# Could WW2 updated aircraft be of any use nowadays. (Obviously not in a dogfight)



## Procrastintor (Jul 15, 2013)

I think, if properly modified and updated, old WW2 birds would be a more financially efficient way to deal with low intensity combat situations, example, like someone else said in an old thread: A drug runner is flying low in a Cessna, and a USAF Corsair, perhaps turboprop powered, tears it apart with 20mm's, he crashes in a fireball. Much cheaper than scrambling a Falcon, much better than letting him arrive. Or another scenario, insurgents are getting violent in South America somewhere, we send a Warhawk to fire warning shots, they return fire, scoring 10-15 hits with an AK47, the P-40 fails to give a crap and takes out the ones firing with a burst from the two, underwing mounted GAU-19 .50 cal gatling guns, the insurgents never bring up the subject of war again. I know these are not strictly realistic scenarios, but they are just examples of some usefulness an old plane could be. If I'm completely wrong that they could be useful again please tell me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2013)

Rule out any tail dragger. Most if not all modern air forces will not operate tail draggers in a large scale. Additional training, operational risks outweigh any benefit.


----------



## herman1rg (Jul 15, 2013)

P-38 for the missions listed above


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 15, 2013)

Why would anybody buy a high maintenance and low part availability airframe when they can purchase a much more capable, lower maintenance and significant supply chain turbine powered version with likely much better overall performance for the operation (i.e., no air-to-air superiority nor intercept mission)? Super-Tocano, AT-6 and Pilatus are MUCH better platforms.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2013)

Exactly Matt hit it on the nail. There is no point in "updating" a WW2 aircraft for such purposes. 

Not cost effective.

Not part effective.

And using 20mm to shoot down a Cessna is way overkill...


----------



## Njaco (Jul 15, 2013)

.....plus possibly illegal. Who knows that they are drug/gun running when you just destroyed the evidence?


How about target tugs?


----------



## Procrastintor (Jul 15, 2013)

To Jaco, you wouldnt shoot them down unless you had GOOD reason to believe they were doing something illegal, obviously dont shoot down anything that crosses the border. And I thought that they would be cost effective, as a turboprop or piston engine is, at low speed, more fuel efficient than a jet, plus they are smaller, and wouldnt be needed in large numbers, just 100-200 to use as patrol/counter-insurgency. Also, by updated I mean along the lines of the PA-48 (A Piper built Mustang from the early '80s). It'd be a filler between Attack Helicopters and A-10s. More Expensive/Powerful than an Apache, but less of both than an A-10. But in any case, you guys are more than likely right, I was just curious after reading an old thread that touched on it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2013)

Far cheaper to have new aircraft purpose built for the COIN role instead of using old stuff: either actual (stupid to even consider) or reproduction (waaayyyy too expensive) models.

My favorite is the Air Tractor. While the name might not be as cool as something like the "flying dumptruck", the craft itself can bring the hurt to the bad guys.






(just realized it has a sharkmouth...this needs to be in the sharkmouth thread!)


----------



## Njaco (Jul 15, 2013)

Is that the same plane that couldn't shoot down an unarmed C-47 in "Quantum of Solace"?


----------



## Procrastintor (Jul 15, 2013)

I knew it looked familiar, I'll check.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2013)

If the Air Tractor pilot wasn't able to shoot down a C-47 with what's available aboard the AT802U, then he should just pop the canopy, take off his chute and toss it overboard and then jump to his death and let the Air Tractor fend for itself. It'll be far better off without all the stupid the pilot was feeding it.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 15, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Far cheaper to have new aircraft purpose built for the COIN role instead of using old stuff: either actual (stupid to even consider) or reproduction (waaayyyy too expensive) models.
> 
> My favorite is the Air Tractor. While the name might not be as cool as something like the "flying dumptruck", the craft itself can bring the hurt to the bad guys.
> 
> ...



GG, that is not the "tractor". This is the "tractor". But I agree with you on simplicity. Then again, once you add in the avionics C3I, a tractor is really no longer the cheap airframe once envisioned.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 15, 2013)

herman1rg said:


> P-38 for the missions listed above



Of which, there are only about 6 in flyable condition in the world. None of them fly with the turbo-superchargers anymore because they aren't needed, and the fuel to make them work properly isn't around anymore. "Updating" a WWII aircraft would require building the tooling to start making them again. There are plenty of aircraft already in production that can do the job cheaply, safer and more efficiently.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> GG, that is not the "tractor". This is the "tractor". But I agree with you on simplicity. Then again, once you add in the avionics C3I, a tractor is really no longer the cheap airframe once envisioned.


Holy smokes, you're right!!
Not sure how I missed that (they do look dang close)...perhaps it was the shark mouth that threw me...yeah, that's it...that's my story


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2013)

Tractor = Tail dragger


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 15, 2013)




----------



## Procrastintor (Jul 15, 2013)

Why? I'm sure taildraggers have SOME benefits over trikes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Why? I'm sure taildraggers have SOME benefits over trikes.


No, they're doggin' me over my screwup...I was in a hurry and posted a pic of a Beechcraft AT-6B instead of the Air Tractor AT-802U that I was referring to...like a pack-o-dogs on a three-legged cat 

Anyway, a tail-dragger takes training to deal with certain characteristics that a tricycle setup doesn't. One factor is looking over the cowl versus looking out the side while taxiing...ease of ground-looping is another, etc. etc.

As far as COIN aircraft go, you have several light aircraft that are mission capable, like the aforementioned AT-6B, the AT-802U, the A-29 and even the OV-10.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Why? I'm sure taildraggers have SOME benefits over trikes.



What benefits?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 16, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Why? I'm sure taildraggers have SOME benefits over trikes.


NONE! They are harder to fly, easier to ground loop and require more training, that's why they went away as far as military aircraft are concerned. A modern military is not going to risk purchasing an aircraft that has any additional risk in it's normal operation.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jul 16, 2013)

Oh, alright then. Guess I never noticed (consciously) that there werent any taildraggers in Air Forces anymore.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 21, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Why? I'm sure taildraggers have SOME benefits over trikes.


The looks, trikes just look bloody boring in comparison


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What benefits?



The landing gear in a taildragger weighs less.

The worst landing gear system is bicycle gear. Why, why, why?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> The landing gear in a taildragger weighs less.



All benefits of a tail dragger are outweighed by those of standard landing gear configurations when it comes to military aircraft (with the exception of some helicopters).


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2013)

The performance benefits of a nose gear versus tail gear is worth the extra weight, and even then (unless you're into air-racing), it's not much of a penalty


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The performance benefits of a nose gear versus tail gear is worth the extra weight, and even then (unless you're into air-racing), it's not much of a penalty



Exactly


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> All benefits of a tail dragger are outweighed by those of standard landing gear configurations when it comes to military aircraft (with the exception of some helicopters).



Today, in 2013, no one would design a retractable-gear taildragger aircraft. There are modern (post-1970) taildraggers designed in three groups: very weight sensitive aircraft, such as those for competition aerobatics, agricultural aircraft, which typically operate off impromptu fields -- the nose leg of a tricycle-geared aircraft are more susceptible to damage than the main gear or tail wheel of an aircraft with conventional gear -- and homebuilts, for people who want to avoid the drag of a nose leg or who just want a taildragger.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 21, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NONE! They are harder to fly, easier to ground loop and require more training, that's why they went away as far as military aircraft are concerned. A modern military is not going to risk purchasing an aircraft that has any additional risk in it's normal operation.



Most of the flying is the same, its just the take-off and landing that is more difficult!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Today, in 2013, no one would design a retractable-gear taildragger aircraft. There are modern (post-1970) taildraggers designed in three groups: very weight sensitive aircraft, such as those for competition aerobatics, agricultural aircraft, which typically operate off impromptu fields -- the nose leg of a tricycle-geared aircraft are more susceptible to damage than the main gear or tail wheel of an aircraft with conventional gear -- and homebuilts, for people who want to avoid the drag of a nose leg or who just want a taildragger.



We however are not talking civilian aircraft. There is no benefit to a taildragging military aircraft in todays design, mission and capabilities.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Today, in 2013, no one would design a retractable-gear taildragger aircraft. There are modern (post-1970) taildraggers designed in three groups: very weight sensitive aircraft, such as those for competition aerobatics, agricultural aircraft, which typically operate off impromptu fields -- the nose leg of a tricycle-geared aircraft are more susceptible to damage than the main gear or tail wheel of an aircraft with conventional gear -- and homebuilts, for people who want to avoid the drag of a nose leg or who just want a taildragger.


Just a quick observation...I've seen far more tail-strikes on tricycle geared A/C than I have damaged nose gear. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm sitting here trying to think of the last time I saw a civil craft with nose-gear damage and I'm drawing a blank...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 21, 2013)

I believe several countries still use the An-3 in a military roll and from what I have read, the tail dragger handle skies better.

Why are most modern biplanes still produced as tail draggers? Is just one of those "That's the way we have always done it"?


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> I believe several countries still use the An-3 in a military roll and from what I have read, the tail dragger handle skies better.
> 
> Why are most modern biplanes still produced as tail draggers? Is just one of those "That's the way we have always done it"?



I'd consider "modern biplane" to be largely an oxymoron. Except for the An-2 and its derivatives and a few specialized agricultural aircraft, like the Grumman Agcat, I believe all biplanes designed after the mid 1940s have been either aerobatic aircraft, such as those by Pitts, or homebuilt aircraft. I don't know why Antonov specified conventional gear for its An-2; the Agcat was designed to operate off impromptu fields, where damage to nose gear was considered likely.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 22, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Just a quick observation...I've seen far more tail-strikes on tricycle geared A/C than I have damaged nose gear. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm sitting here trying to think of the last time I saw a civil craft with nose-gear damage and I'm drawing a blank...



They're a fairly regular occurrence in the training sector. And, if you're talking about damage incidents, then nose gear damage is more prevalent. tail-strikes, in my experience, generally do not do as much damage.


----------

