The gear was retractable, thought you wouldn’t know it from this photo. You can see where the struts retract, but I don’t see a wheel well

I believe it retracted to the rear, despite that big drag link, which was probably just to provide lateral support on the ground; note the mechanism directly aft of the gear strut. And to the rear are what might be spring-loaded push-in doors over a wheel well.

Funny, I get “never heard of it” from Netflix…

Certainly not a tanker’s helmet. They were designed to cushion against getting knocked about inside the tank, not to guard against wind blast.

Ted Smith was big on reducing this interference drag, which I guess was a lesson he learned from Ed Heinemann while participating in the design of the A-20 and A-26. The Smith Aerostar–which we used to call the Air Roaster–was the ultimate example.

Wasn’t the original 737 also called Fat Albert?

you did have Sleds, Thuds, and Spads, which is a similar thing.

So what about the BUFF, Thud and Fat Albert?

Yes, of course I know that the U. S.–and every other country–has nicknames for its military (and other) aircraft. It’s just that I think Thud is a more…well, masculine…name for a fighter-bomber than is Spittie. Why not just continue calling a Spit?

But what the hell, I’m just tryin’ to troll you guys. Don’t worry about it.

I’ve seen the TriStar referred to in the RAF as the “Timmy” Anyone know why, please?

Because Brits seem to love fey names for warbirds. “Spitty” and “Tiffy” have always made my teeth hurt. Thank heavens we never had “Fortys.” “Libbies” and “Thundies.”