Modernized/Turboprop Skyraider

[OldManP]

Greetings everyone in the Modern forum.

It was suggested to move the following thread to here. I can't move it, but the link below leads you to the discussion found in the WWII aviation section.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/turboprop-skyraider-32509.html

So this thread is/will be used to continue the discussion of a modernized/turboprop skyraider. Please read through the previous posts and include any ideas/thoughts/suggestions that may be relevant.

Note: This discussion will not take into account necessarily the acquisition/approval process via congress/budgeting, but feel free to make comments concerns costs and ramifications of costs which would be beneficial where applicable.

This is a thought of many, dream of few, and if i hit the Megajackpot, a necessary evil goal. Perhaps if Boeing gave me the aircraft construction drawings/schematics i might work on it for 35 years and then propose it...or quit my job and work on this in a dark basement denying my physical health until the project is complete.

Let's continue this wonderful discussion!!

 

[OldManP]

Alrighty, well since no one responsded. I figured I'd propose the subject of new organic cannons for a modernized skyraider. Rather than having the 4x 20mm cannons, I think 2x 30x113mm cannons fixed internally to the wings would provide sufficient cyclic rates and additional firepower due to the different round types (HEI, SAPHEI). Additional cannon(s) could be loaded on pylons, but the reliability of a modern gun compared to the older models would increase capability and reduce weight.

There are some other modern weapons that would suffice, like the M197 (Gatling 20mm), or some other 20mm/30mm. The M230 was chosen b/c it is utilized on Apaches and ammo is in production.

Any takers on this first issue/improvement?

 

[tyrodtom]

I'm surprized no one has mentioned the A2D Skyshark, you can't call it just a up engined A1, but when you look at the two aicraft's profiles, you can see the A1's roots in the A2D design.

And it does show what the A1 could do with a 5000hp turboprop.

 

[OldManP]

I thought we mentioned that in the last thread. If not, I think the general consensus is that the A2D was pretty much a failure, especially with the design of the powerplant/integration using the gearbox(es). So in order to facilitate a quality discussion, I think we'd fall back on the A-1 airframe, with the idea of a turboprop using a new gearbox design. But yes, I would agree...5K-6K hp motor would be feasible.

 

[tyrodtom]

You're right, the A2D was mentioned in the first post. I checked every post but the first one evidently.

I see that they blame it's problems on the counter rotating props. Couldn't modern technology come up with a better CR prop instead of going to some sort of electronic stability control, electronics always seem to fail right when you need them the most.

 

[OldManP]

I have a few ideas of my own when it coming to countering p-factor/left turning tendencies in an application such as this, but some may be unorthodox. The implementation could be considered less important than the application of an actual quality turboprop. If anyone want me to go into details we can, but if not, we can continue with any discussions of interest.

On the idea of a CR setup, this may be a possibility, but weight/complications should be considered against single prop designs as well. Not too many CR props around these days, which poses an issue for quality choices, but I'm all about function over form...just has to function though

 

[OldManP]

Well, I figured many won't go back and read the previous thread, so here are some of the ideas I proposed. Please feel free to add any ideas or transpose any from the previous forum!! Just trying to spur coversation.

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

 

[tyrodtom]

I question how useful trainible guns would be with the view either person would have from the cockpit. You don't have the view down and forward in a single engine prop aircraft like you would in a helicopter, jet, or twin.
Unless those guns could be slaved to dropable sensors, and maybe that's where you're going.

 

[OldManP]

This is general perspective, using a sensor that a trainable gun would be slaved to. This is how the Apache/Cobra works and possibly a few other airframes. My proposal would be to utilize two separate sensors, an ISR turret that descend from the fuselage and a targeting pod that is on one of the pylon stations. This would provide the best mixed of sensors, allow both crew members a sensor when needed, and allow the CSO the choice of best sensor for a particular weapons employment scenario. The ISR turret (Raytheon/Wescam/etc) would be ample for visual acquisition but the Targeting pod provide a few different capabilities, and its location would not be centerline; therefore giving it the opportunity to be utilized when firing on-boresight munitions. The ISR style turret could be used while holding overhead/orbit or when using off-boreshight weapons. Switches in the cockpit would give the CSO the option of slaving the sensor to a trainable gun or to slew at will, without moving the gun until needed (keeping the drag profile to a minimum until when needed). Also, the sensor/gun combo could be slaved to a helmet mounted display to either pilot or CSO, freeing up hands for other useful tasks. The capability of sensors right now are amazing, and coined with today's computer power, the possibilities are almost endless.

Realize, the trainable gun would probably only be utilized when transit distances are not very far. This would be the case b/c a centerline, trainable weapon would have to replace a centerline fuel station, reducing flight and coverage time overhead friendlies or an objective. The tradeoff is instantaneous fire support from overhead friendly position, reducing the time/need for larger weapons based on growing enemy threat. Stopping an enemy course of action before it grows too large would be a huge advantage, especially if a call for fire was readily capable from a small/agile platform.

 

[OldManP]

Anyone got any ideas/thoughts on crew complement? I know a large portion of the Skyraiders had a single pilot, and many had additional crew positions when the "Fat Face" came out. Correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't the additional crew positions observers and EW operators? I know there were cockpit designs for 2, 3, and 4 place setups. Anyone have anymore information about the exact capabilities of the crew members other than the pilot?

I thought today's crew compliment would be good using a Pilot and Combat Systems Operator (CSO). If you're not familiar, CSO is the new term for those who go through Navigator training, but instead of going through the final Nav portion of training, receive different styles of training other than Nav-centric curriculum. There can be a variety of things covered in the syllabus, but nonetheless, they are/would be a great asset to have in the crew, especially if EO/IR sensor and other capabilities are on-board. I think the seating arrangement would be better served in tandem, rather than side-by-side like the A-1E.

Anyone want to weight in?

OMP

 

[tyrodtom]

The A1E ( I guess that's what you mean by flat face) had a absolutely enormouse fuselage. It had doors to what the Navy used for their ECW operator, and all his bulky 1950's era ECW equipment. I looked in that compartment in the USAF's version empty of most equipment. I was told it could hold up to 12 people.

I don't know if that was true or not, I certainly wouldn't want to get in that compartment with 11 other guys.

 

[OldManP]

Yes, I was referencing the A-1E. And I agree, would not want to be in there with 11 other dudes...cramped is the best way I could think of it.

I'll want to take a look in person of an A-1H or J model next to and E model, in person, just to physically compare. I see the E model quite often, but never next to a different model (b/c it's a display aircraft). This type of space would be an incredible luxury when it comes to gas tanks, equipment, and possibly even light cargo. I read that one model could carry a pallet of some sort and with the wings folded up, a hoist could be attached to the wingtips to removed said cargo up and out of the fuselage. Ingenious design!

On that note though, somewhere between the original E and H model widths would give the crew a decent amount of room for controls/equipment, while also giving them quality visibility. Granted, the visibility straight down isn't superb, but better if both crew members could look down or out from either side, rather than only being able to see out one side, like the side-by-side placement allows.

Ejection seats might take up some additional space, but should be negligible when considering the entire airframe.

Does anyone have schematics/drawings/cutaway pictures of the internals of an A-1E?? I've seen some for the single pilot aircraft models, but none that shows how everything fits together in the multi-place E model....I'd loved to find some though!

OMP

 

[tyrodtom]

The A1s I was familiar with during the Vietnam era had ejection seats, but of a different varity.
The best description I can give is a rocket pulling the seat out with a big bungee strap. Doesn't sound too elegant, but they worked. I don't know if they were 0-0 capable or not.

 

[OldManP]

I'm all about the 0/0 seats. Having a good seat puts your mind at ease in situations that you need to be worrying about other things. There was a pilot training patch years ago for the T-6 that said, "If you can't Fly Hawker-Beech, Fly Martin-Baker!" I never took this under consideration until flying an aircraft without an ejection seat, in areas I wish i had one.

Good engine, reliable aircraft, slow approach speeds, good instruments, and a good ejection seat would be a great setup for a CAS/ISR/SCAR/Light-Medium Attack aircraft.

 

[OldManP]

Also would like to add the possibility of Leading Edge slats, Leading edge anti-ice, and conformal antenna winglets. Conformal antennas seem to be greatly overlooked as a place to save weight and do double duty in an aircraft skin/structure. LE Slats could be hydraulic (with added weight), or automatic similar to the AN-2 Colt, which extends the slats when under a specific airspeed. This could reduce the TOLD necessary for Forward Operating Base (FOB) usage.

 

[jim]

Mr Oldman P
What about of using AM-1Mauler as development base ? Much faster, greater loading capability, and the modern control systems could correct its landing bahavior

 

[OldManP]

Why not...? Well, i got nothing, that sounds like a very interesting idea. I am not familiar with the Mauler, so I will do some research. Cursory reading shows very interesting promise!! Thanks for the tip!!! I'll check it out and report back...over 10K lbs useful load looks awesome. Thanks!

OMP

 

[OldManP]

Well if anyone has any cool ideas, feel free to post. I have a lot, but i'm sure y'all doing want to hear me ramble. I'm going away on business for a bit, but i should be able to get access periodically. Keep up the brainstorming, i got my friends hooked on this idea, could be an awesome aircraft!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Good info - don't forget a tri cycle landing gear!

 

[OldManP]

Is this thread dead...looks like it's been almost 9 months since I posted last. Well BAM! here it comes again. I think I'm about to write a paper about some COIN/CAS Aviation subjects and may interject the trusty ole A-1 turboprop dream into it for kicks.

As for trike gear, I've been thinking. Tricycle gear would decrease training, increase safety, but decrease possible prop size based on distance for ground clearance. I think the latter two subjects are notable since safety is always being scrutinized and ground clearance would reduce prop size, reducing efficiency.

Here's a thought, I work with "some people" and they have a unique ability of producing aircraft in small number with unique capabilities. I dream about re-engineering the structural portions of the airframe in order to increase weight bearing and g-limitations while reducing weight for additional equipment. if this could be produced in small numbers, flown by experienced and highly trained individuals, a large "acceptance factor" of big blue (large Air Force) leaders wouldn't be necessary. This could mitigate the risk/fear of tail-draggers while keeping safety as the forefront with experience crewmembers.

I'm not too sure if I mentioned it earlier, and I'm too lazy to reread the entire thread (I know it's only 2 pages!), but I think if the E model was used and re-engineered to have a 2 seat tandem cockpit, that would provide ample room for necessary equipment, without cramping the crewmembers. Engineers rarely think about the aircrew and little more space up there would be nice on long missions...Also in addition to the standard E model attributes I would add the speed/dive brakes back to the airframe if at all possible. This would give a tactical advantage for operating at higher altitudes and then engaging ground targets with forward firing munitions (rockets/missiles). The obvious upgrades would be radios, datalinks, sensors, increased weight capacity, engine...

someone pony up some good ideas! i'm still pumped about this pipeline dream that will never happen!!!