Although rarely in anybody's top-ten of favourite aircraft, the AW.41 Albemarle has the distinction of being the first British prototype to be fitted with a retractable tricycle undercarriage.
The earliest production military aircraft with a retractable tricycle gear is the Bell P39 Airacobra. 1939. At least to the best of my knowledge.
Yes, you're right. And the first to have the engine installed in the centre fuselage. I believe the RAF used them in ww2 as well.
A terrified young German soldier: A young German WWII soldier in pain being treated by an American GI:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmZyqjLjx5U"]YouTube - ‪Libyan Rebels Create a new weapon In Nalut‬‏[/ame] Well, they could use say...smth more modern for that.
Why? They have the jigs to build them, the manufacturing lines still up and running, the maintenance system to keep them going and the supply system in place. The Chinese have the same reason to use the TU-16 that we use to justifiy the B-52s--they make a great cruise-missile launching platforms and occasional bomb trucks. Just upgrade the avionics, keep the airframe in good shape and stay out of any sort of IADS and you've got a potent weapons system. It doesn't have to be a brand new design have relavency.
I mentioned that there are a couple of more modern and cheap designs at the same time. I agree, that every military tries to find balance between cost and effectiveness, but nobody uses say WW2 bombers nowadays. Why? Because they are outdated. Sooner or later , you have to replace old designs, because they would be just pathetic to the modern ones. And yes, more photos.
THe picture you posted are great! Lots of stuff there we don't get to see regularly over here. As for your statement, you are correct--after a certain level, some basic aircraft designed become unsupportable and unusable in modern combat. Certainly, the IL-2 was an amazingly well designed machine, but it would be annihilated on the modern battlefield. That being said, and 500-knot+ machine with a 7,000lbs (something like 3000kg--math is fuzzy when drinking beer!) payload is still very viable--so long as it does not have to penetrate a modern IADS. In truth, you could do the same thing with a 737 or TU -154, were either equiped with the right equipment. The TU-16 just happens to actually be a bomber. At any rate, I see your point--but the Chinese have no reason to rid themselves of the design since it fills a nice.
It's not a new Chinese bomber, it's just a new version...the "K" variant. The Chinese H-6 has been around since the 50s after the Chinese signed a license production agreement with the USSR. From the photos I've seen of H-6K, the engine air intakes are larger than previous H-6 variants, which is indicative of a larger or even a new more powerful engine. Also there are 6 wing-mounted pylons. More than likely to carry new Chinese LACMs, and/or PGMs....another possible ordnance are ASATs.
Great photos and I enjoyed them for a special reason. My Mother's brother was a medic who was involved in the Normandy invasion. He would never talk about the horrors of that day.
