pigsty

Also on my travels, a red Hyundai registered KR57 MAS. No idea whether the driver had a white beard. And on a Maybach this morning (rare enough in itself), HE 15 LAW. I don't think the driver had a bucket-shaped helmet on.

Maybe a Dodge Carlisle would fit in better in Monaco ...

Knock knock. Who's there? Anagram. Anagram how?

After eight years of effort and many false starts, in 1915 Albert Einstein finally published the basis of his general theory of relativity, all about the nature of space. It was about time too.

Not long ago I saw a Ford Ranger Raptor that was registered W4HNK.

And yet, you're right. You could fit sponsons to the lower fuselage sides to carry 1000lb bombs. And they weren't just a design feature that was offered but never realised - they were mentioned in the Pilot's Notes, and at least one base had sponsons stored in case they ever need to be used. So, @Graham Boak, you have control, over.

Another clue, then: four engines.

I wasn't expecting the Ashton, but no. The one I'm looking for was later than that. But you're on the right lines with that idea about Shackleton wing design.

Maybe ...

Defender: no. British ones never really used their offensive capability. And really, it was a civilian aircraft with military modifications, not that different in concept from the Poseidon. Belfast: no. Already discounted, and if you think about it, any freighter can be used to transport any weapon that fits, but that doesn't make it a bomber.

Also not the answer, although the timeframe is about the same.

!!! No bombing capability there.

Not the Poseidon or the Nimrod. Both are airliners adapted for maritime patrol, which wasn't part of the 737's or the Comet's original design. And they can't be used to transport anything (unless you count the crew's rations).

Hercules: no. The USAF had a grand time dropping huge BLU-82s from theirs into the forest, but the RAF never got close to that sort of pottiness. Hastings: no. Its wing was derived from the Halifax but that's as close as it got. Bombay: no. That's the sort of thing you might think of when "bomber-transport" is mentioned, as is (say) the Do 17, but the one I'm thinking of is quite a bit later. Shackleton: no. It was used for conventional bombing (my dad had two such missions in his logbooks) and very occasionally used to ferry troops, who must have hated every second. But the one I have in mind came after it. However, there is a sort of link there.

All that is true, but I'm not necessarily looking for a bomber design that was also used as a transport. "Bomber-transport" is just a convenient way of writing it, not intended to suggest "bomber" was the primary role. Nor, indeed, transport.