North American PBJ-1K - USMC, Korea 1950-1953 (Finished, page 4)

[RAFF-35]

I think it's generally a bad omen for me to start a post before I've completed the model, but I'm after opinions.
I am going to do a Korean war era PBJ-1 (B-25) which will essentially be a production version of the North American NA-98X Super Strafer.
I would like group consensus on two things.

Firstly, wingtip tanks or no tip tanks? I love the aesthetic of them and they would obviously increase the loitering time.
However, the added weight would affect roll rate and add strain to the (now reinforced) wings.

Secondly,  I will be removing the waist guns, replacing the dorsal turret with a general electric R/C turret and placing the gunner mid fuselage. Should I also make the tail guns remote control or should I delete the gun position entirely and fair it over?

[HarryPhishnuts]

Had to look this one up, never heard of it before. Cool idea. I'd probably drop the tail gun but not sure I would add the tip tanks. Agree I love that aesthetic as well, but sure it fits in the timeline. Were there any other aircraft in that class that had tip tanks? Maybe add an underwing pylon for a drop tank instead? Either way can't wait to see how this builds out. 

[RAFF-35]

Had to look this one up, never heard of it before. Cool idea. I'd probably drop the tail gun but not sure I would add the tip tanks. Agree I love that aesthetic as well, but sure it fits in the timeline. Were there any other aircraft in that class that had tip tanks? Maybe add an underwing pylon for a drop tank instead? Either way can't wait to see how this builds out. 

Looking at the A-26 counter invader which served in both Korea and Vietnam, I would say that tip tanks only really became a thing in the latter (but I could be wrong?)
I was thinking of having pylons inboard of the engines  a la XA-38 Grizzly, and have a few weapons pylons outboard. But then I was thinking that with the crew reduction,  I have room in the fuselage for extra fuel, so would that be sufficient for the extra range or is more fuel always better? I was also thinking that having such a weapon as the 75mm autoloader cannon mounted, would there be a need to have rockets or bombs on the wings, causing extra drag etc? There would still be a small bomb bay for depth charges, mines and bombs for its maritime attack role. Could also potentially be fitted with life rafts for the SAR role too?

[RAFF-35]

Looking at other aircraft from that era, it seems that thirsty jets had tip tanks, but prop aircraft didn't?

[Captain Canada]

Tip tanks, delete the tail gun. You want this build to be different from other B-25s, and if you like the look of the tip tanks ( as I do ) then it should be done !

[jcf]

The tiptanks on the B-26K weren't a military fit, they were part of the On Mark Marksman B
and C executive aircraft conversions. The Vietnam B-26Ks had them because they were built
by On Mark.

The NAA B-45 had tiptanks, so it's theoretically possible that NAA would do something
similar on an NX-98X development, but I think that the stresses involved in a low level
attack mission would argue against their use.

[jcf]

I had looked at converting a Monogram B-25H into the NA-98X and the largest
amount of work is swapping the R-2600 engines for the R-2800, but as the engine
installation, forward nacelle changes, cowling and propellers were all from the A-26
it's surprisingly straightforward.
I mocked up the parts from a Monogram A-26 to the B-25H and it wasn't going to
require a great deal of cutting and fitting. It ended up as a "one of these days"
project and I later passed on the kits to the club raffle.

[kerick]

The tip tanks would increase range but decrease the roll rate as you said. I'd go with the drop tank idea first personally. Pilots would always use up the drop tank fuel first so the drop tanks could be discarded early as possible.

[Dizzyfugu]

IIRC, some Navy Mitchells carried a radar pod on the (right only) wing tips - might be an option, too?

[NARSES2]

I like the idea and my views for what they are worth are : ; No tip tanks, no rear turret, replace the waist gunner position with fuel, and as for underwing stores ? Maybe they could operate in mixed flights ? One aircraft armed with the 75mm and others armed with bombs and rockets ?

Not sure about the upper turret ? Would they need one ? Not sure what the threat from enemy aircraft would be ?

[Dizzyfugu]

Tip tanks became a design option only towards the end of WWII, esp. as a measure to increase the capacity for thirsty jet engines while leaving other hardpoints free for ordnance. I doubt that any "old" design would have been retrofitted, and the Marksman A-26 was originally a business jet conversion, for which the effort made sense.
Personally, I'd dedicate a Korean War B-25 to a special duty and leave away most of the defensive armament to reduce weight and improve performance. Potential jet attackers would be much faster than WWII targets, so that I doubt the effectiveness of motorized turrets or manual guns. IIRC the B-29s also had most of the machine guns deleted, except for the tail cannon, to gain altitude and speed. And the clumsy bombers would probably have (jet) fighter escorts as protection, anyway.

[jcf]

Due to the extent of the changes the most likely designation would be PBJ-2.

[RAFF-35]

I had looked at converting a Monogram B-25H into the NA-98X and the largest
amount of work is swapping the R-2600 engines for the R-2800, but as the engine
installation, forward nacelle changes, cowling and propellers were all from the A-26
it's surprisingly straightforward.
I mocked up the parts from a Monogram A-26 to the B-25H and it wasn't going to
require a great deal of cutting and fitting. It ended up as a "one of these days"
project and I later passed on the kits to the club raffle.

You're right, that is going to be the largest amount of work,  I imagine. The issue is that I don't really want to spend >£25 on an A-26 kit, just to pinch its engines, so I intend to bodge the B-25 cowlings enough to make them look like they might contain R-2800s.

[RAFF-35]

IIRC, some Navy Mitchells carried a radar pod on the (right only) wing tips - might be an option, too?

I've been looking at where to mount the radar. As per my sketch,  I initially planned to place it on the central fuselage just aft of the trailing edge. But I've now realized that's where the gunner will potentially be sat.
So I could either shift the gunner and keep it in the fuselage OR keep the gunner there and move the radar to the wing tip as in real life. The extra fuel would then be in drop tanks on the wing.

[Dizzyfugu]

An real world alternative is a thimble radome on the nose, the former glazed bomb aimer position was frequently painted over and a radome installed instead. Would probably hardly work with the gun, though? And it's much uglier...