to scratch! The aircraft couldn't maneuver violently either & I can only imagine the discomfort & sense of claustrophobia. It's not a surpise that no records exist of them ever being used operationaly or even in testing.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FSpitfireBodyBag01.jpg&hash=da0f2490986b4fa5f956590c386a1c7a366c8472)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FSpitfireBodyBag02.jpg&hash=375609637a13ffa876732346a29b51fe14a6555b)
Hoyhoy`al
fraid I don`t bother much with the modern world but I have these scoured from the web, don`t know where, but they might be of interest.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi32%2Fwingzandthingz%2FWHAT%2520IF%2FUnknown_109_copy.jpg&hash=9a79618d1022afdf6ba5f6911787ea6fb99ba771)(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi32%2Fwingzandthingz%2FWHAT%2520IF%2FIMG_0083_m.jpg&hash=a6969763644b2d083e0fd440df93a6ba6c06480f)(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi32%2Fwingzandthingz%2FWHAT%2520IF%2FIMG_0082_m.jpg&hash=0e09f574696f4c7eba183ab9ee3487f5d0eb4b47)(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi32%2Fwingzandthingz%2FWHAT%2520IF%2FIMG_0081_m.jpg&hash=8d20307b9d7f14981db3823e03da1613d75ef086)
Cheerz :drink:
G
Nice find Gary! Definite difference between the Germans & Brits, the German designs seem to be well thought out designs with aerodynamics, passenger comfort & safety taken into consideration. The Brit designs, if I'm polite, they seem to be from the 'it'll be alright' school of engineering. A crate knocked together for the Barracuda & a canvas bag for the Spit, neither seem to have taken a lot of thought!
In the end, both nations would put any extra 'passengers' in the fuselage spaces, the Brits using it rarely for insertion, the Germans using it for ferry on occasion. This had it's problems, would remain in aircraft with pods that. If a fighter was 'jumped' it had extra weight that might impede it. If the aircraft was shot down or developed a problem, the pilot was usually unwilling to bail out & leave the passenger & would unfortunately result in two deaths in nearly every situation.
Quote from: Mossie on March 12, 2009, 04:05:02 AM
Nice find Gary! Definite difference between the Germans & Brits, the German designs seem to be well thought out designs with aerodynamics, passenger comfort & safety taken into consideration. The Brit designs, if I'm polite, they seem to be from the 'it'll be alright' school of engineering. A crate knocked together for the Barracuda & a canvas bag for the Spit, neither seem to have taken a lot of thought!
The Barracuda pods were far more than just a "crate knocked together".
Each pod carried two paratroops, sitting in tandem - not lying down, and the drop
doors were controlled by the pilot. Successful live drops were made, but it was not used
operationally because it was felt that the psychological effect of being cooped up for long
periods was too hard on the paras. The pods were never intended for dropping 'secret agents'.
Info from -
Fairey Aircraft since 1915, H A Taylor, Putnam 1974 (1988 NIP reprint)
Jon
While I have never had the pleasure of playing HALO I have encountered a few examples of the equipment and other hardware offered in the game some of which has caught my interest. The 3D Warehouse has several contributors that are extreme fan-boys of HALO which made it all that much simpler for me when I found a couple flavors of the HALO supply pod or the contributor's interpretation of what the supply pod looks like in the game. I will leave that to the people that actually have the game and know what it looks like to tell me otherwise. I found both pods to be lacking in details, the first example shown here as the first attached image is pretty much how I found it on the 3D Warehouse. I added dimensional data for the pod length and diameter but it was pretty much just like you see it in the first image. I made a few improvements to it as you can see in the second image and it looks more like a parachute supply container now and all it needed was a parachute. I searched and found a couple representations of parachute but all were lacking something so I created my own using the nose section of the Little Boy bomb shape as the starting point and added a few more details to make it look like a parachute. The risers are just lines drawn from the canopy down to the container and they look much darker in these views than they do up close. Still it looks like a parachute and it needed to be attached to the container and not being a qualified rigger or having the appropriate TM/FM on rigging of parachutes handy I just took a wild guess at what it should look like. It was fun, it was educational and that is pretty much the whole reason for creating these things.
Here are the rest of the screen shots of the supply container and the parachute from a couple of different angles. If anyone wants a copy of the actual SketchUp file I will be happy to share that just send me an eMail.
Those pods look pretty cool, but I've gotten the impression that they're dropped in-game, from Pelicans at very low altitude, without benefit of parachutes or other devices.
Quote from: Jschmus on January 05, 2010, 03:10:24 PMThose pods look pretty cool, but I've gotten the impression that they're dropped in-game, from Pelicans at very low altitude, without benefit of parachutes or other devices.
Probably due to lack of research on the subject before writing the code for the game.
Polikarpov R-5 fitted with pods for eight men on each wing and called a G-61:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWNVfz7UQAAN1J7.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWNVtjeVQAERLbK.jpg)
Posted on Twitter by ODIN: https://twitter.com/OceaniaDefence/status/964708753428762625
Also on Twitter, lots of nice EXINT pod artwork:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWHwstaUMAAWSwt.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWNQREbX4AAe9G9.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWNQRhGXUAUhlSP.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWNQSsQXUAAftCx.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWNQTMNWkAEvTVb.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWNQ7o3X4AAxsP8.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWNQ8J5W0AIk1h_.jpg)
Thanks, I had never seen that artwork for the Joint Strike Fighter contenders.
It could have been a bad day if the soldier hopped into the nose intake of the F-32, which shared a similar shape to the POD :o
Thanks for the pics Harold, that Tornado pic is new to me. I'd thought I'd seen it written somewhere that there were proposals to air drop the pod, but it was years back and the possibility that I was going a bit strange had occurred to me. The pic confirms there's a bit of sanity left to lose. :thumbsup:
Quote from: sandiego89 on February 17, 2018, 12:00:24 PM
Thanks, I had never seen that artwork for the Joint Strike Fighter contenders.
It could have been a bad day if the soldier hopped into the nose intake of the F-32, which shared a similar shape to the POD :o
Well, at least he'd only do it once...
I like the way there's an armed soldier in a 'guard' stance next to the SHAR on the deck of the carrier in the 'civilian evacuation' picture? What's he there for? To force the civvies into the pods at gunpoint? (Which admittedly might be necessary...)
The R5 photo is fascinating, cheers Harold :thumbsup:
I'm assuming the pods would have been "simply" used to transport the guys in them. They wouldn't be ejected as there is no way they could get in them wearing a parachute. However having read somewhere in the dim and distant past of Soviet plans to drop guys without parachutes from low altitudes into deep snow I'm not 100% sure :unsure:
They do look remarkably cheerful though, so perhaps they hadn't been told this isn't just a pose for propaganda purposes yet ? The flight crew on the other hand ? :-X Is one a female btw ?