Post-WarDiscuss Douglas Skyraider.... in the Other Eras forums; Considering that they planned to bring the AD back into production back in the day, they didn't only because it ...
Considering that they planned to bring the AD back into production back in the day, they didn't only because it would have cost too much. How well does the Skyraider stand with other attack aircraft after WWII and how would she fair today, in air to ground combat?
Jan "Felicis Tredecim"
"I´m going back to the front to relax"
"THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT"
"Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!"
"When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"
In my humble opinion, the SkyRaider was the ultimate piston-engined grouud attack aircraft. A formidably strong airframe - very adaptable, a great engine, great range/loiter time, lots of payload.
The SkyShark, Douglas's effort to take the Spad into the jet-age would have been successful if Allison had developed a successful counter-rotating turbo prop engine. The SkyShark was actually twin-engined (2 smallish turbos) mounted side-by-side in the mid-section of the airframe (would it have had the flight characteristics of the P-39/P-63 ??)
Having said all these glorious things about the Spad, could it do anything, handle any situation that the current WartHog Thunderbolt II does? (except hand on an aircraft carrier?
The Able Dog was a fine airplane in it's day but probably not a match for the A10. I would not be surprised if the A10 could be modified for carrier use.
A piston engine a/c would never make sense now because of the high maintenance cost, and removal of AVGAS from the logistics system of the military long ago.
In its last combat use, in 1974-75 by the RVNAF the Skyraider proved highly vulnerable to shoulder launched SAM's. The uncooled Lead-sulphide type IR seekers like Strela/SA-7 really liked the hot exhaust pipes of prop planes, and the kinematically limited missile could much more easily catch them than a jet. The A-1 went out with a wimper rather than a bang in that respect.
Nowadays the A-10, those upgraded to the A-10C standard capable of carrying JDAM, full targetting pod functionality and so forth, are not nearly as handicapped in the modern close support role as they were until then, but nothing really outstanding either. They are paid-for airframes, not especially expensive to run, that's their main practical advantage nowadays. But I don't see any reason nor have any expectation though that a similar a/c would be built new; there's no real need. I know that might divert the debate along a tangent about the A-10, but if you view the A-10 realistically it's all the more reason you wouldn't bring back an a/c like the A-1.
The real alternatives to fast jets in ground attack are UAV's, where you cut cost through very high utilization rate (plane in the air for many hours or whole day at a time then right back out after you refuel it) or a/c that are *really* a lot cheaper to buy and run than a fast jet, like a converted trainer or even converted ag-aircraft, not an A-1/A-10 type a/c.
would the maintainance hours on a single engined A1 be more than a twin engined plane like the Pucura?
Way more, if you're talking about literally the A-1's R-3350 18 cyl. radial engine, v comparatively very low maintenance modern turboprop engines as on a Pucara, not to mention a single engine turbine plane. At today's labor costs in a first world AF, maintaining the A-1's engine is out of the question, plus again gasoline is now a special item in military logistics (though Predator A does have a simple Rotax gasoline engine, the Army's Warrior version uses a diesel engine for just the logistical reasons mentioned; the larger Predator B/Reaper are turbine). The question should probably assume you re-engine the A-1 with a turbine; then I still don't see a compelling reason for such a plane, but actually bringing back the A-1 engine and all is just not realistic at all, IMO.
Way more, if you're talking about literally the A-1's R-3350 18 cyl. radial engine, v comparatively very low maintenance modern turboprop engines as on a Pucara, not to mention a single engine turbine plane. At today's labor costs in a first world AF, maintaining the A-1's engine is out of the question, plus again gasoline is now a special item in military logistics (though Predator A does have a simple Rotax gasoline engine, the Army's Warrior version uses a diesel engine for just the logistical reasons mentioned; the larger Predator B/Reaper are turbine). The question should probably assume you re-engine the A-1 with a turbine; then I still don't see a compelling reason for such a plane, but actually bringing back the A-1 engine and all is just not realistic at all, IMO.
Joe
AND - its a taildragger. More training, higher accident rates, etc.
Just for information, I went to school in around 1958 with a former Marine pilot who told of practise missions in ADs, long flights, many hours at low altitudes, under the radar, to deliver nuclear bombs.
Just for information, I went to school in around 1958 with a former Marine pilot who told of practise missions in ADs, long flights, many hours at low altitudes, under the radar, to deliver nuclear bombs.
"...Just for information, I went to school in around 1958 with a former Marine pilot who told of practise missions in ADs, long flights, many hours at low altitudes, under the radar, to deliver nuclear bombs.."
Yes, back then every platform was being explored to fly low, climb hard, "toss" a bomb and run like hell. Some years ago I read a similar account on the Internet --- what I found even more interesting was that on really long range operations the AD ran the risk of running dry on oil - fuel wasn't the concern, lubricating oil was.
Can anyone comment on the oil consumption of large radials ...?
I have always heard that the limiting factor on an AD's range was oil consumption rather than gas. Probably depends on load and other factors though. If memory serves the AD carried 38 gallons of oil. A story goes that a pilot unused to the AD was watching a tank truck pumping fluid into an AD and told the ground crew that where the truck was pumping was not where the gas went and was told that they were pumping oil not gas. In my recollection of my Marine friend's story, I did not mention how long the mission was or what altitude because I was afraid my memory was poor but I seem to remember 8 hours and under 500 feet. Another interesting at least to me tidbit is that the US carriers during the Korean war had no arrangements for two types of fuel and since the majority of the AC were F4Us and ADs and they could not burn jet fuel, the jets used 100 octane AvGas. The lead in the fuel caused white deposits in the jet engines.
Douglas Skyraider.... 
Originally Posted by comiso90
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks