Turboprop Skyraider?

[GregP]

Let's see, anything with lower performance than a jet fighter is meat on the table?



How do you explain the Embraer Tucano, Super Tucano, and ALX? What about the FMA Pucara? And a large desire for aturboprop attack plane today in many air forces? In a dogfight between an Apache attack helicopter and something like a BAE Hawk, which would you pick as a winner? I'd take the Apache any day.

In a very narrow set of circumstances, the jet has a theoretical advantage, particularly if the turboprop has no modern avionics (like a WWII Spitfire). I'm not talking about WWII technology in the turboprop, I'm talking modern avionics and a modern airframe. The turboprop Skyraider would not wonder where the jet fighter was, it would KNOW. And it has missiles and chain guns to boot. Did you READ my description? Or just think of a Skyraider with a turboprop and no technological upgrades?

One could also stick LCD camoflage to the skin and cause the turboprop to dispper to the eye. Wouldn't fool a radar-guided missile, but would fool the pilot of the enemy A/C.

I think you underestimate the capability of a modern turboprop attack plane designed from the outset to handle air-to-ground and air-to-air. But that is just my opinion and it could be wrong. Since we don't seem to HAVE one today anywhere in the world, maybe it IS wrong. Then again, maybe there is an opportunity.

I'm not saying I am right; I put forth an idea for an attack plane with modern avionics along the lines of the Skyraider becasue the Tucano, as good as it is, cannot haul 8,000 pound of ordnance and loiter around with lots on ammunition for suppression. The Tucano can haul about 3,000 pounds and that includes the crew and fuel as well as the ordnance. I'm talking about a plane that can haul itself, the crew, and 5,000 - 6,000 pounds of ordnance in addition to formidable weaponry in the form of both fixed and trainable guns, with avionics as good as a modern jet fighter, or at LEAST generations ahead of a the real Douglas Skyraider, possibly with an internal drone of its own to employ for attack or defense.

I think it is a different animal from a Skyraider or a Spitfire!

[davebender]

The A-10 uses tricycle landing gear. Does that cause problems?

[The Basket]

Any modern turboprop coin aircraft will be more Pucara and less Skyraider.

Bring back the Mosquito I say. Plenty bomb load range and speed. Need to be a twin seater anyways. One to drive and one to shoot.

[GregP]

Re post 32: Not as long as it operates from airstrips.

[davebender]

Long range and high speed are typically not required for CAS.

You want low speed maneuverability to improve accuracy and armor protection against ground fire. You also want a CAS aircraft to be as small a target as possible for enemy soldiers plinking away with rifles and machineguns.

[wuzak]

Long range and high speed are typically not required for CAS.

You want low speed maneuverability to improve accuracy and armor protection against ground fire. You also want a CAS aircraft to be as small a target as possible for enemy soldiers plinking away with rifles and machineguns.

Surely they require endurance = range.

[pinsog]

I believe the phrase everyone is looking for is "long loiter time"

GREGP,
How would that monster turboprop affect the long loiter time of the original Skyraider?

[GregP]

Obvsiously, if you go with one truboprop engine, the loiter time would decease since you must feed it. If you went with two turboprop engines and unconnected contra props, you could shut one down and loiter longer.

I'd probably opt for a single turboprop and add fuel tanks on ordnance stations for loiter, knowing that the guns were fully armed for supression duty and I still had some ordnance for antipersonnel operations.

[davebender]

I agree.

Range doesn't necessarily = endurance as some aircraft have a relatively high economical cruise speed.

[The Basket]

It would have to be a turboprop for fuel availability.

Taking on the Soviet army is different from taking on guerrillas. The Pucara is ideal but didn't do well in the Falklands War.

If your enemy has MANPADs and heavy calibre anti aircraft guns then speed is good. If all your enemy has are bolt action rifles then a cheap Cessna with a machine gun will suffice.

[GregP]

Sell 'em a Cessna!

[FLYBOYJ]

The A-10 uses tricycle landing gear. Does that cause problems?

Not at all. It makes it easier to service and fly.

[davebender]

The AA threat is higher but in either case friendly infantry still need fire support delivered with precision.

[OldManP]

Wow, after singing the praises of the Skyraider for some time now, and telling colleagues the tremendous capabilities of a possible modernized A-1, I have found a haven for my rants/dreams.

If this post is too much, please let me know b/c I have a thousand thoughts on this topic, which generally consumes my daydreaming. As far as an intro goes, I'm familiar with CAS, some light attack, medium/heavy ground attack support, Air to Ground weapons/sensors/capes due to my current job/career.

This idea is incredible and I have written down some ideas for this exact type of forum. Please feel free to contradict me or bash my ideas, it will only allow me to find my own errors and correct them for future debates/arguments.

A-1 Skyraider (turboprop/modernized) ideas:

• Large turboprop (no less than 3000 hp)-mentioned
• Armored engine bay-possibly dragon skin style armor (keep CG close to original)-mentioned
• Internally wing mounted forward firing guns - 2x 30mm M249 Chain guns
• Reduce outer pylon count from 6 pylons to 3 per side-increases spacing/increases load per pylon/allows for larger ordnance
• Keep folding wing capability to reduce ramp space (alway an issue at FOBs)
• Tandem cockpit for pilot/CSO-not my first thought, but incredibly advantageous later
• Dual Sensor loadout- 1x Sniper XR pod on one outer pylon, 1x larger ISR turret internal to rear fuselage that can retract for T/O, Landing/Cruise
• Modernized cockpit with integrated radios/datalinks/HMD (helmet mounted displays)/weaponeering systems
• Lighterweight external fuel pods on centerline and two inner pylons - capable of 10000lb gas load excluding internal tank
• Centerline tank removeable and trainable 1x M249 30mm chain gun - slaved to either sensor, selectable to pilot or CSO helmet
• Speed/Dive Brakes- Same three as classic Skyraider except bottom one size reduction to give way to High Definition ISR turret
• Pressurized cockpit - Also utilizing OBOGS
• IR countermeasures
• RWR - for SA and threat reduction

That is a brief list of ideas. I have a more involved list concerning countermeasures, weapons and capabilities, positive arguments for almost all areas, and defenses for those as well.

Ideas mentioned already in thread that were contradictory or possibly disadvantageous to my proposal. Tricycle gear - Yes, this would be an incredible advantage, as I currently fly a trailing-link tricycle gear that performs great on semi-prepped runways. Changing the gear design would add additional complications to aircraft design, not to mention, lower the nose--leading to a need for a small prop or an extremely tall landing gear. 5000-6000 hp, I personally would love this much power, but by adding this many ponies requires a larger rudder to additional technologies which would require computers and/or a heavy right boot when the computer failed/damaged. A smaller power plant closer to the original output would be enough for a modern skyraider and the turboprop aspect would give it greater performance up high for cruise and loiter. I know, I know--someone will tell me that you can do CAS from 25K', but you can climb and hang out up there sipping gas, waiting for a call, and then dive with a vengeance to glory.

The trainable 30mm on centerline could/would be used for firing while on orbit (similar to AC-130), for immediate-to-instantaneous firing capability. The gun would have auto-cutout capability if the gun was firing and manuevering the aircraft put the prop arc in between the gun and target. This situation would really only present itself in the act of engaging ground targets while aligning the aircraft for a forward firing shot--easily prevented with coordination between pilot and CSO While the other ordnance would allow for a larger weapons employment when rolling off orbit following a request from JTAC/FSO. Also, off-axis/forward firing weapons are an option and should be considered. Radios and datalinks would need to be siginificant and robust, which shouldn't be a challenge and should even be hundreds of pounds lighter than original radios and electronics.

CSO = Combat Systems Officer

Realistically, the glory of this platform is in the support in the CAS role. Objectively this aircraft would end up spending more hours filling and ISR roll than shooting bad guys. For this reason, an additional pylon on each side would be wet to provide another 600 lbs of gas to the loadout. Minimizing ordnance would reduce the drag, leaving the aircraft additional flight time. I do enjoy the idea of the prop brake though!! Great for hot gas/hot reloads at a FOB--minimizing turn time in a combat situation.
Also, re-engineering of the wing with modern materials is a must. Book/internet has told me that the original was only rated to carry less than 10000 lbs under the wings--not acceptable. If the original max gross T/O weight was kept at 25K lbs for the modernized aircraft, and the empty weight could be reduced by 2K-3k lbs b/c of modernized avionics/engine, the wing would need to allow for probably 15K capacity. Does not seem improbably with today's alloys/composites--I should probably get out my old excel files from Aerospace engineering to analyze wing loading!!

Anyone else want to talk again about this platform??? I welcome a healthy and educational discussion at all hours of the day!!

OMP

[OldManP]

My apologies, M230 30mm chain gun in every place i mentioned M249. I understand the M249 is a SAW, I simply incorrectly typed the nomenclature...that's what happens when you're tired while working multiple projects!!!