A-29 Super Tucano Wins Air Force Bid for Light Air Support Mission

havent heard Tigercat in a long time. Kind of like the Bearcat but both were axed after WW2 Did they make many of the Tigercats? I know a few Bearcats ended up racing.

The Bearcat saw service in sizable numbers - at least for all the reduced post-WWII carrier air groups. Over 1250 were built. However, as a fighter aircraft it was quickly supplanted by jets in USN service although it saw some combat in SEA with French, Thai and South Vietnamese forces.

The Tigercat was produced in more limited numbers - around 350. However it went into service with the Marines and persisted into the Korean War. While the Marines liked to use it for ground attack (go figure) it managed a couple of night kills against An-2s.

I always thought that the drone-controller variant of the Tigercat was neat. Took a Bearcat canopy and bolted it onto the rear cockpit to provide enhanced visibility for the guy operating the drones:

It is butt ugly and beautiful at the same time. Yes it should be the winner.

The late maestro of aerodynamic cleanup Roy Lopresti used to make almost any plane about 20 mph faster with aerodynamic cleanup. Homebuilder Kent Paser found 70 mph.

The arm chair aero guy I am I'd love to see someone to see if they could tweak this bird. I know, the utilitarian mission might be in conflict aero fairing etc. But the increase in climb rate and range/loiter time might be impressive.

Check out this book some time...

Lot's of good comments in this thread by knowledgeable folks. A couple more.

1. Be clear that it is/was the Pentagon/AF Brass that didn't like the A-10. AF pilots loved it and embraced its multiple missions. I am occasionally in the company of AF pilot trainees. The A-10 is a sought after assignment these days. F-22 Raptors? not so much. (100% air superiority can get boring while there is still a lot of action at tree level.) (The F-35 is also a sought after assignment and that craft may yet prove its critics very wrong. We'll see.)

2. My dad was the Head Engineering Officer for the 1st Sqd., 2nd Air Commando Group in India/Burma/China in WWII. He and his pilots absolutely loved their P-51’s and would defend it as the best fighter in the war, bar none. Yet, at Squadron reunions over the years, they often spoke about how vulnerable they were in the ground attack role. None of the pilots liked their vulnerability to ground fire. The liquid cooling system was especially a problem. They wished they were in Corsairs or Thunderbolts over the target and in the Mustang all the rest of the time.

Be clear, the “ground game” is a tough environment for airplanes and pilots.

One last thing. The support required for a squadron of piston engine planes was immense. By 1944, Dad's squadron had pallets full of Packard Merlins ready to change out whenever needed. 50-60 hours on a front line aircraft engine was plenty. They never repaired an engine, they just changed them out. As presently composed, our AF is incapable of sustaining anything like that effort. Hence, the explanation for the continued pressure to pursue the (fantasy) idea of efficient cheap easily maintained aircraft in the L.A.S. mode. Congress and money is driving this search, not military needs.

Just my opinion.

Oldplayer

Tank,

I used to work at Ontario Airport (Calif., not Canada). There were two Tigercats that were based there as fire bombers. My office was 100 feet from their service pad.

Fire season was like a 24-hour a day air show to me.

They are BIG airplanes up close.

Thanks for the picture.

Oldplayer

Yet, at Squadron reunions over the years, they often spoke about how vulnerable they were in the ground attack role. None of the pilots liked their vulnerability to ground fire. The liquid cooling system was especially a problem. They wished they were in Corsairs or Thunderbolts over the target and in the Mustang all the rest of the time.

Excellent postings, thank you!

The above is very true, as F-51 pilots found out the hard way during Korea. There's been a long-standing debate out on several of the historic aviation boards about why the F-51 went to Korea while the F-47s stayed home. On one hand there seems to be a correlation between the F-51s being West Coast squadrons while the F-47s (with their higher damage-tolerance air-cooled radial engines) were East Coast - so the USAF went with the shorter logistical tail. OTOH there's some information indicating a more sinister motivation - that the USAF wanted to show the combat obsolescence of propeller-driven aircraft so sent the planes that couldn't take the hits.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.