WesWorld

I think you may have a typo on the specs for the Burnelli CB-27 Aigaion. A bomb load of 89,000 lb (40,370 kg) seems abnormally high for the period, particularily when compared to other wesworld designs.

BCAC (Vickers) Type 497 Westminster B.Mk.I
56,000lb (25,401 kg)

Burnelli CB-27 Aigaion
bombload up to 89,000 lb (40,370 kg)

Nakajima B-10 (Ki-96)
19,841 lbs (9000 kg)

Heinkel He177
13,227 lbs (6,000 kg)

Consolidated B-32 Dominator
20,000 lbs (9071 kg)

Boeing B-29 Superfortress
20,000 lbs (9071 kg)

The 89,000lb is the maximum possible load the CB-27 was designed to take (40 tons).
In normal service the load would be more likely to be around 70-72,000lb. I will edit the post to make this clearer.

That would bring it into B-52 sized payload and still quite high when looking at British bombers available.

I have to agree with Wes. The payload is on the order of the later variants of the Convair B-36, but the size and weight of the aircraft is far smaller.

Closer to the B-36 in capacity and performance.

The design is based on the OTL Burnelli B-2000 project for a heavy bomber which was then recast at the end of the war as a cargo transport.
40 tons seems to have been the aimed for payload but details on the B-1000 are sketchy. The full load can only be carried over 1,600 miles, to exploit the maximum 5,500 miles range the bombload would be consequently much smaller.

Of course whether the B-36 exists in WW is open to question as the USA is an NPC and TheCanadian's aviation plans were stillborn. Its possible the USAAF has looked at longer-range bombers given its relative isolation.
Also we have the Sino-Chosen War experience to influence things, there was a fair bit of strategic bombing. Results IC are pretty sketchy but its the largest such campaign we have seen in WW. The SA War had some bombing but that was 15 sim years ago and a lot has changed since then in aviation technology.

EDIT

New spec:

Burnelli CB-27 Aigaion
Strategic Bomber

Crew: Ten (pilot, co-pilot, navigator, radio operator, flight engineer, bomb-aimer, four gunners)
Length: 80 ft (24.38 m)
Wingspan: 220 ft 0 in (67.05 m)
Height: 16 ft 1.5 in (5.02 m)
Wing area: 4,500 ft² (4180.6 m²)
Empty weight: 120,123 lb (54,490 kg)
Loaded weight: 250,000 lb (113,400 kg)
Powerplant: 8 x Orenda Oneida IX H-24-cyl inline engine, 2,750 hp (2,050 kW), driving 4 x contra-rotating propellers
Maximum speed: 300 mph (480 km/h)
Range: 1,600 mi (2,575 km) with 40-ton payload, max range 5,500 miles (8,900 km)
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9144 m)
Armament: 12 x 20 mm Oerlikon FFB(A) cannon (2x dorsal, 2x ventral & 2x tail remote-controlled turrets); bombload up to 40,000 lb (18,143 kg)

The revised specifications are closer to the zone but I still have concerns on the weights. The Convair B-36 had the following weights:

Empty weight: 166,165 lb
Loaded weight: 262,500 lb (combat weight)
Max. takeoff weight: 410,000 lb

The maximum takeoff weight includes the full fuel load and bombload. I think some additional work is still necessary.

From one of my final conversations with Jason, he did intend to introduce the B-36, but in pretty small numbers.

The Aigaion specs make for an interesting pie-in-the-sky daydream, but I expect the reality of the aircraft will soon set in. From my quick read-up on the B-36, even the US had a lot of misgivings about the Peacemaker's usefulness. And the size of the Aigaion (wingspan particularly) will definitely limit its basing options.

Wouldn't it be better for Australia to invest in some easier-to-use Windsors, possibly a made-for-Aus long range model?

Quoted

The maximum takeoff weight includes the full fuel load and bombload. I think some additional work is still necessary.

I had incorrectly listed the figure of 250,000lb as max TO weight when it should have been the loaded weight. I have now corrected this. This put its much more within the B-36 ballpark.
The bombload has been dialled all the way back to 40,000lb so that should help cut weight too.

The only historical data I could dig up was here: https://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/lift18.htm
This is the information I have now used to refine the design from the initial version I had developed on part-sources of information. Burnelli's estimates were optimistic but I have not sought to advance his estimates, in fact rather the opposite.

Quoted

And the size of the Aigaion (wingspan particularly) will definitely limit its basing options.

True, but the BCAC Westminster has a span of 210 ft so its not completely beyond the realms of possibility and if the RAAF is going to use purpose-built bases then its less of an issue. I don't see these being forward deployed in New Guinea for example, though it is possible they may visit RAF bomber airfields in Malaya from time to time.

Quoted

Wouldn't it be better for Australia to invest in some easier-to-use Windsors, possibly a made-for-Aus long range model?

That is one option, either that or a Lancaster development with RR Griffons as a WW Lincoln/Shackleton hybrid.
I know Shin has been super keen on these super-science projects and wanted to get more sharing between Commonwealth nations. I think the design has some promise but it is a problematic one, being so far outside the realms of normal designs to compare against.

In short I can understand the reasoning behind using this particular design, as you say to make better use of commonwealth assets, but the specs as originally envisioned were considerably ahead of what Britain was using. Add in that the Westminster design is already pushing that envelope ever so slightly and the Aigaion dwarfs that design and things can tend to spiral out of control on the "one upsmanship" game.

Here is an Avro design for comparison, basically an OTL Lincoln with Shackleton elements.
Thoughts?

Avro Launceston
Crew: 8
Length: 78 ft 3½ in (23.86 m)
Wingspan: 120 ft (36.58 m)
Height: 17 ft 6 in (5.33 m)
Wing area: 1,421 ft² (132 m²)
Empty weight: 46,400 lb (21,050 kg)
Loaded weight: 77,000 lb (34,930 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 86,000 lb (39,010 kg)
Powerplant: 4 × Rolls-Royce Griffon V, 2,500 hp (1,864 kW) each, driving six-bladed contra-rotating propellers
Maximum speed: 319 mph (513 km/h) at 18,800 ft (5,730 m)
Cruise speed: 215 mph (346 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,096 m)
Range: 2,930 mi (4,714 km); with maximum bomb-load 1,470 miles (2,365 km)
Service ceiling: 30,500 ft (9,296 m)
Rate of climb: 950 ft/min (289.5 m/min)
Armament: 2 × .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning machine guns in nose (remote-controlled) and tail turrets (equipped with AGLT) and 2 × 20mm Oerlikon FFB(A) cannon in dorsal turret; normal bombload up to 14,000 lb (6,400 kg) (exceptionally one 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) DP bomb)

Overall this seems to be a better balanced design.

:thumbsup:

Ditto, looks reasonable to me.

Thanks, given the vote in favour of the Avro, I will go with that.
The CB-27 might still have a role to play but as a heavy transport aircraft.

Something to clarify, which Hood alluded to, but I'll say it outright -

the CB-27 is a Canadian design, based on all the Burnelli lifting-body projects I've found roles for elsewhere in Canadian aviation;

it's exact capability and whether or not Oz adopts it for it's own needs is up for discussion, but my long-term plans for the RCAF has always had them in the strategic bomber role. I'm open to input on how to put the stats together (deep Aviation is not my area of expertise), but in the end, it's one of those aspects of Canadian Super-Science that i'm rather committed to.

Quoted

the CB-27 is a Canadian design, based on all the Burnelli lifting-body projects I've found roles for elsewhere in Canadian aviation

Now it makes sense... and maybe we should give the "Ugly Aircraft, Inc" title to you now.