# Putting the P-47 back into production?



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

Hey guys.


What if?


What if they started making them again?

For military use?

They could fit some sparrows and sidewinders I think, and some low drag conventional bombs...

I dont see whats wrong with it, it can go 500 mph and can turn on a dime (To me...).


Your opinions, please...


----------



## timshatz (Aug 21, 2009)

Something similar is going on now. The SOC has been looking for a close air support aircraft that can loiter and is prop driven. My understanding is the Super Tucano and Texan 2 are amongst the aircraft they are considering. Seem the A-10 is getting old and even with a rebuild there are not enough to go around. 

OPFOR: Air Force to Stand Up SOC COIN Squadron?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 21, 2009)

I think the only role I could see it being used would be for what timshatz is talking about, and if you are going to do that you might as well bring back the Skyraider instead.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 21, 2009)

Back in the 80's there was a turboprop version of the F-51. The idea didnt go anywhere.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2009)

I don't understand why you would want to put it back into production.

You can design and build much better aircraft today.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

Becuase it could take damage like no other, goes 500 mph(which isnt that bad) and could carry alot of stuff.

Now I know ther is better but the P-47 is trully remarkable.


I could not see teh P-51 even near worthy enough to be put in production today, but the P-47!?...I can.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

I cannot. There are far better planes than a P-47 that COULD be put back into production. They WOULD not ever put it back into productions. I would rather see the P-51 put back into service.....Laminar Flow wings and all 8)


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

The P-47 is far more superior and could fulfill more requirments to be used in the Modern-day Military.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Okay and my question is why would you EVER want it back. 

Plus the P-51 has the range. I am not getting into an argument with you, you always seem to think you are right and it just goes on and on and on when you fail to notice your wrong. The US Armed forces would NEVER bring a P-47 back into service


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

Can the P-51 carry over 4000 pounds of bombs??

I think the P-47s max takoff wheight is 17,000 pounds

So that means 7000 pounds.

See this post: #1167 

On this thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-world-war-ii-aircraft-3541-78.html


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

You posted nothing. The P-47 was more or less a ground attack fighter. The P-51 started out as that. The A-36 Apache. The P-51 was intended to escort bombers into Germany. It didn't need the bomb load! 

Could the P-47 escort the B-17's into Germany w/ drop tanks? No they could not! Air to air, I'd want a P-51 ANYDAY. Ground attack I'd go with the P-47. Then people say oh the P-47 could out dive the Mustang....Well you could too if you had a 2,000 HP engine strapped to the front of you! The P-51 had a 1,150 HP engine and was faster!


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

If teh P-51 has any chance of being a modern-day aircraft it vouldnt be very good becuase it couldnt be a fighter(not fast enough) and couldnt carry modern-day bombs and rockets.

A plane has to be ableto do that otherwise its usless(except target practice).

The P-51 was also alot cheaper then the P-47 and was a peice of junk.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

The P-51 went faster than the P-47! The only place a P-47 would've gone faster would be a dive because of the massive engine it had. Also, with the weight of most rockets and bombs the P-47 would have a tough time too and a lack of space for them!


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

There is a thing called modifications that would give teh P-47 the stuff it needs.

Wing Pylons and avionics and stuff.

They could easly make a bigger drop tank for the plane, it sure as hell could carry the extra wheight!

The P-51 was faster becuase it was lighter and not as good of quality.

CHEAP PEICE OF JUNK!

Go P-47!

Why do you think teh P-47 was like 40,000 dollars more expensieve?

And dont give me teh answer "Becuase it was 3,000 pounds heviar!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 21, 2009)

Where exactly do you get your information from?


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

Because I study it all friggen day long for the past 6 years!


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> There is a thing called modifications that would give teh P-47 the stuff it needs.
> 
> Wing Pylons and avionics and stuff.
> 
> ...





I don't really think you can call the P-51 a piece of junk. The P-47 was a heavy aircraft. It was made of different materials and had more guns, that's why it was expensive!! Plus the engine of it was tougher to tune up then the P-51 engine. I don't think a high maintenance plan would be any use to the Armed forces. I am not denying the fact it can carry a bigger bomb load. You are denying the fact that the P-51 was faster. All you can say is that it's a piece of junk. With no arguement

When the P-51 came into service it drastically reduced the bomber crews losses. Could the P-47 have done this? Don't give ME the answer "Yes with modifications it could"


But your denying that the P-51 does have advantages over the P-51. Don't get me wrong I like the P-47. When it comes air to air it has to be the P-51.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> Because I study it all friggen day long for the past 6 years!



You've studied since you were 7? How much information did you take in at that age?


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

The P-47 did make a difference and was and is far better then the P-51!


It didnt need mods becuasei t was so freaking great!


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> You've studied since you were 7? How much information did you take in at that age?



Yes I did!

I took every damn bit of that info and shoved it into my mind.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 21, 2009)

Then you might need to get some new books. The P-51 was used by Airforces up until 1984 and the P-47 was used up until the 1960's IIRC. I prefer the P-47 over the P-51, but I don't see how anybody can make a reasonable claim that the P-51 was junk.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> The P-47 did make a difference and was and is far better then the P-51!
> 
> 
> It didnt need mods becuasei t was so freaking great!



Oh wow some information you've taken in....I'm impressed. You can't make a generalization like that with little tiny facts and nothing to back it up? I atleast have looked in a book during this and comparing the two.....for the tenth time I will say it.....AIR TO GROUND- P-47.....AIR TO AIR-P-51...... As a bomber escort P-51.....


You seem to overlook that in all my posts.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

It was kinda junk.

It wasnt totaly hopless but it was junk.

It was only designed in 120 days!


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Okay......that is the worst statement you've made..... that's better than any plane you would develop in your lifetime. 120 and it saved MANY MANY lives. You seem to understand very little of what I'm saying. 


Have I ever said the P-47 was a piece of junk or it was hopeless? NO. I was saying in an air to air fight it for me would be the P-51. If I were supporting ground troops I would have to go in the P-47.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

Okay, wel leave it at that.

Good night.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> Okay, wel leave it at that.
> 
> Good night.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

WTH was that!?


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> WTH was that!?



I'm just still flabbergasted you called the P-51 a piece of junk.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 21, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Where exactly do you get your information from?


He gets it from the Spongebob Squarepants forum!


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> There is a thing called modifications that would give teh P-47 the stuff it needs.
> 
> Wing Pylons and avionics and stuff.
> 
> ...


If the P-51 was a cheap piece of junk why was it used in Korea and Vietnam? You've studied these planes since age 7 but you can't post a any info to back up what you say about the Mustang?


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

I joined that forum with the username'Moderater' and they never let me on.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Wow. Well you still have nothing on why the P-51 was a Piece of Junk or hopeless.... 

Do you have any accounts of the US Air Force saying it was hopeless or a pilot saying it was a piece of junk?


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2009)

I've had enough. You just got an infraction.

Darkfish, you're coming close to a permanant vacation. Stop with these insane posts. If you want to make a point, do it intelligently and with facts.

First, you are talking about 60 year old technology that has been surpassed by better designs and upgrades. Look up the Skyraider.

Second, every point you make about the P-47 being upgraded can also be said about the P-51, so the point is moot (look that word up).

Third, ITS OPINION and you will stop treating it as FACT!!!!

And here is a question if you haven't answered the one I posted in the Best Aircraft thread:

The US 8th AF stopped daylight bombing in Oct 1943 because they had no plane that could escort them all the way into Germany. When they resumed bombing in early 1944, what airplane did they rely upon to provide the escort? What airplane was escorting them BEFORE Oct 1943?

That is a fact.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

I'l go join that forum and write that.,..

Good Idea.8)


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

The only plane that could do that was the P-51.

Oh look, The P-51 has one advantage, range.

I'm going to bed.
Night all!


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> The only plane that could do that was the P-51.
> 
> Oh look, The P-51 has one advantage, range.
> 
> ...




  I have been trying to say that all along...... Ugh.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2009)

Dark Matter - are you trying to be an imbecile?


----------



## imalko (Aug 22, 2009)

If he's trying to do that, then he is doing a good job. Another pointless argument here as it seems...

You have posted interesting link there timshatz (post #2). I can see the reasoning behind such a initiative and Columbia and some other South American nations have good experiences with Tucano in similar role I think. So, the question remains what type of aircraft would be best suited for US specific needs in this proposed new counterinsurgency squadron with the Air Force Special Operations Command. If prop driven aircraft is considered over the A-10, then there are far better platforms to be used then elderly P-47 (Skyraider immdeiatelly comes to my mind). But in my opinion some new design would be best suited with above mentioned Tucano being a good example.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 22, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Back in the 80's there was a turboprop version of the F-51. The idea didnt go anywhere.



There was an Australian businessman that tried the same thing here. An ex-RAAF Mustang (A68-187) was modified to take a Rolls-Royce Dart from a Vickers Viscount in the 1970's. Registration was VH-UFO. It never flew and was eventually restored to original condition. I don't know if it was intended for racing or an attempt to produce a viable cheap COIN aircraft or simply an impressively fast form of private transport.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 22, 2009)

Matt had an interesting post about a proposed COIN aircraft.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/stavatti-sm-27m-coin-airplane-4916.html


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

If you're looking for a flying dumptruck, then you just can't beat the Skyraider...that machine could create a tremendous amount of hurt...

Personally, I think they should stick with the A-10.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> The P-51 was faster becuase it was lighter and not as good of quality.



Please prove where it is not good quality.



Dark Matter said:


> CHEAP PEICE OF JUNK!



You have no clue about aircraft design. Your posts make that very evident...



Dark Matter said:


> Why do you think teh P-47 was like 40,000 dollars more expensieve?
> 
> And dont give me teh answer "Becuase it was 3,000 pounds heviar!



See my answer above.



Dark Matter said:


> Because I study it all friggen day long for the past 6 years!



6 years of research is not showing up very well here...



Dark Matter said:


> The P-47 did make a difference and was and is far better then the P-51!
> 
> 
> It didnt need mods becuasei t was so freaking great!



What? Please explain. If you actually did research you would see the P-47 was modded and their were different versions because it had to be made better.



Dark Matter said:


> It was kinda junk.
> 
> It wasnt totaly hopless but it was junk.
> 
> It was only designed in 120 days!



You are an idiot...

Please go someplace else.

I really do not want to resort to calling you such a thing, but I am tired of your trolling on this forum. If your opinion is that the P-47 was a better aircraft that is fine, but don't call it fact, and then not back it up with facts. You do not present a good argument as well, as it is not made up with facts.

In my opinion the P-47 was a better aircraft, but that is because I like its role better and its design better. However:

1. The P-51 was a marvelous aircraft. Your arguments will never prove that.
2. You are a troll...

So please go find someplace else to troll.



Dark Matter said:


> I joined that forum with the username'Moderater' and they never let me on.



They were smart, you are a troll. Either you quit your BS, or I will remove you from this forum faster that you can go and cry to your mother!

Until then, I present you with your diploma:


----------



## Njaco (Aug 22, 2009)

He will probably actually print that out and put it on his wall. Jeez!


----------



## evangilder (Aug 22, 2009)

Bud Anderson, who actually flew the P-51 in combat said:


> The P-51 was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like Hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low, thanks to a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to pursue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime. It was crucial to keep it it trim but, as we gained experience with the plane, that became automatic. We sensed it was special, even before we measured it against what the enemy pilots were flying.



I will take a statement like that from an experienced combat pilot over someone who claims to have "studied aircraft for 7 years". 

Anyone who calls the P-51 a "piece of junk" clearly has a lot more reading to do.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 22, 2009)

The P-47 is superior when youi think about it.

I'd choose the P-47 anyday.


Just do some research and you will soon find out...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 22, 2009)

Do some research?!?! You have provided no facts that make up your opinion, yet you want ME to research this? I have been giving aircraft presentations to the public and writing articles about aircraft since before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.

You have given nothing but your own opinion, with no facts to back it up.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> The P-47 is superior when youi think about it.
> 
> I'd choose the P-47 anyday.
> 
> ...




And your telling Evan this?


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 22, 2009)

His name is Eric.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

Ok, if that's even true, I didn't know that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> The P-47 is superior when youi think about it.
> 
> I'd choose the P-47 anyday.
> 
> ...



Prove it! Come one please put some facts where your mouth is!


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 22, 2009)

I already showed you guys.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-world-war-ii-aircraft-3541-78.html[/QUOTE]


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2009)

No you did not show us ****! 

4 more minutes...


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 22, 2009)

You know what?

Screw you.

I'm leaving.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2009)

Goodbye....


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 22, 2009)

Ooowwwhhhh, the poor little kiddy can't deal with the big bad men and their facts


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

Dark Matter, that's is from the website I posted. That was all what someone else thought! Plus the one about the landing gear being wide is irrelevant because the P-51 had exceptionally wide landing gear!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 22, 2009)

What a fricken idiot.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

Thinking the exact same thing right now.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 22, 2009)

Just another spammer/Troll.


----------



## Airframes (Aug 22, 2009)

What the *$* the point of digging up a design that's well over 65 years old, complex and costly to build, big, heavy, very inefficient by today's standards, noisy, and needs lots of room for take offs and landings. And that's before mentioning the servicing requirements and time. And 500 mph - at low level??
This was tried, as someone mentioned, with the P51, as a COIN aircraft which, although capable and successful for it's intended role, was too expensive, in relation to a new, modern design, and not as efficient in it's use of current materials. If an air force or army wanted such an aircraft as you envisage, I don't think they'd be looking at such an old design, just the same as they wouldn't regurgitate a 'modernised' King Tiger, just because it looks 'cool'!
Those air forces who still had P47's until the 1960's changed, not because the P47 was not a good aircraft, but because it was old, outdated and not as efficeient in it's required role in a _modern world_, as newer designs.
And by the way, the P51 wasn't a 'Cheap piece of junk', it was one of the most technologically advanced and efficeient aircraft of it's day, to which a lot of modern designs owe much. Or did the USAAF get something wrong??!!!


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

Very nicely put!


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Aug 22, 2009)

Wow, banned again after only a day of new activity. Boy has a lot to learn, but it may take him a while, maybe 7 years or so


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2009)

Ban is permanent this time...

He had no desire to discuss aircraft in a true and meaningful way.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 22, 2009)

I say bin the Eurofighter! Bring back the Spitfire! Throw away the F22! Bring back the P38!


*Takes valium and sits down*


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

Spitfire is garbage!! Mustang is junk!!

Bring back the Fokker D.VII because it had pretty colors and it was a real airplane!! It could be made to carry rockets and dive like a Stuka, but faster!!

I studied it for 5 fingers and one thumb many years!


----------



## Airframes (Aug 22, 2009)

Nah! The Bleriot was a much better aircraft, could do 12 mph at sea level - confused the radar, and could carry at least one crate of oranges too!! Not nice if some one creeps up on you at low level, and bombards you with oranges, very nasty piece of kit!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

You're wrong!!!

The D.VII had Roman numerals in it's name, that CLEARLY made it superior to everything else!!!


----------



## Airframes (Aug 22, 2009)

Drat! Foiled again! I forgot about that........ah! But wait! How about the Sopwith One and a Half strutter? Surely the name alone must make it superior?!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

I don't think so, because I heard that planes with round emblems on them were slower.

I read that too, maybe. In a book.


----------



## Airframes (Aug 22, 2009)

Hmm. Very good point. In a book you say? Must be true then..........


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

This should be put back into production. No doubt.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 22, 2009)

Definately! I'm sure a tank could outdive ANYTHING out there haha


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

LOL. It would out dive everything and with it's gun it could knock down an F-16 ANYDAY


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 22, 2009)

Sheesh. You guys are so wrong you're not even on the planet earth anymore! What's the biggest weak-point of any airplane? The wings! No wings, no flies. Therefore, I humbly submit (and I've been studying this one for decades...got my Mom to look that word up for me this morning!) for your military consideration:







THE DOGHOUSE!


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> THE DOGHOUSE!


Not sure I'd want to be _on top_ of my ship during a sh*tstorm like that...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 22, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> ....
> THE DOGHOUSE!



Reminds me of the "Red Baron" song from the 60's, LOL!



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxzg_iM-T4E_


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

Maybe RA's got a point...sitting on top of the rig has gotta be safer, since all the bullets are hitting below.

Kind of like in the movie "The Jerk", where he got away from the window, because the sniper was shooting at the oil cans...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 22, 2009)

The P-51 (In the form of the Piper PA-48 Enforcer) would make a MUCH better anti-terrorist/anti-insurgency weapon for one big reason: Loiter time. The low-drag fuel efficient plane could circle at 30,000 feet all day and come in with instant fire support if any of our boys on the ground was in trouble.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Aug 22, 2009)

Jeez, what an idiot! Let's think about his plan for a second, and compare the P-47 to the A-10. 
1. What packs a bigger punch: eight .50's or a multibarrelled 30mm cannon?
2. Which aircraft can survive the AA defenses of today? I don't believe the P-47 can a hit from a SAM and fly away. 
3. Which aircraft can be fitted with countermeasures, ie chaff pods? 

Don't get me wrong, the P-47 was an excellent aircraft in it's time, but I can't see it being anywhere effective to the A-10 without serious improvements to it's design.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The P-51 (In the form of the Piper PA-48 Enforcer) would make a MUCH better anti-terrorist/anti-insurgency weapon for one big reason: Loiter time. The low-drag fuel efficient plane could circle at 30,000 feet all day and come in with instant fire support if any of our boys on the ground was in trouble.


Hey good call, I was also thinking of the Enforcer!! 

Sure it's nowhere as good as the A-10 but it's also a whole lot cheaper so...


Another what-if from the 80s ... the Boeing Skyfox, rebuilt T-33s.





Kris


----------



## 109ROAMING (Aug 22, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> 2. Which aircraft can survive the AA defenses of today? I don't believe the P-47 can a hit from a SAM and fly away.



It'd be like the Germans not being able to shoot down Swordfishes because they were flying so slow except more stupid this time



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ban is permanent this time...



Oh man..can you possibly unban him so I can call him an idiot? please



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are an idiot...



Ah job done, thank you!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 22, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Jeez, what an idiot! Let's think about his plan for a second, and compare the P-47 to the A-10.
> 1. What packs a bigger punch: eight .50's or a multibarrelled 30mm cannon?
> 2. Which aircraft can survive the AA defenses of today? I don't believe the P-47 can a hit from a SAM and fly away.
> 3. Which aircraft can be fitted with countermeasures, ie chaff pods?
> ...


Well, the idea would be a cheaper more available plane. The A-10 originally had an 11 million dollar flyaway cost, now it would be at least $25m. Flyboy probably would give a much better estimate. If you could mass produce a PA-48 and get the flyaway down to 1 million even, developing countries could afford to put down warlords and end terrorist insurgencies across Africa and Asia.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 22, 2009)

What our recently departed friend fails to realize is that, just like everyone here the last few posts, this topic has been kicked around by those in the know for the last 60 years or so and that is why we have had or now have aircraft like the Skyraider, A-10, etc.

WWII brought about a specialization of aircraft duties from the set-piece bomber fighter which started the war. By the end you had ground attack, night-fighter, recon, etc. And after trying to modify existing types -like the P-47 and P-51 - to these new demands, new designs brought forth the specialized aircraft.

The P-47 was a great aircraft. I just don't see how any modification would make if viable for today's wartime needs.


I hope he sends me a postcard.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 22, 2009)

Njaco said:


> I hope he sends me a postcard.




Nice!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

Gotta remember a couple things about the A-10 though...

It can unleash a world of hurt, living up to it's P-47 namesake. Also, any Ground attack aircraft that Rudel advised in it's construction has got to be a worthy machine.

Also, unlike many modern aircraft, the A-10 (again, much like the P-47) can take serious damage and still come home. It was specifically designed to take damage and remain airworthy. It's modular design means that the damaged components can be replaced and the aircraft put back into service with minimal downtime.

I really can't see anything that would rival the A-10 at this point in time. If you're looking for a "gunfighter" or "Air Supremacy" platform, you're looking in the wrong direction here...this is a "scorched earth policy" kind of machine!


----------



## Trebor (Aug 23, 2009)

why in god's name do they jave chocks under that A-10 in the last picture? that sucker ain't goin nowhere anyway! XD


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2009)

Right now I firmly believe that the only thing you can do to replace the A10 is to build some more A10's, nothing comes close.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2009)

Trebor said:


> why in god's name do they jave chocks under that A-10 in the last picture? that sucker ain't goin nowhere anyway! XD


Because the A-10 can land even with it's gear retracted. It becomes a tail dragger, but still capable of taxiing. They still have to stick to proceedure.

** Edit * *
I just realized my comment: "Because the A-10 can land even with it's gear retracted." was kind of idiotic. _ANY_ aircraft can land with it's gear up...it's just not a good thing to do.

What I meant to say, is that the A-10 was designed to have it's wheels in contact with the ground in either "gear up" or "gear down" position. So if both of it's hydraulics were shot out, and the gear wouldn't extend, it will be capable of a minimal damage landing (as seen above) and not a "belly in".


----------



## evangilder (Aug 23, 2009)

Besides, if it has wheels, it will roll.


----------



## Trebor (Aug 23, 2009)

ohhhh, I see!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 23, 2009)

Well, an A-10 and a PA-48 would have totally different roles. The A-10 is a heavy ground attack plane and the PA-48 is a light counter insurgency plane that combines observation and fast-response fire support.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2009)

I would much rather be in an A-10 on a mission over, say Mogadeshu or some two-goat villiage in Afghanistan rather than a PA-48.

My reasoning behind this is that the hostiles on the ground, either well trained or just a bunch of meat-puppets that are following the local mouth-peice, are equipped with nasty things. The majority of them are armed with Warsaw Pact equipment that can, and have, knocked down all but the sturdiest of aircraft.

How well can the PA-48 handle small arms fire? Can it handle heavy impacts from SAM/RPG weapons? Many militias and insurgent forces have AA weapons and this needs to be taken into account.

I know all the above has been taken into consideration, but if it were up to me, I'd stick with the A-10 for it's ruggedness and battlefield proven perfomance. 

PA-48
Maximum speed: 405 mph
Service ceiling: 37,600 ft.
Hardpoints: 10 @ capacity unknown
Armament: 6 - .50 cal. M2/M3 MG (optional) 

A-10
Maximum speed: 439 mph 
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft. 
Hardpoints: 11 @ 16,000 lb. capacity
Armament: 1- 30 mm GAU-8/A cannon


----------



## Civettone (Aug 23, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Well, the idea would be a cheaper more available plane. The A-10 originally had an 11 million dollar flyaway cost, now it would be at least $25m. Flyboy probably would give a much better estimate. If you could mass produce a PA-48 and get the flyaway down to 1 million even, [...]


Exactly! If you can get - say - 10 of those Enforcers for 1 A-10... plus maintenance will be easier as the PA-48 is less sophisticated. And ... those Enforcers can be in 10 different places at any time, and for a longer period of time than the A-10. 

I'm not saying the PA-48 should replace the A-10. But it could still be a useful weapon to this day. Most theaters of war are not packed with SAM installations. 
Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 23, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I would much rather be in an A-10 on a mission over, say Mogadeshu or some two-goat villiage in Afghanistan rather than a PA-48.
> 
> My reasoning behind this is that the hostiles on the ground, either well trained or just a bunch of meat-puppets that are following the local mouth-peice, are equipped with nasty things. The majority of them are armed with Warsaw Pact equipment that can, and have, knocked down all but the sturdiest of aircraft.
> 
> ...


I'd rather be in a tank than a Humvee. I'd rather be in an APC than a pair of boots on the ground. 

I'd rather be in PA-48 than an Apache Helicopter though, and that's a better comparison. The role I imagine for a COIN aircraft is currently being handled at great risk and expense by Helicopters who are too fuel hungry, too slow, and too expensive compared to fixed wing planes.

Seriously though, the PA-48 had 10 hardpoints and plenty of room to mount countermeasures and give you a very good chance of avoiding MANPADS. 

It's not an either-or thing, the A-10 and the PA-48 are different and a light attack aircraft would fill the niche for when an A-10 is not available. 

It would also put a very useful anti-terrorist tool in the hands of Allies who cannot afford A-10s at all. For instance, imagine what the Kenyans could do with 100 PA-48s to use against Al-Qaeda in Somalia. The Pakistanis could afford hundreds to use to fight the Taliban.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 23, 2009)

Clay I completely agree ... the PA-48 is the "budget" aircraft you've been waiting for ... different war but same desire 

The A-10 is a truly, truly remarkable machine -- but remember it was designed to kill Warsaw Pact armor on the planes of Germany - like Sturmavik's at Kursk to-to-speak  - not loiter and snoop like the PA-48's.

PA-48's and *drones* are the answer to the day-in-and-day-out missions of attrition - and in the hands of local good-guy pilots they will get very good bang for our buck. 

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm curious, why the PA-48 over the A-1?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2009)

PA-48? No way guys, you are all too nostalgic...

It's a taildragger - harder to fly, harder to train pilots to operate, especially if they are from today's smaller airforces. Look around and see how many combat aircraft in today's world (even older ones) are taildraggers. I know pilots from TAC with years of flying A-10s and F-16s and they never set foot on a taildragger. This thing no way compares to what an A-10 can do - BUT for cost effectiveness to cover a COIN role you have many way better aircraft - The Super Tucano, the PC-21, and the IA 58 Pucará.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 23, 2009)

FLYBOYJ - you're right. We are too nostalgic. The A-29 Super Tucano is indeed the newest platform for the role. Same argrument but newer platform. 

MM


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 23, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I'm curious, why the PA-48 over the A-1?


The Skyraider uses an engine that no longer exists. I don't know how you would go about putting the Wasp Major back into production but it beats me. The PA-48 used a turboprop engine that still exists and is still made.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 23, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> FLYBOYJ - you're right. We are too nostalgic. The A-29 Super Tucano is indeed the newest platform for the role. Same argrument but newer platform.
> 
> MM


If you could cheapen the avionics and put the Super Tucano (or a Super Texan) on an assembly line and drive down the price it would be a really decent plane. The problem I have is the 9 million dollar price tag on the EMB 314. I don't think for a very simple plane that a 1-2 million dollar price tag is unrealistic.

I just looked over the stats on wikipedia and it is a much better performing plane than I had thought.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 23, 2009)

Yahoo! Image Detail for http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/4825.jpg

Remarks by Bernhard C. F. Klein: "Designed by Rutan Aircraft Factory, this is the Scaled Composites Model 151 "ARES" (Agile Responsive Effective Support) designed as a "Mud fighter" ground support aircraft in response to the US Army's request for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). It is powered by a single Pratt Whitney JT15D-1 turbojet engine. The original design was a pusher turboprop and evolved into the current design when Scaled Composites decided to build N151SC as a demonstrator. The ARES first flew on February 19, 1990 and is still available for use as a research testbed."


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 23, 2009)

Capt. Vick said:


> Yahoo! Image Detail for http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/4825.jpg
> 
> Remarks by Bernhard C. F. Klein: "Designed by Rutan Aircraft Factory, this is the Scaled Composites Model 151 "ARES" (Agile Responsive Effective Support) designed as a "Mud fighter" ground support aircraft in response to the US Army's request for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). It is powered by a single Pratt Whitney JT15D-1 turbojet engine. The original design was a pusher turboprop and evolved into the current design when Scaled Composites decided to build N151SC as a demonstrator. The ARES first flew on February 19, 1990 and is still available for use as a research testbed."


I doubt a jet like that would be fuel efficient enough to have a long loiter time.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 23, 2009)

P-47? Sheesh... too much maintenance for real world viability.

But what about this beaut?


----------



## Graeme (Aug 24, 2009)

Capt. Vick said:


> The original design was a pusher turboprop and evolved into the current design when Scaled Composites decided to build N151SC as a demonstrator."



Rodney Schapel was a keen advocate of the pusher-prop attack aircraft concept in the early 80's. He was approached by a Middle Eastern company for a low cost light attack aircraft able to operate from very poor airfields. One of his reasons for such a layout was to reduce airframe damage by sand. Unit cost was less than $200,000 (1982).


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 24, 2009)

...and after it's done bombing the Taliban, it can be quickly turned around to spray the poppy crops. Now there is killing two birds with one stone! Brilliant!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 24, 2009)

I will concede that the need for a light (disposable?) and durable COIN aircraft for smaller air services would over-rule the A-10 as an option. Money would be a primary reason, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that half of these groups would either sell the aircraft to the highest bidder (by way of a deal made by a corrupt official) or lose it in a coupe, etc...

I will hold fast to the idea that the U.S. needs to keep the Thunderbolt II in it's inventory. Using the excuse that it's "outdated" doesn't fly with me, especially if one looks at the service length of the B-52.

That aside, I can see the Pucará, Super Tucano or even the evil crop duster (AT-802U) filling the role. As far as the PC-21 goes, can it compete against the other three as far as payload goes? It's wings look a little narrow for any significant hardpoints.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If you could cheapen the avionics and put the Super Tucano (or a Super Texan) on an assembly line and drive down the price it would be a really decent plane. The problem I have is the 9 million dollar price tag on the EMB 314. I don't think for a very simple plane that a 1-2 million dollar price tag is unrealistic.
> 
> I just looked over the stats on wikipedia and it is a much better performing plane than I had thought.


No and in today's world a PA-48 would cost about the same price. Additionally anything with a PT-6 would be much better.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 24, 2009)

Capt. Vick said:


> ...and after it's done bombing the Taliban, it can be quickly turned around to spray the poppy crops. Now there is killing two birds with one stone! Brilliant!!




It was actually at the Paris Air Show this year. It is a candidate for the Iraqi Air Force.


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 24, 2009)

What a idiot. That boy doesnt realize that most people in here were dealing with aircraft while he was still getting shot into towels. (for those who dont get that, use a little imagination)


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 24, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> P-47? Sheesh... too much maintenance for real world viability.
> 
> But what about this beaut?


I've thought of cropduster-types with wing hardpoints before they sure have the power and lift, but do they have the speed to run after they hit?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 24, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No and in today's world a PA-48 would cost about the same price. Additionally anything with a PT-6 would be much better.


In today's world no plane is manufactured on an assembly line like in WWII, I think the last mass-production fighter was the F-16, although the F-35 is supposed to be manufactured in numbers once sales rise. Of course the cost of production will be higher on individually hand built items.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> In today's world no plane is manufactured on an assembly line like in WWII, I think the last mass-production fighter was the F-16, although the F-35 is supposed to be manufactured in numbers once sales rise. Of course the cost of production will be higher on individually hand built items.



Not in the numbers like WW2, but an assembly line is still used - about 20/ 24 a year at peak. here are the production numbers prior to the cutback.

F-22 Raptor Production


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 24, 2009)

Great pic!!!


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I've thought of cropduster-types with wing hardpoints before they sure have the power and lift, but do they have the speed to run after they hit?



For the types of unsophisticated operations envisioned for these relatively inexpensive airplanes, the answer is yes. We aren't talking about a typical operation where every enemy is armed with a shoulder mounted SAM. The AirTractor derivative included armoring for vital areas (i.e., engine, cockpit, etc), but those apparently were not on display at Paris... just technically spec'd. They did include options for IRCM.

If you have never seen one of these AirTractors working, you really can't appreciate the power and maneuverability of these things. Now take out the significant liquid agriculture payload (802gal), and substitute 6400lbs of armour, weapons and gas for loitering and you have a relatively formidable combat airplane for unsophisticated enemies.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 24, 2009)

The Pucara is good but slow, the A-29 is a nice little aircraft with very good electronics but it have poor fixed armament, so I think there is still a gap for a better, heavier truboprop COIN aircraft.

IT should had a speed of 650 - 700 km in orden to intercept drug planes fast and no less than 8 .50 Mgs or 4 x20mm or 2x30mm in order to bring them down quickly as well to sunk river boats and motorboats up to 150 tons and destroy trucks and light armored vehicles effectively.

It would be nice also that it could aim and launch 500 lb guided bombs as the A-29 does.

I would include a inflight refueling probe for long range/ long station missions.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 24, 2009)

In flight refueling probe certainly does change things. That will exclude many lower cost airplanes. It all depends upon the final mission need. The AirTractor is an interesting concept in that none of the weapons are integral to the airframe. All weapons are intended to be modular. This, in my opinion, makes airplanes like the AirTractor attractive on a wider scope and more able to suit low intensity conflicts much better.

However, your point CB, about ability to make intercepts is a very good one. And I suspect that the AirTractors inability to perform such duties detracts from its peacetime appeal. Once the "war" is over, what are you going to do with a airframe that can haul missiles, guns, cannon and bombs, but cannot exceed 180mph. Certainly civilian intercept ops would be hugely constrained.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 24, 2009)

> However, your point CB, about ability to make intercepts is a very good one. And I suspect that the AirTractors inability to perform such duties detracts from its peacetime appeal. Once the "war" is over, what are you going to do with a airframe that can haul missiles, guns, cannon and bombs, but cannot exceed 180mph. Certainly civilian intercept ops would be hugely constrained



Well, I feel that requeriment is vital, specially for latin american Air Forces, in the majority of cases of our hipotetyc Turboprop P-47 should be able to do the job without committing more sofisticated or expensive airplanes like a Mirage 2000 or F-16, wich cant follow properly a low and slow flying aircraft with their guns aniway.

I would keep missile armed modern fighters for facing a faster, high flying treath like an 9/11 stile attack.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> In today's world no plane is manufactured on an assembly line like in WWII, I think the last mass-production fighter was the F-16, although the F-35 is supposed to be manufactured in numbers once sales rise. Of course the cost of production will be higher on individually hand built items.



Thats not true, as Joe has pointed out many aircraft are still made that way. I would say that most aircraft still are. I know more a fact that Sikorsky and Boeing still make their helicopters that way. The Blackhawk and the Apache are pushed from station to station on their wheels.

Sections of larger aircraft might be made in other locations but they all meet up in an assymbly line and are put together. Just saw a nice documentary about Boeing and the 747 plant. It is an assymbly line as well.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 25, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats not true, as Joe has pointed out many aircraft are still made that way. I would say that most aircraft still are. I know more a fact that Sikorsky and Boeing still make their helicopters that way. The Blackhawk and the Apache are pushed from station to station on their wheels.
> 
> Sections of larger aircraft might be made in other locations but they all meet up in an assymbly line and are put together. Just saw a nice documentary about Boeing and the 747 plant. It is an assymbly line as well.


20-24 per year is not going to lower cost per unit any. I also think the state of the art Avionics are unnecessary. They account for a huge amount of the cost of these armed supertrainers.

If you put 1000 simplified A-6 Super Texans on order I think you could drive the cost per unit down pretty quickly.

As for the Air Tractors, I appreciate that they are powerful, maneuverable, and versatile. I just worry that one .50 or several .30s on a rooftop will bring it down because it is so slow. Add armor and it may be slow enough to get shot by a simple RPG the way our helicopters have been on occasion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> 20-24 per year is not going to lower cost per unit any. I also think the state of the art Avionics are unnecessary. They account for a huge amount of the cost of these armed supertrainers.
> 
> If you put 1000 simplified A-6 Super Texans on order I think you could drive the cost per unit down pretty quickly.
> 
> As for the Air Tractors, I appreciate that they are powerful, maneuverable, and versatile. I just worry that one .50 or several .30s on a rooftop will bring it down because it is so slow. Add armor and it may be slow enough to get shot by a simple RPG the way our helicopters have been on occasion.



Sure they will. Any number of "mass produced" aircraft is going to drive the cost down. 24 instead of 5 is going to drive the cost down, no matter how miniscule or not.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 25, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sure they will. Any number of "mass produced" aircraft is going to drive the cost down. 24 instead of 5 is going to drive the cost down, no matter how miniscule or not.


one million may not be realistic, but with a cheap avionics package, 4 should be within reason. 

P.S. I'd like to see 4x 20m M39 Cannon or 2x30mm M230 cannon armament.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 25, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sure they will. Any number of "mass produced" aircraft is going to drive the cost down. 24 instead of 5 is going to drive the cost down, no matter how miniscule or not.



Very true. Development costs are lowered as they are spread over the production run instead of all on a couple of aircraft. Development cost would probably be considered a fixed cost after some point.

Gotta wonder what the point would be in developing a whole new airframe where there are so many other options out there for a COIN aircraft that are close to the present design requirements. While not perfect, it would save money to buy the Texan or some other similar bird tricked out for the requirements.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 25, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Very true. Development costs are lowered as they are spread over the production run instead of all on a couple of aircraft. Development cost would probably be considered a fixed cost after some point.
> 
> Gotta wonder what the point would be in developing a whole new airframe where there are so many other options out there for a COIN aircraft that are close to the present design requirements. While not perfect, it would save money to buy the Texan or some other similar bird tricked out for the requirements.


It would so long as you can trick it out enough to bring enough hurt and still arrive at speed. 

I'd love to see a Super Texan (as tricked out as the Super Tucano) with cheaper avionics and heavier armament.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 25, 2009)

Anyone else find it funny that Dark Matter started this post about the P47 going back into production, and will not be in production of anymore posts himself?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> It would so long as you can trick it out enough to bring enough hurt and still arrive at speed.
> 
> I'd love to see a Super Texan (as tricked out as the Super Tucano) with cheaper avionics and heavier armament.



Personally I don't think you don't want to skimp on avionics no matter where the aircraft is going to be operated.

I think if a country was to approach a manufacturer like Embrair, the "cheaper avionics" would probably be readily available. The customer usually dictates what avionics suite they want in their aircraft and if the manufacturer won't support an avionics suite, a mod center is usually called upon to complete the requirement. Right now the Brazilians are using a suite developed by an Israeli company; in many cases the suites found in aircraft like Super Tucano are not much more expensive than avionics you'll find in a newer GA high performance single or corporate jet. the biggest add on you may see are NVGs.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 25, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Personally I don't think you don't want to skimp on avionics no matter where the aircraft is going to be operated.
> 
> I think if a country was to approach a manufacturer like Embrair, the "cheaper avionics" would probably be readily available. The customer usually dictates what avionics suite they want in their aircraft and if the manufacturer won't support an avionics suite, a mod center is usually called upon to complete the requirement. Right now the Brazilians are using a suite developed by an Israeli company; in many cases the suites found in aircraft like Super Tucano are not much more expensive than avionics you'll find in a newer GA high performance single or corporate jet. the biggest add on you may see are NVGs.


You know way more about the industry than I do, why does the cost of aircraft balloon way beyond inflation? The cost of the P-51 was $50,985 in 1945 ($603,685 in today's dollars), now if you put it back into production we are looking at 6 million easy, right? That's ten times the rate of inflation. It's absurd and there must be some fix for it.

The cost of the F-86 in today's dollars would also be under 2 million.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> You know way more about the industry than I do, why does the cost of aircraft balloon way beyond inflation? The cost of the P-51 was $50,985 in 1945 ($603,685 in today's dollars), now if you put it back into production we are looking at 6 million easy, right? That's ten times the rate of inflation. It's absurd and there must be some fix for it.
> 
> The cost of the F-86 in today's dollars would also be under 2 million.


The avionics are one part of it but at the same time you have avionics that weigh one tenth of what you were dealing with say in the early 1950s doing 100 times more. But there are a lot of costs added on because of additional requirements, specifications, engineering and development costs becasue of increased analytical requirements and accountability. You also have to consider employee wages and the unions. 

My back ground is quality assurance. I could tell you that compared to the 1980s there's about 10x more QA requirements placed on contractors, one of the biggest farces is ISO 9001.

Also, let's not forget software requirements and support for that. that doesn't also include computers that are used in the aircraft, but computers that store data that support production


----------



## timshatz (Aug 25, 2009)

Just drop a Garmin 1000 in the thing for the no-military end of the application. The package is very slick. Does most of what you need for getting there and back. Especially when you look at the SVT option. Stands for "Synthetic Vision Technology". Slick as snot Man, just off the board good. 

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=153&pID=6420

But once you get there, all the things that go "bang" (or help stuff get to the right point to go "bang") are another matter. Need another flat screen for that, most likely. In truth, I don't know much about the avionics at that level.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Just drop a Garmin 1000 in the thing for the no-military end of the application. The package is very slick. Does most of what you need for getting there and back. Especially when you look at the SVT option. Stands for "Synthetic Vision Technology". Slick as snot Man, just off the board good.
> 
> https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=153&pID=6420
> 
> But once you get there, all the things that go "bang" (or help stuff get to the right point to go "bang") are another matter. Need another flat screen for that, most likely. In truth, I don't know much about the avionics at that level.



We just put a Chilton EFIS system in the Twin Otters, the same set up that Viking is going to offer on their new production aircraft, very slick!

I agree about the garmin 1000. I'd add a UHF radio and maybe a cheap chaff dispenser set up and I think you're set. Could also think about an IR set up as well.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 25, 2009)

Yeah, that system is going to put somebody out of business. Probably Avadyne. I fly an SR22 with that in there and, after having flown steam guages forever, it is really neat. The Avadyne is something you are always tinkering with in Flight. Still getting used to it but definitely a different way to fly.

But the Garmin 1000 with that SVR, forget it. It's a whole different level of flying. You have that, chaff dispensers, a head's up display for unguided rockets and the 20mm cannons linked into a targeting package on a seperate computer to the Garmin and you probably could go with the Texan or Tucano. 

Come to think of it, with a variation of the flight aware/WAAS setup, you could have a handheld transponder on a SOC guy and use that as a marker for your attack runs. Lay the rounds wherever the guy says based on what the info sent to your flight aware program. Could probably have it show up in the Head's Up too. 

Now that would be really wild. Probably not too expensive either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2009)

Agree Tim - and all "off the shelf" for the most part.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 26, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> What I meant to say, is that the A-10 was designed to have it's wheels in contact with the ground in either "gear up" or "gear down" position. So if both of it's hydraulics were shot out, and the gear wouldn't extend, it will be capable of a minimal damage landing (as seen above) and not a "belly in".



What? you mean the A-10 has something in common with......something that _might_ have been taken from........the FAIREY BATTLE!






I need a lie down


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 26, 2009)

> What? you mean the A-10 has something in common with......something that might have been taken from........the FAIREY BATTLE!



The Ilyushin Il-2 shturmovik was designed in the same way, the gear didnt fully retracted.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Aug 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My back ground is quality assurance. I could tell you that compared to the 1980s there's about 10x more QA requirements placed on contractors, one of the biggest farces is ISO 9001.


I went throuth the certification process for ISO before we shut down our machine shop.
Lots of paperwork for no gain in efficiency or quality.


Wheels


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2009)

wheelsup_cavu said:


> I went throuth the certification process for ISO before we shut down our machine shop.
> Lots of paperwork for no gain in efficiency or quality.
> 
> 
> Wheels



Yep - IMO ISO is like a big "good ole boys" club. It's supposed to tell the world that "we have these standardized processes that ensure top quality" when in essence it’s an excuse for a lack of common sense. It also brings in a bunch of analytical "know-nothings" that are going to tell you how to do your job when in essence they couldn't do your job. I ran into this at a place I worked at about 6 years ago. the Director of QA was always trying to micro manage based on charts and graphs when in essence he didn't know the first thing about the product line or how to produce it.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Aug 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - IMO ISO is like a big "good ole boys" club. It's supposed to tell the world that "we have these standardized processes that ensure top quality" when in essence it’s an excuse for a lack of common sense. It also brings in a bunch of analytical "know-nothings" that are going to tell you how to do your job when in essence they couldn't do your job. I ran into this at a place I worked at about 6 years ago. the Director of QA was always trying to micro manage based on charts and graphs when in essence he didn't know the first thing about the product line or how to produce it.


That sounds like a good assesment of what I ran into when I was implementing it.
Another problem is too many purchasing agents have bought into the notion that this QA procedure works and require you to have it.

I personally have never seen a piece of paper make a good part. 
Before we started our machine shop I had seen several QA reports that stated the parts were good when they weren't. 
The main problem with all Quality Assurance programs is that they are only as good as the individuals using them.
That and managements resolve to stick to them when the monthly shipping quotas are on the line.
One of my former bosses philosophies regarding that was, "keep it in UPS, they will need them eventually and they WILL buy them."
I didn't last there very long after we had that discussion.


Wheels


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2009)

wheelsup_cavu said:


> I personally have never seen a piece of paper make a good part.


AGREE 100%!!!!




wheelsup_cavu said:


> The main problem with all Quality Assurance programs is that they are only as good as the individuals using them.


Again 100% on the money!!!!

Sounds like we had some similar experiences there. I remember the early 1980s at the time of the defense booms. Mil-I-45208 and Mil-Q-9858A IMO were the best systems in the world to control quality. Those systems combined with competent inspectors and managers were the key for a successful manufacturing company. TQM started the boondoggle; ISO took it out of control.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - IMO ISO is like a big "good ole boys" club. It's supposed to tell the world that "we have these standardized processes that ensure top quality" when in essence it’s an excuse for a lack of common sense. It also brings in a bunch of analytical "know-nothings" that are going to tell you how to do your job when in essence they couldn't do your job. I ran into this at a place I worked at about 6 years ago. the Director of QA was always trying to micro manage based on charts and graphs when in essence he didn't know the first thing about the product line or how to produce it.


Naval Reactors (the group that audits Navy Nuclear Reactors) is just like that. They work an 8 hour day and try to pick on people who work an 18 hour day about how they aren't spit and polish enough without having any idea what the Nukes actually do.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> TQM started the boondoggle; ISO took it out of control.



Yup.

When I was at HUGHES, when we started implimenting ISO-9000, we had to document all of our processes so we could bid on govt programs. And if we didnt do it, we couldnt bid.

So even though we had a superior product, but we werent 9000 compliant and thus out of the running. A competitor though, with a piece of crap as a product but was 9000 compliant, would win. Figure that out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2009)

When ISO 9000 first came out I wanted to make a recording decribing everything needed to gain ISO certification and then put it on a 1-900 phone number - 1-900-ISO-9000 (1-900-476-9000). $2.99 a minute. I'd bet it was cheaper than bringing in the dumbsh!t auditors who didn't know a damn thing about the company or its product line!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 27, 2009)

The concept behind ISO/TS I think is great, but something was lost between the theory and what actually resulted.

FB, I agree with you 100%. The $ spent on the auditors is in-frickin-sane (or a racket).


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2009)

I like what Dilbert has to say about it.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 27, 2009)

LMAO NICE!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2009)

That's getting hung up in my office tomorrow!


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 27, 2009)

That was friggin' awesome. My gosh what a farce ISO qualification has become. We had declared an ISO compliance need. Lo and behold the only "qualified" auditors were europeans. I cried foul. We can't find local auditors that we don't have to pay international airfare and benefits? You gotta be shittin' me!!!!?!?!?!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2009)

All too true!


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 28, 2009)

Sounds like a mess.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 28, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> That was friggin' awesome. My gosh what a farce ISO qualification has become. We had declared an ISO compliance need. Lo and behold the only "qualified" auditors were europeans. I cried foul. We can't find local auditors that we don't have to pay international airfare and benefits? You gotta be shittin' me!!!!?!?!?!



Scam, Scam, Scam.....The Euros are pullin' all sorts of crap like this. It is the center of the world for beauricratic BS. The US is headed that way too. 

Case in point, I have a father in law in Italy with a VW Beetle 2002, that was built in the US he brought with him when he moved back. Some odd Euro law says it is no longer fit to drive on Italian roads and he has to get rid of it and get a new Euro type car. 

ISO-9000 went through my industry some years back. Then it drifted away. Wasn't worth the bang for the buck so it went the way of Six Sigma.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Scam, Scam, Scam.....The Euros are pullin' all sorts of crap like this. It is the center of the world for beauricratic BS. The US is headed that way too.
> 
> Case in point, I have a father in law in Italy with a VW Beetle 2002, that was built in the US he brought with him when he moved back. Some odd Euro law says it is no longer fit to drive on Italian roads and he has to get rid of it and get a new Euro type car.
> 
> ISO-9000 went through my industry some years back. Then it drifted away. Wasn't worth the bang for the buck so it went the way of Six Sigma.



On my contract the government wanted us to be ISO-9001 compliant - they did not want us to roll the cost of certification into the contract. I showed compliance by breaking down the ISO-9001 elements and attaching them to the applicable written procedures and documents that apply. There is a system called AS9100 that is tailored to FAA repair stations, I recommended this to be used in lieu of ISO-9001 and was ignored. So when we submitted our contract we showed ISO-9001 compliance with about 5 or 6 exceptions. In the end it was just a waste of time and money.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Aug 31, 2009)

That was hilarious Sys.
At least I don't feel so bad when I think it was a waste of time and money.

Matt, I was just as incredulous when I found out about all of the auditors being Europeans.

I only tried to go through the certification process because all the purchasing agents were requiring it to bid on their contracts.
Mil-1-45208 compliant for twenty years, less than 1% rejection rate, and now if I don't get ISO I no longer have the ability or know how to make a part.  
On top of this I was being told my production costs were going to be lower because ISO was so much more efficient.
Which was going to necessitate my lowering my pricing to them because they were helping me be more efficient by forcing me to implement ISO to get their contracts.
I was going to have to hire two people just to deal with the unnecessary paperwork and I am supposed to lower cost and pass it on to them. 


I started in 1980 as a machinist Flyboy so I remember how all the machine shops were humming at that time.
Several of the machine shops dropped all the commercial work they did for aircraft work and then went under when the aircraft work dried up.
The aircraft companies payment schedule to their vendors left a lot to be desired too.
I tried to avoid them like the plague.
I did do aircraft work but not as a Tier one supplier. More like a Tier 3 or 4. 
My main field was in the medical, dental, and scuba areas.


Wheels


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

Wheels - you're example is a poster child of why ISO-9000 is a sham. I can't believe why industry allowed itself to embrace this, but then again, it is a great excuse to raise prices at the end of the day for something that is totally useless to begin with! 

Oh yea, you do get a fancy certificate!


----------



## renrich (Aug 31, 2009)

You guys are talking about the major problem of all government and why the more government involvement the less efficiency. Of course when spending tax payer money, there needs to be oversight but somehow there needs to be balance. I was a superintendant on an FHA housing project in 1963 and my framing contractor and I made a tiny change in the cornice detail to make a better and more long lasting product. The inspector noticed the change, reported it and the whole project was stopped until a bunch of change orders were processed and red tape was cut. The inspector recognised that the change was an improvement but he had to cover his ass and could not, or would not deal with it on the job. The company owner came out and reamed me and a year later I got out of building FHA-VA.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 31, 2009)

And since I now know that a low cost new plane is utterly impossible, I must reverse my field and say "just put the A-10 back into production."

Most of its parts are still produced as spares to keep existing planes in the air, so start up a new line at Fairchild and start putting together new ones to pound the ground. 

The only thing that needs to change is the cannon ammunition. Switch from AP and develop a pure HE round for better anti-personnel effect.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> And since I now know that a low cost new plane is utterly impossible, I must reverse my field and say "just put the A-10 back into production."
> 
> Most of its parts are still produced as spares to keep existing planes in the air, so start up a new line at Fairchild and start putting together new ones to pound the ground.
> 
> The only thing that needs to change is the cannon ammunition. Switch from AP and develop a pure HE round for better anti-personnel effect.



Actually Fairchild doesn't exist either as a functioning aircraft manufacturer.

From what I understand depot level maintenance on the A-10 is done either at Moody AFB or Hill AFB. It’s at these places where the aircraft are taken down to their bones during major overhaul which are time driven. This is the closest you're going to get right now to get the A-10 back into production. It is questionable if the original A-10 "ASSEMBLY" tooling is still around. Additionally it's not that easy to just go and open up a production like on an aircraft that was last delivered 30 years ago. You also have to find workers to build the aircraft, that involves training and i haven't even gone into engineering changes. As stated, Fairchild has no facilities, no hangars and probably doesn't even own the tooling needed to start re-producing A-10s. It’s a lot more complicated than you think.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually Fairchild doesn't exist either as a functioning aircraft manufacturer.
> 
> As stated, Fairchild has no facilities, no hangars and probably doesn't even own the tooling needed to start re-producing A-10s. It’s a lot more complicated than you think.



Yeah Fairchild was bought out by M7 Aerospace back in 2003. Prior to that though Fairchild merged with Dornier.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 31, 2009)

Are we talking new A-10s for the USAF? Or for sales abroad? The A-10C is currently being done for the former and likely engine upgrade will follow (A-10D?). If I recall correctly the A-10C is being rewinged (new wing box) and will include various avionics/mission system upgrades (comm, target designators, etc.).


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 31, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Are we talking new A-10s for the USAF? Or for sales abroad? The A-10C is currently being done for the former and likely engine upgrade will follow (A-10D?). If I recall correctly the A-10C is being rewinged (new wing box) and will include various avionics/mission system upgrades (comm, target designators, etc.).


For the USAF. I don't think we're the exporter of the future. I think the USA will drive our allies to buying foreign merchandise.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 31, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> And since I now know that a low cost new plane is utterly impossible, I must reverse my field and say "just put the A-10 back into production."
> 
> Most of its parts are still produced as spares to keep existing planes in the air, so start up a new line at Fairchild and start putting together new ones to pound the ground.
> 
> The only thing that needs to change is the cannon ammunition. Switch from AP and develop a pure HE round for better anti-personnel effect.



I'd definately keep the AP round for anti-armor and hard hitting missions. Nothing can really compare to a little lovin' from a warthog...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Are we talking new A-10s for the USAF? Or for sales abroad? The A-10C is currently being done for the former and likely engine upgrade will follow (A-10D?). If I recall correctly the A-10C is being rewinged (new wing box) and will include various avionics/mission system upgrades (comm, target designators, etc.).


I believe at Moody AFB


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

If it would to be put back into production, Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop are the only ones with the capability, facilities and know-how.


----------



## mlsco (Aug 31, 2009)

So what do people think the cost of a pilot these days is? 

The numbers for production line planes have been kicked about here pretty well, but maybe we're missing another useful piece of information since cost effectiveness and survivability calculations also involve replacing that part of the aircraft...

I suspect the number is grimly low, based on commercial aviation salaries, but I could be way off.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 1, 2009)

Well, if we are clinically talking about bean counter assessment, the cost of a pilot is what resources you put into them. In the US, that cost is literally in the millions based upon pilot training time and those whom support them. There is a reason that US pilots are world class, leading edge and worthy of rescue in virtually all cases. The latter says it all doesn't it?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Are we talking new A-10s for the USAF? Or for sales abroad? The A-10C is currently being done for the former and likely engine upgrade will follow (A-10D?). If I recall correctly the A-10C is being rewinged (new wing box) and will include various avionics/mission system upgrades (comm, target designators, etc.).



Matt - when I was at Heritage/Davis Monthan AFB in March I took a tour with several Command Chiefs of the A-10 IRAN and upgrade center where they were rebuilding the wings - 24x7.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 2, 2009)

They were stationed at Charleston AFB back in the 80's and we got to tour it. Everything about the plane said "bad-ass"


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Sep 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wheels - you're example is a poster child of why ISO-9000 is a sham. I can't believe why industry allowed itself to embrace this, but then again, it is a great excuse to raise prices at the end of the day for something that is totally useless to begin with!



I wish I knew why industry embraced it but it doesn't seem to be on its way out. 

I've heard from some people who I knew at the companies that they are having trouble with their production lines now. 
Their IS0 9000 certified companies aren't meeting the BP specifications and I didn't give them all my trade secrets. 
Some of the products took me over 5 years of trial and error to learn how to run consistently with all of the "Off Blueprint" requirements they kept adding to the parts.
Most of them only documented fully on my end.
For what I went through trying to meet their a**inine requirements I feel no sympathy for them. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh yea, you do get a fancy certificate!




I called it quits before I finished but that would have been the only thing I got out of the experience.


Wheels


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 3, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I'd definately keep the AP round for anti-armor and hard hitting missions. Nothing can really compare to a little lovin' from a warthog...



I was referring to switching to HE for the COIN role, for conventional deployments we'd still keep the uranium rounds in production.

HE with airburst would be incredible against lighter, more spread out targets.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I was referring to switching to HE for the COIN role, for conventional deployments we'd still keep the uranium rounds in production.
> 
> HE with airburst would be incredible against lighter, more spread out targets.



HEI is the dominant round of choice for the A-10's in Afghanistan


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 3, 2009)

drgondog said:


> HEI is the dominant round of choice for the A-10's in Afghanistan


Good to hear, I've looked for what ammunition is produced in 30x173 and I wasn't able to find any reference to anything but Uranium AP rounds. That was a while ago, I found it just now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2009)

wheelsup_cavu said:


> I wish I knew why industry embraced it but it doesn't seem to be on its way out.
> 
> I've heard from some people who I knew at the companies that they are having trouble with their production lines now.
> Their IS0 9000 certified companies aren't meeting the BP specifications and I didn't give them all my trade secrets.
> ...




About my same feelings toward my former boss wo heavility embraced ISO 9000.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Good to hear, I've looked for what ammunition is produced in 30x173 and I wasn't able to find any reference to anything but Uranium AP rounds. That was a while ago, I found it just now.



Apparently the new stuff has some smart technology built into the round to dramatically improve CEP at slant ranges exceeding 7000 meters.


----------



## trysBennett2003 (Dec 20, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I don't think so, because I heard that planes with round emblems on them were slower.
> 
> I read that too, maybe. In a book.



If you put flames on the side , it'll go faster and counter the roundels!


----------



## trysBennett2003 (Dec 20, 2009)

If someone was going to bring back any WWII vintage kite into production, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a C-47!

Basler Turbo Conversions, LLC  Basler Turbo 67 Aircraft

They modernize them, but don't build them from scratch as far as I'm aware. 

Even some non-(extensively) mod examples are in use still, here and there.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 20, 2009)

trysBennett2003 said:


> If someone was going to bring back any WWII vintage kite into production, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a C-47!
> 
> Basler Turbo Conversions, LLC* Basler Turbo 67 Aircraft
> 
> ...


Hm, needs to be "spookier" if you know what I mean.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 21, 2009)

Problem with the A-10 production is the DA is Northrop and our stupid contracts always has the manufacturer destroying the jigs after production is finalized so no jigs = expensive reverse engineering

The P-47 (F-47) would be produced without the turbo and its weight and ducting making it lighter with room for fuel/armor and instead of 8 x .50s you would have two podded GEPOD 30s (same ammo as A-10) or maybe just produce the A1E again


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 21, 2009)

krieghund said:


> Problem with the A-10 production is the DA is Northrop and our stupid contracts always has the manufacturer destroying the jigs after production is finalized so no jigs = expensive reverse engineering
> 
> The P-47 (F-47) would be produced without the turbo and its weight and ducting making it lighter with room for fuel/armor and instead of 8 x .50s you would have two podded GEPOD 30s (same ammo as A-10) or maybe just produce the A1E again


want to talk about reverse engineering? try putting the R-2800 back into production.


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2009)

If any WW2 single engine fighter was to be put back into production, the only use would be as an air to ground attack plane. It would have to be optimised for low altitude performance which, to me, would rule out the P47 since it was definitely not at it's best down in the weeds. The most likely candidate, for my money, would be a modified, up armored and oil cooler relocated F4U4. That reincarnation would be much like the last Corsair, the F4U7. V max-450 mph at 26000 feet, max takeoff weight- 13426 pounds.


----------



## Bug_racer (Dec 22, 2009)

I would think a plane more based upon the Tempest would be used ?

T-28 back in production seems like a better option ??


----------



## Brant (Dec 22, 2009)

Just my two cents, but even the thought of bringing either aircraft, the P-47 or the P-51 back into product as front line fighters is taking a step backwards. Both aircraft in their time were outstanding within their assigned tasks. The Mustang, fast, sleek, a pilots dream was perfect for long range escort of the bombers flying into Germany as well it was perfect as a fighter. The power of six .50cals is still awesome in this day and age. However, as well as the P-51 was, it's fault as a ground pounder was the fact it was very vaunerable because it was an in-line engined fighter with a big radiator. Other then that minor thing it was a nearly perfect aircraft. The P-47 Thunderbolt was an awesome weapon in that alone it was seven tons of no bullshit, heavy metal comin' at ya with eight 50's powered by a Pratt Whitney 2800 Double Wasp engine.
The P-47 was a no nonsense powerful aircraft yet it's only fault was a thirsty engine. It just didn't have the range the P-51 did yet, the P-47 proved itself to be a highly respected fighter and as a ground pounder it ripped the heart out of Hitler's army. Today we do more with less back then we needed more, faster, simplier, and easier to produce. Both the P-47 the P-51 fit that bill very nicely.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 22, 2009)

Think krieg got it right. If you're going to do it, just start building Spads (A1E). It was a great machine for what it did. From what I have heard about them, they though about bringing it back a couple of times but the production lines were done and that was pretty much that. 

They didn't retire the thing as much as they just fell apart from use. That and the A-26 were probably the best ground attack prop planes made.


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2009)

No question, the Able Dog would be the best piston engine attack plane considering everything but if only WW2 aircraft are considered the AD was not in service then.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 22, 2009)

The AD-1 Skyraider was a beast and I have no doubt it would be just as effective now as it was in VN and Korea.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 22, 2009)

Yes, I agree. It would and should totally outclass the P-47 in this role.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 22, 2009)

Up to 8,000 pounds of ordnance of all kinds on 15 hardpoints, the P-47 can't do anything comparable to that.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 23, 2009)

Question that comes to mind about the AD would be the engine. I'm not so sure the piston engine would be preferable to a turbine, if for no other reason, logistics. I'm thinking, and this is offhand as I have very limited experience with turbines, that the displacement of a turbine vs a piston would allow for more power (and hence, more load carrying capacity) with a turbine. 

Am I headed in the right direction with this assumption, again going on basis of space and power.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 23, 2009)

Agree about the power plant choice, timshatz. IIRC that P-51 revamp was also powered by turbo-prop. And the fuel is cheaper, less flamable and widely available, contrary to AvGas


----------



## timshatz (Dec 23, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Agree about the power plant choice, timshatz. IIRC that P-51 revamp was also powered by turbo-prop. And the fuel is cheaper, less flamable and widely available, contrary to AvGas



Along those lines, guy at the airport I fly out of is taking a Piper Matrix (think it is a Matrix, the piston engined variety of the Matrix/Mirage) and having the Continental 550 taken out of it and a turbine put in. He's an ex-USN Tomcat pilot so the mechanations of a jet engine aren't a big deal to him. But, he said he's going to go from 310HP to about 550HP in the same space. I'm sure there will be differences in the cowling and whatnot but if you do the same rough math on an upgrade to the AD, I'm guessing you're looking at about 4800HP on the AD (from 2700HP in piston variety).

That sort of power would allow plenty more stores loaded on (and advances in armor would probably lighten that up so you could cover more with the same weight).

Starting to wonder why the Military just doesn't do it.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 23, 2009)

I think something like the Piper Enforcer could work and would be an asset. I assume it would be a lot cheaper and easier to maintain compared to the A-10. It'd be a lot lighter and more economic, especially if you need to loiter a lot. For todays conflict scenarios it'd be great, back in the 80's they only looked at things that would fit a conventional full-out war scenario so it didn't have a real niche in the air force.

But casting aside nostalgia, you probably will go better with a purpose built airframe (a two seater) or by converting the Texan.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 24, 2009)

riacrato said:


> I think something like the Piper Enforcer could work and would be an asset. I assume it would be a lot cheaper and easier to maintain compared to the A-10. It'd be a lot lighter and more economic, especially if you need to loiter a lot. For todays conflict scenarios it'd be great, back in the 80's they only looked at things that would fit a conventional full-out war scenario so it didn't have a real niche in the air force.
> 
> But casting aside nostalgia, you probably will go better with a purpose built airframe (a two seater) or by converting the Texan.


It's no use. You'll never get the flyaway cost low enough considering that our acquisition system would subject any new design to so much bureaucratic oversight that the benefits of a cheaper platform would be lost. We will probably never have a COIN aircraft.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 24, 2009)

Probably not, but I heard they are evaluating some Super Tucanos and bought them for the Iraqi air force, so who knows...


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 24, 2009)

Not Super Tucanos, but an armoured Air Tractor equipped with radios, IFF, rocket pods, 500lb GP bombs and hellfire missiles.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2009)

That tractor is actually a good idea, but you'd have to run a lot of today's pilots through a good tail wheel training course. If I'd have to guess I'd bet less then 10% of current military pilots ever flew a tail dragger


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 24, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That tractor is actually a good idea, but you'd have to run a lot of today's pilots through a good tail wheel training course. If I'd have to guess I'd bet less then 10% of current military pilots ever flew a tail dragger


I gave up on the Enforcer when you pointed that out.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 25, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That tractor is actually a good idea, but you'd have to run a lot of today's pilots through a good tail wheel training course. If I'd have to guess I'd bet less then 10% of current military pilots ever flew a tail dragger



Another good point for the Tucano. But that tractor looks interesting too. Seems to have a fixed undercarriage and a more heavily armored canopy. Although that canopy doesn't look like it'd offer a good field of view.

Apart from UAVs this could be one of the more interesting fields of military aircraft development in the future years.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 28, 2009)

I like the look of that Tractor. Seems a very good bang for the buck aircraft. Based on a Piper cropduster isn't it?

But I also agree with Clay, no way the clowns running our Govt would get this into operation efficiently. Once you get past all the bueracratic BS from the DOD, Air Force and just about every other chucklehead out there, toss in a dash of PC (they'll find a way to get it in there), you'll end up with an overpriced dog. Take another 10 years to bring it back to the original specs.


----------

