Posted on 10/25/2010 9:06:30 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Irregular warfare offers new role for propeller driven aircraft
By Stephen Trimble
Bringing back the propeller-driven fighter in the age of counterinsurgency may seem to some a belated no-brainer or to others a wasteful diversion with potentially suicidal risk to the pilot.
As late as early 2008, the leadership of the US Air Force sided firmly with the sceptics. Lt Gen Donald Hoffman, then the USAF's top-ranking acquisition official, implied to a group of reporters in April of that year that the idea of deploying propeller-driven aircraft in modern combat is too risky.
"We can rebuild the [North American] P-51 - great airplane," said Hoffman, citing the propeller-driven Second World War fighter. Then, however, the former Lockheed Martin F-16 pilot pointed at each of the journalists. "All we need is you, you, you and you to go fly it into the threat zone," he said.
The Second World War P-51: a template for a modern-day propeller-driven fighter? Picture: Staff Sgt Jeremy Smith/US Air Force
Propeller-driven aircraft fly lower and slower than fast jets such as the F-16, and carry less cockpit armour than the "titanium bathtubs" surrounding pilots in the Fairchild A-10 or the Boeing AH-64 Apache.
It is this combination that drove the type out of the USAF inventory immediately after the Vietnam war, with the retirements of the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, the Cessna O-2 Skymaster and the de Havilland C-7 Caribou.
Paradoxically, however, the propeller-driven aircraft's ability to fly low and slow for long periods is responsible for a rebirth of enthusiasm within the USAF since shortly after Hoffman made his remarks about reintroducing the P-51.
The USAF leadership's position on the light attack mission would quickly
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
What's the HP rating on that? It just doesn't look right, though.
The P&W radial engines like the one in the P47 had turbosuperchargers and water injection (2,535 horsepower). Some planes designed for shooting down buzz bombs had 2800 h.p. I imagine that today we could come up with something just as good or better.
Douglas A2D Skyshark Wikipedia page
"Powerplant: 1× Allison XT-40-A-2 turboprop, 5,100 shp (3,800 kW)" And this was in 1950...
The Allison T56 Turboprop used on the C-130, P-3, E-2 and C-2 develops in the neighborhood of 4,000 HP.
T56 weighs just under 2,000 lbs, while the Wright R3350 of the A1 Skyraider produced 2,700 HP while weighing over 2,600 lbs.
My SIL works for Allison which is now part of Rolls Royce.
Most native Americans are.
Interesting thanks for posting
lol...True!
Yes,indeed.Big Frank Valesh was the pilot in the 100th bombgroup and my hero till this day.I work on B-17s these days and have since I was a young teenager.I got old before my time hanging out with a bunch of old curmudgeons and now I am one.Just paying it forward.LOL
"Engine development problems delayed the first flight until 26 May 1950, made at Muroc by George Jansen. Allison failed to deliver a "production" engine until 1953, and while testing an XA2D with that engine, test pilot C. G. "Doc" Livingston pulled out of a dive and was surprised by a loud noise and pitch up. His windscreen was covered with oil and the chase pilot told Livingston that the propellers were gone. The gearbox had failed. Livingston successfully landed the airplane."
Lousy counter-rotating prop gearboxes...
A2D Skyshark on static display at Idaho Falls Regional Airport.
My brother works for RR/Allison in Indianapolis.
He has a stressful job (stress analysis).
Depending on the source the Mustang was about $10K to $30K less or 20 to 60%, which makes sense as most machinery is almost a linear cost function to weight. One of great selling points of the Mustang was ease of manufacture and cost. Hey it 2 less guns, right?
The Thunderbolt would have been clearly a better choice, but I think that the politics may have involved money as well as other factors.
Interesting, but how does something this slow protect itself from shoulder fired rockets or missles? Sure kevlar/ceramic plating may protect the crew from small to medium arms fire, but a turbo prop I would think would be toast if facing any sort of mobile rocket or missle attack.
Maybe I’m wrong... but I’m having a hard time seeing the need for a turbo prop fighter.
Not too many Forts left but I understand there is one being rebuilt in Urbana, Ohio and one in Batavia, Ohio.
I used to belong to the Yankee Air Force in Belleville, Michigan before their big fire.
Wish I could be polishing a wing right now!
Where is your favorite Fort?
Dave Tallichets Memphis Belle(movie bird).Was a blast flying her back in the day.Saw the boys at Yankee a few months back.Great bunch of guys like ole Norm Ellison.
They won’t survive energy weapons aimed from the stands!
I believe you missed the point.
When all else fails, after it fails- low tech wins.
Place your bet. Think Afghanistan.
They won’t survive energy weapons aimed from the stands!
I believe you missed the point.
When all else fails, after it fails- low tech wins.
Place your bet. Think Afghanistan.
Strafing runs in Holland were often referred to as "rhubarb runs". The Jugs flew so low they mowed the rhubarb fields.
If the bad guys are comin’ over the wire send me anything
you got,,,
If I get a choice send me Mr. Spooky,,,
Spooky 13 stayed over us till first light(5 hrs. Tet ‘68)
I’ll never forget the roar of those guns...
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.