I salute you for that honest assessment of our government.
Posted on 12/17/2014 7:19:08 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie
The U.S. Air Force has a complicated relationship with its low- and slow-flying A-10 Warthog attack jet. And that’s putting it mildly. The flying branch has tried more than once to retire the ungainly A-10 in favor of speedier planes, only for lawmakers to block the move.
But on at least one occasion, the Air Force actually defended the heavily-armored, gun-armed Warthog from an unlikely challenger—a modern version of the World War II P-51 Mustang that Congress for some reason really loved.
In 1979, Congress demanded the Air Force test out the tiny Piper PA-48 Enforcer light attack plane—a derivative of the then-39-year-old P-51—as cheaper alternative to the A-10, which was brand new at the time. Five years later, the air service put two Enforcers through their paces.
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
P-51’s main vulnerability to ground fire is its liquid cooled engine. Drain the radiator and the engine seizes up. the P-47, Corsair, and Skyraider all had air cooled engines that were famous for still running after losing a cylinder or two and getting the pilot home or to friendly territory.
We sold a lot of the Air Cobras to Ivan. The Center of Gravity is screwed up and they liked to spin.
Nice lines though. Probably the inspiration for a car body or two.
There was a history of that with Douglass products. Navy almost reverted to the SBD in WWII, and the AF also inquired about restarting the A-26 line a couple times.
Then look at the longevity of the A-4, which is still in service with a few countries. Top being Brazil, which operates them from it’s carrier.
Ground attack is all about ordnance on target. The A-10 has it. It's about range and loiter as well. The A-10 has them. We needn't even bring up survivability. If all it comes down to is "cheaper" I'm not onboard because despite what I keep telling my Air Force friends I really do want their pilots to come home in one piece. ;-)
Don’t give me a P-39
It has an engine that’s mounted behind
It will tumble and roll
It will dig a big hole
Oh, don’t give me a P-39
The high intakes and placement behind the wings minimize risk of FOD intake and the plane was designed to survive with either engine blown off.
The anti-FOD design was specifically intended for operations in unimproved areas. The A-10 main gear doors were designed robustly to be mudflaps.
I've had friends that flew Sandys (A-1Es) (RIP Lt Col Valentine) and they loved it but it was old and worn out and it was vulnerable to groundfire. It was a flying dumptruck and could loiter for hours, much longer than a jet. But, that advantage was lost to aerial refuelling capability
I’ve had that happen too. Lend stuff out... it disappears.
I’ve stopped lending my things out, though.
Ivan did prove that in the right hands the Airacobras were utterly vicious opponents in low and mid-altitude dogfights, though. I ‘fly’ an Airacobra-heavy lineup in War Thunder and it’s astounding how many ‘better’ fighters that design can just rape if you’re any good with the plane.
In jr. high, I read and re-read Oklahoma native son Robert Johnson's book Thunderbolt!, along with every other book by any era fighter pilot I could find, and have been a P-47 fan ever since.
Thunderbolt! is a must read if you haven't read it before.
You might also enjoy this interview with him.
Aviation bookmark.
The P-47 cost $85K in 1945. That’s about $550k today. So for the cost of 1 F-22 you could have 800 P-47’s .
No, they insist on calling it a P-51, including the headline. That is derisive!
B-17s are not that big.
Merlin engines? That was the original supply. When the Rolls engines took over, the P-51 took off. Are you saying only the old original Merlin engines made it to Korea?
There’s also a version that can carry twelve people ....
Thanks! That was some info that I was wonderign about. I hadn’t considered refueling.
I salute you for that honest assessment of our government.
1) It burns avgas.
2) It requires far more maintenance hours than an A-10.
3) It carries about half the payload of an A-10.
4) It doesn't carry the GAU-8.
Packard Merlins. Not RR Merlins.
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.