# Modernized/Turboprop Skyraider



## OldManP (Oct 16, 2012)

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 (Oct 17, 2012)

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 (Oct 17, 2012)

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 (Oct 17, 2012)

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 (Oct 17, 2012)

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 (Oct 17, 2012)

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 (Oct 17, 2012)

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 (Oct 17, 2012)

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 (Oct 18, 2012)

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 (Oct 21, 2012)

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 (Oct 21, 2012)

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 (Oct 21, 2012)

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 (Oct 21, 2012)

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 (Oct 21, 2012)

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 (Oct 21, 2012)

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 (Oct 22, 2012)

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 (Oct 22, 2012)

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 (Dec 8, 2012)

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 (Dec 8, 2012)

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


----------



## OldManP (May 31, 2013)

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!!!


----------



## yulzari (Jun 1, 2013)

Things change as technology changes. There is a good reason why even A10s release smart bombs from many thousands of feet. The Skyraider always needed air superiority (like WW2 dive bombers) but these days low level light A/A weapons (heavy machine guns, cannon and shoulder type missiles put any aeroplane at risk at low levels.

It was a wonderful COIN bomber but now air defence rules it out, except against the most primitively armed ground forces. Modern attack helicopters rely on minimum exposure, suppressive fire and armour as a last resort in order to survive. A Skyraider, no matter how updated, cannot compete on minimum exposure and suppressive fire. It's day has gone. 

Air Forces that need a COIN type against lightly armed ground forces (eg drugs gangs) will choose the cheaper armed trainer with turbo prop engines or light jet trainers. No longer can you empty crates of mortar bombs out of Twin Pioneers or use Shackletons as bombers as was done in the Radfan in the 1960s.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 5, 2013)

How's that for a buzzkill, OldMan?


----------



## OldManP (Jun 28, 2013)

I do love a solid buzzkill, there's nothing I love more in this forum. Only because I think I have arguments to counter. When the day my answers run out, I'm sure I'll be upset. 

I would argue that A-10s release smart bombs at altitude because of tactics, deconfliction, and (I agree) the threat envelop. A-10 pilots still practice delivering dumb bombs, but current tactics require low CDE engagements in order to reduce collateral damage, so smart bombs are the first way this is possible. By increasing accuracy and restricting ordnance size, collateral damage and CDE can be reduced. "Smart bombs" don't generally lend themselves to low attack profiles, so I would say a modernized Skyraider would do the same. The A-10s still practice (and employ) utilizing their gun, which must be in the generic surface to air envelop, as would the A-1. This issue is not always the first resort, but nevertheless a logical one when the threat is low. So, in order to utilize weapons of this nature, or fly lower profiles needed for terrain masking (on infil or exfil or radar evasion), a proper LAIRCM with flares, ALQ pod, and chaff should provide the needed threat avoidance for most shoulder launched SAs. Aircrews are briefed about threats before they fly and employ tactics needed to minimize the threat and maximize their success...with this being said, I am not advocating low level engagements in a high threat SA environment, at least with radar guided SA capability. 
With the advent of sensor pods in both fighter/attack aircraft and ISR platforms, the former route recce and enemy identification that required <5000ft AGL flights are now performed from much higher altitudes. This allows positive identification,while remaining outside most threat envelops. This is not to say that A-10s now (and a modernized skyraider) won't fly low in order to accomplish their mission, it simply affords them different opportunities that were not available in the past. 
On the order of comparison to helos, an A-1 employed at altitude with a modern turboprop reinforced with modern armor around the cockpit and engine could serve as well or much better than a helo in the same threat envelop. The mission requirements and execution would be performed differently, but the A-1 would be faster, have a more difficult IR signature to lock onto, and be more maneuverable in addition to having the capability of carrying an EW jamming pod like other modern aircraft carry.
Concerning your last argument, we will alway need ground support aircraft. As an Air Force, this requirement is not clear, but the requirement whether unwritten or unstated remains. Yes drug lords do not often employ the greatest firepower, but neither does the enemy in every sector of a major battle. In the areas that superior firepower exists, superior fighter aircraft will be used to exploit it and suppress it.

This drives me to another point which I did not mention when I started this thread. I didn't want to get into the weeds of my thinking, since I didn't want to stifle or stovepipe discussion, but...Let us think in terms of specialized use by a highly trained individual. I'm not talking about standard US military pilots. I'd like to think in terms of a modernized skyraider in limited number (1 squadron) used to support Special Operation Forces. This stems from several things that I won't bring up here, but originally used by Air Commando Squadron and Special Operations Squadrons in Vietnam. Granted, they were used for Sandy's, but they offered on-call persistent support for small teams of SOF. A modernized skyraider would (could) be developed to operate with minimal footprint (unorthodox in today's Air Force but it is happening as I type) of logistics, maintenance, and aircrew, while being placed in direct support of SOF. This forward deployed unit would be capable of supporting multiple facets of the mission while supporting a ground user and reducing transit and response time. If you'd like more clarification/thoughts/philosophy on this, I can try to go into more detail. BLATE (Bottom line at the end): a modernized, flexible ground support aircraft with high loading capability and the ability to employ an array of ordnance from surface to approx 30K' would greatly increase SOF sustainability, flexibility, and survivability.

OMP


----------



## yulzari (Jun 28, 2013)

Hmm. So, if it is to support special forces away from normal support, I wonder if the Gannet, or at least the Double Napier Mamba could be a model? With 1950's technology it had a 6 hour cruise but modern turboprops should enable it to loiter much longer on one engine. Folding wings are a godsend if you are looking to shelter it in a civilian hanger.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 28, 2013)

I like the idea, but I believe a better option was out there: the amazing Piper PA-48 Enforcer ! 

A much evolved turboprop variant of the P-51. Great range and payload. Protected by ceramic armour.






Kris


----------



## OldManP (Jun 28, 2013)

So I might agree with the Piper, but I think the ability to (re)develop an aircraft that already had augementation for a single seat and a vrew style aircraft is favorable. THe Piper appears to have limited real estate if one wanted to include additional crew members at a later date. Also, if current designers would look at the A-1 as an example of fileding a workable platform and them altering it to fit their mission set, like the C-130, then the procurement and acquisition process could be shortened, deliver a product then build additional airframes for different missions. This would differ from the current production style of trying to fit each platform with the abilities to perform all mission sets prior to production. Exampole would be A-1 or C-130 v. F/A-35 and F/A-22.


----------



## OldManP (Jun 29, 2013)

I don't remember if I added this in the past forum, but I think I neglected to add it to this forum because I wanted y'all's opinion prior to showing ya this (even though some of ya may have seen it)

Greg Plummer's Model Cars and More

If you click on the pictures of the turboprop skyraider, it almost embodies what I've been thinking about. I found the site after googling several things I was wondering about. Seem differences I would change compared to the model seen @ that site: 1) keep the folding wing concept, 2) add a second seat, 3) use leading edge anti-ice boots, and 4) keep 2x internally mounted 30x113mm cannons (1/wing). Also, if the tip tanks were removeable and oculd be replaced with something of the AIM-9X persuasion for contested airspace A/A enemies, the transformability would pay off. Tip tanks would be nice for long transits or ferrying. 

Things I do like: 1) CG might not change b/c the more forward engine is also ~1K lbs lighter and 2) the exhaust leaving the fuselage above the wings. I think that has some key tactical advantages.

OldManP


----------



## OldManP (Apr 19, 2014)

Maybe I'd get a better response elsewhere, but does anyone know the size of external fuel tanks that were used on the A-1? I have seen a diagram with 275 gallon tanks, but the tanks on some photos look much larger (especially the pictures of the A-1 used as an aerial-refueling tanker). 

Thanks.

P.S. With the A-10s possibly going away, and the F-35 never able to fill the A-10s role--sounds like a great time to dream a bit and get a better medium-attack, medium ISR platform like the A-1K model!

OMP


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2014)

OldManP said:


> P.S. With the A-10s possibly going away, and the F-35 never able to fill the A-10s role--sounds like a great time to dream a bit and get a better medium-attack, medium ISR platform like the A-1K model!
> 
> OMP



Just make sure it's not a tail dragger


----------



## OldManP (Apr 19, 2014)

Not a fan of the conventional gear? But they're so beautiful, majestic, and rare these days...much like quality leaders, both in politics and the military--but I digress.

Are tail draggers that much less desirable to everyone?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2014)

OldManP said:


> Not a fan of the conventional gear? But they're so beautiful, majestic, and rare these days...much like quality leaders, both in politics and the military--but I digress.
> 
> Are tail draggers that much less desirable to everyone?



YES - at least to those running almost every modern air force.


----------



## OldManP (Apr 19, 2014)

Agreed, except I wouldn't say I agree with how the AF is currently being ran... Many AF personnel may feel the same way by the number of people requesting volunteer separation. I also wouldn't say leadership direction always has the best knowledge of the way ahead, nor of its need and actual requirements. Lots of influences at the top, while there's lot of hard working souls at the bottom--and below them a lot good men on the ground that need protecting.

So...was 300 gallons the right answer on external fuel tanks?!


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 20, 2014)

Regarding tail-draggers...

There's nothing wrong with 'em, nearly every legendary fighter of WWII was a T/D and nearly every legendary pilot of that war flew one.

If they brought back the Skyraider, the training routing would certainly cover the aspects of hauling yourself across the ramp by your arse, just like they taught them "back in the day"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Regarding tail-draggers...
> 
> There's nothing wrong with 'em, nearly every legendary fighter of WWII was a T/D and nearly every legendary pilot of that war flew one.
> 
> If they brought back the Skyraider, the training routing would certainly cover the aspects of hauling yourself across the ramp by your arse, just like they taught them "back in the day"


I could tell you that the USAF (and probably the USN) wants nothing to do with them - more training and higher probability of accidents. When was the last time a modern combat tail dragger was produced and operated by a modern air force?

I'm not at liberty to go into details but a "tail dragger type aircraft" was operated by a branch of our military in a training capacity for a short period of time. After a few ground loops and runway departures, these aircraft disappeared very quickly.


----------



## RpR (Apr 21, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm not at liberty to go into details but a "tail dragger type aircraft" was operated by a branch of our military in a training capacity for a short period of time. After a few ground loops and runway departures, these aircraft disappeared very quickly.


Is that the fault of the aircraft or a pilot who is not as good as he thinks he is.

Question.
Beyond the fact they do not produce them and parts are not there, in what way are turbine engines better than piston engines for a COIN type aircraft.

Air-cooled radials showed they were far superior to water-cooled vee engines for ground attack; would not turbine engines suffer from similar weaknesses to flak as water-cooled engines suffered.
Not literally the same but if a turbine take a hit, it usually stops working just as a water-cooled engine taking a hit to its coolant was running on borrowed time.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 21, 2014)

It wouldn't be impossible to redesign the wing structure of a A1 for a nose wheel type landing gear, plus they'd have to rearrange some components in the forward fuselage for the nose wheel. 
Sort of like the T-28 on steroids.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could tell you that the USAF (and probably the USN) wants nothing to do with them - more training and higher probability of accidents ... After a few ground loops and runway departures, these aircraft disappeared very quickly.


My thoughts were along the lines that if a global war was once fought with virtually all trail-draggers (there were several fighter types with a nosegear assembly, yes...but a small percentage in contrast to the majority of tailwheel equipped types), then it would be safe to assume this is not a lost art. As mentioned, it would take additional training and even back in the war years, there were accidents with tail-gear qualified pilots.

It would certainly be interesting to see how an A-1 would handle GA in this day and age, that's for sure.



BobR said:


> ...but if a turbine take a hit, it usually stops working just as a water-cooled engine taking a hit to its coolant was running on borrowed time.


Even a radial would come apart if hit in the right area or with a large enough shell. The P-47 was able to make it back home with half the engine blown apart once in a while, but many more did not.

You can armor-plate the cowling (as was done in many instances - various types) but now you're taking a penalty for the additional weight. if you want to make the engine completely immune to enemy fire, you would be better off putting tracks on it and attacking the enemy from the ground.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2014)

BobR said:


> Is that the fault of the aircraft or a pilot who is not as good as he thinks he is.


Pilot who never received proper tail wheel training.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2014)

When designing aircraft, you want to build in features that mitigates risk. No matter how you slice it, there is more risk for accidents in a tail dragger than there is an aircraft with conventional landing gear. Multiply that with a multi-million dollar aircraft carrying a horde of bombs and you want basic operation as risk free as possible.


----------



## RpR (Apr 22, 2014)

I read recently that when British Spitfire pilots started flying U.S. aircraft they had to be re-educated NOT to do a perfect three-point landing as that was a good way to do a ground-loop in U.S. aircraft.

If pilots can learn to do carrier landings in miserable weather, it should not be that hard to learn how to land an aircraft with tail wheels.

I am sure there are enough surviving T-6 Texans, the real one not the new wannabe, that training could be done.

_A bit off topic but not really when speaking of expense and safety._
Flyboy while your logic makes sense, what does not make sense, and leading journals of aviation have mentioned and said the military is aware of this, are aircraft that rely on digital systems that not can, but will be made useless by an EMP.
The new F-35 will simply fall out of the air and it has been shown that a nuclear (it has been written also that non-nuclear emp weapons are being developed) warhead at high altitude covers thousands of square miles in area for an effective radius.
The Mig-25 had vacuum tubes because vacuum tubes can be reset to function, if need be, after being hit by an emp, i.e. it could take a licking and keep on ticking.


----------



## OldManP (Apr 22, 2014)

Well, first of all, conventional landing gear involves a tail wheel (not tricycle gear). Second, no answer on the external Skyraider fuel tank size? Third, I'm impressed we're still stuck on the taildragging gear out of all the things we could debate/talk about with this mythical airplane!

Does anyone know the max loading of the wing or max loading of each pylon?

OMP


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2014)

Center and both inboard pylons were wet. Center pylon would carry a 150 gallon (568 liter) tank, the inboard pylons could carry a 300 gallon (1,140 liter) tank each.

Total rated weight for external, pylon mounted stores was 8,000 pounds (3,630kg)...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2014)

BobR said:


> If pilots can learn to do carrier landings in miserable weather, it should not be that hard to learn how to land an aircraft with tail wheels.


And even those carrier aircraft have tricycle landing gear.

Again it's risk mitigation. I have flown both configurations of aircraft - a lot can go wrong very quickly in a tail dragger.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 25, 2014)

The accident rates for tail draggers for civilian light planes were about double the equivalent trike aircraft from a book published back in the 70s IIRC. Now for any single type/model of aircraft you may have too small a number to draw a valid statistical conclusion but when you put together the thousands of tail draggers still operating in the 60s/early 70s it was hard to deny. 
The rates may be relatively low (3-8 accidents per XXX hours or landing-take off cycles) and resulted in few fatalities but the difference is there, it is provable and with very expensive aircraft it is a risk not worth taking. 

The difference was known even before WW II.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 26, 2014)

Are there higher accident rates today with aircraft such as the de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver, de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter, Douglas DC-3/C-47 Skytrain?
Are folks discouraged from using the above due to being tail draggers?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Are there higher accident rates today with aircraft such as the de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver, de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter, Douglas DC-3/C-47 Skytrain?


I believe you'll find they are lower, probably because not many of those aircraft are operated in the numbers seen in the post war years.


gjs238 said:


> Are folks discouraged from using the above due to being tail draggers?


It depends what they are being used for, but for the most part no.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2014)

There may be a difference in insurance rates. That may be another good indicator. The higher rates may not be enough to make an operator change aircraft if it has life left but may influence the decision on replacement aircraft. 

For the three aircraft you mention there are few really good trike replacements although the De Havilland Twin Otter is a trike.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> *There may be a difference in insurance rates.* That may be another good indicator. The higher rates may not be enough to make an operator change aircraft if it has life left but may influence the decision on replacement aircraft.
> 
> For the three aircraft you mention there are few really good trike replacements although the De Havilland Twin Otter is a trike.



There is...


----------



## OldManP (Apr 26, 2014)

From dream/mythical aircraft to insurance rates...interesting twist.

Back to topic--considering the torque associated with the original rotary engine, was there limitations in power application during t/o or slow airspeed that prevented use of full throttle (mil power)? So everyone doesn't think i'm talking about ham-fisting the throttle from 0 kts, did limitations exist on how much juice to give it based on airspeed or rudder authority? 

Also, what dive speed capable was achievable/nose down angle with the engine in idle and barn doors open?


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 27, 2014)

The Skyraider never had a rotary engine. Or have I missed a rather serious derailment? 

Torque is power divided by rpm; a 3,000hp swinging a prop at 1,000 rpm has the same torque regardless of whether the power is from a reciprocating engine, a gas turbine, or a group of very athletic squirrels.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 27, 2014)

It looks to me that the term "rotary" = "radial" in this case



> or a group of very athletic squirrels


I had to laugh at this one because it brought to mind a video I saw a while back. I suppose it could be see as a two h.p. (hamster power) rotary, but there was serious synchronization issues going on 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuMdLm0ccU_


----------



## OldManP (Apr 27, 2014)

Well played, yes, I indeed meant radial...an 18 hour workday filled with catastrophic issues led me to a fundamental gaff. 

Can someone validate/confirm the quote from Wiki I found below:

"Most operational losses were due to the tremendous power of the AD. ADs that were "waved-off" during carrier recovery operations were prone to perform a fatal torque roll into the sea or the deck of the aircraft carrier if the pilot mistakenly gave the AD too much throttle. The torque of the engine was so great that it would cause the aircraft to rotate about the propeller and slam into the ground or the carrier."

I'm sure someone must know of this "issue" since a few old war birds are still flying, but wondering if this was frequent, or simply a product of the massive engine required to drag a plane of this nature through the air mixed with low airspeed and huge windmill up front...??


----------



## OldManP (May 1, 2014)

No takers, roger. The previous thread about a modern Skyraider mentioned trainable guns in the wings or on centerline. Any opinions on a M230 on each wing, vice 2x 20mm on each wing? I think the ammo variety for the 30mm, the airspeed at which the employment would take place, and the better effects in most all situations with the 30mm over the 20mm would be a decent starting point.

I don't think electrically or mechanically adjusting the fire rate to fire through the prop arc would be advantageous. Possibly in the past when the prop was spinning slower or with less blades, but with a modern turboprop with 5+ blades, I think this capability would be adventurous at best. Fixed 30mm guns with calculated impact points in a HUD/HMD probably would be the best mix and utilization of weight. In addition, after have some electrical issues in my life, like the A-10, I'd want functioning guns even if all the magical computers in the cockpit failed, so I could at least toss some lead for the boys on the ground in the event I'm not 100% in the cockpit.


----------

