# Turboprop Skyraider?



## GregP (Apr 21, 2012)

In another thread we came up with an idea for a modern turboprop Douglas AD-1 Skyraider. The real turboprop Skyraider, the Douglas A2D Skyshark, was a failure … mostly due to the fact that Douglas tried to use a 5,100 HP Allison XT-40 turboprop (no real problem) driving a contra-prop gearbox (the fatal fault). Apparently it could chug its way up to 500 mph and climb 7,290 feet per minute … but could not keep the gearbox in one piece.

We came up with the idea to use a single prop version with about 5,000 – 6,000 HP (similar to the Skyshark), but also having a modern yaw damper and electronic stability system similar to the Pilatus PC-21 trainer. In the PC-21, you can exercise the throttle with your feet flat on the floor because the electronic stability system compensates for torque reaction automatically in both yaw and roll.

So the proposal is for a Skyraider with a modern turboprop system … basically a functional Skyshark with modern avionics, modern systems, and a modern gun … possibly one, two, or more chain guns slaved to the pilot’s helmet, but still with some fixed forward-firing armament in traditional configuration. The chain guns would allow off-axis attack, the fixed guns would allow conventional attack, and the power would certainly haul some ordnance. The turboprop would allow MUCH greater acceleration than a jet and would be about as fast as an A-10, clean. Slower, of course, with an ordnance load.

I’d want the ability to launch missiles of various types, small drones, smart bombs, and old-style iron bombs (with accuracy), and perhaps the ability to emply the entire aircraft remotely if required … but I prefer a pilot.

Similar to the F-22, each turbo-Skyraider would know what armament other turbo-Skyraiders had and could employ either their own or someone else’s who was in a better position. This assumes the computer woluld not add undue weight. Otherwise, ditch it and keep the plane agile and formibale. We still want a 7,000 feet per minute or better climb, clean and light.

Opinions?


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 21, 2012)

Great ideas, that I agree with. Last year I did some digging and the Air Force was looking into procuring some sort of aircraft that you have described. There are a couple of flying specimens. I cannot recall right now.

It is a needed aircraft. Just look at how many times the A-10 was written off as un-needed or un-wanted. It still exists and the mission it conducts is still needed. The A-10 is a cold war weapon though, overly large because it had to defeat Soviet armor. What we are talking about is not an anti-armor weapon. Traditional CAS, with SMART abilities.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 21, 2012)

It would still have anti-armor capability, just not with a gun. How many Hellfire missiles could you hang under a 5,000 hp Skyraider?


----------



## GregP (Apr 21, 2012)

Exactly, a classic attack plane with modern systems and power, not a dedicated anti-armor aircraft. The chain guns (or similar trainable weapon) would offer a great attack capability during an otherwise off-axis attack path, and the computers would render the torque issue moot most of the time unless they were authored by Microsoft in which case you'd have to upgrade during an attack, unless it feezes. Keep the software in assembly language!


----------



## pinsog (Apr 21, 2012)

This aircraft should be about perfect for the war in Afghanistan. Slow enough for good ground support, but higher ceiling than the helicopter gunships. Should effectively bridge the gap between helicopters and jets, especially in the high altitude thin air of Afghanistan where helicopters struggle.


----------



## GregP (Apr 21, 2012)

A Hellfire weighs about 100 pounds, so assuming multi-TERs (tripple ejection racks, one behind the other) and maybe 7 to 9 hard points, you could carry 42 to 54 Hellfires if you didn't also have to carry extra fuel tanks (short attack mission). If you DID have to carry ... say ... two big fuel tanks, you'd STILL have 30 to 42 Hellfires if that was the only load out.

I'd say the aircraft would be VERY formidable. Then again, it might need an ECM pod in place on one hard point .... decreasing your load out by six.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 21, 2012)

What fixed armament would you give it? What caliber flexible chain gun would you install? Where would you install a flexible chain gun?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 21, 2012)

Any Skyraider is a _great_ Skyraider, IMO.

From "tossing" nucs (in practice) in the early years of the CW to chain guns over Af'stan -- what a plane. It's range (in piston engine incarnation) only limited by how much engine oil it could carry ... 

MM


----------



## jim (Apr 21, 2012)

Mr GreqP 
A very good idea ! By coincidence we had the same conversation with a few friends in another forum a few weeks ago.
The lighter turboprop would realese some weight for additional armor as well
. A much more capable aircraft than Super Tucano


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2012)

GregP said:


> We came up with the idea to use a single prop version with about 5,000 – 6,000 HP (similar to the Skyshark), but also having a modern yaw damper and electronic stability system similar to the Pilatus PC-21 trainer. In the PC-21, you can exercise the throttle with your feet flat on the floor because the electronic stability system compensates for torque reaction automatically in both yaw and roll.



Since you are talking about 3-4 times the amount of power of a Pilatus, are we sure that the electronic stability system would be enough? Or would it just mean a larger rudder and ailerons?

I don't think there would be as much of a problem with gearboxes today as they had back then, so a contra-prop shoudl be well and truly possible. You could also pair a couple of smaller turbines to drive co-axial counter rotating props.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2012)

I wonder if you wouldn't go for a prop-fan.

Like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Progress_D-27_propfan_(Antonov_An-70).jpg

Progress D-27 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Europrop TP400 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I also wonder if the requirements put forth here, like the need for a chain gun (trainable or otherwise) would point towards the need for a pusher arrangement?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/TP400-D6.JPG/800px-TP400-D6.JPG


----------



## davebender (Apr 21, 2012)

The Skyraider was a fantastic attack aircraft when it entered service during the late 1940s but that was 65 years ago. The turboprop Skyraider should have entered service during the 1950s. 

If we are building a turboprop CAS aircraft today we should start with a clean sheet of paper to take advantage of modern technology.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 21, 2012)

The pusher is a great idea. It would free up the nosecone for decent radar/FLIR etc, and modern ejection seats remove one of the main drawbacks faced by pushers 70 years ago (minced pilot). Perhaps even a canard layout, to keep the engine weight near the centre of lift.

Just checked the specs of the Progress D-27 compared to the R-3350 in the Skyraider. R-3350 1200 kg; D-27 1600 kg - only 400 kg more! Imagine having 14,000 hp to play with!


----------



## GregP (Apr 21, 2012)

I'd stick with single turbine-single prop. Before I'd use a gearbox for contra-props, I'd go for twin turbines and coaxial props. That would add complexity, weight, and cost ... so the first choice would be a single turbine.

I'd put either two Vulcans (or similar) gattling guns fixed or four 20 mmm cannons fixed, and either one or two chain guns slaved to the pilot's helmet. If one, the mount would be centerline in front of whatever centerline pylon is mounted ... could even be in the front OF the centerline pylon. If two, the mount would be inside the wing with the chain guns protruding out underneath the wing in relatively streamlined installations. I'd allow for as much as 90° of travel off-axis. Alternately, they COULD be mounted at the wing leading edge, allowing for training the chain guns UPWARD as well as downward. In certain circumstances, it could work to a huge advantage. and the firing arcs could be electronicallty connected to the propeller arc to prevent shooting off your own prop or even the pilot.

With 5,000 to 6,500 HP, the weight-hauling ability should be pretty decent and I'd expect (really) about 400 mph or better in clean condition and 350+ mph loaded, with about a 6,000 to 7.500 feet per minute climb rate. If the two-engine configuration were selected, one engine could be stopped and the prop feathered to extend loiter.

One feature I'd add would be to put in a lot of ammunition, especially for the chain gun(s), so that the extended loiter would not be wasted by quickly running out of ammunition. That would cut down on ordnance, but would allow for extended ground support in a guerilla warfare environment. A possible alternative would be to come up with a wing-mounted (on a TER or MER) ammunition tray that could be mounted next to the gun to extend the ammunition only when necesasary for the mission. Like the Skyraider, I'd use conventional landing gear, not tricycle gear, and would fit it out for Naval operations if requuired. That means folding wings and arrester hook and catapult-launch capability.

The overall size would be about the same as a Skyraider or slightly larger, depending on weight when the design was developed. Smaller is better as long as it remains maneuverable, tough, and rugged.

I'd mandate a symmetrical airfoil on both the wing and the tail so that wing panels and tail stabilators could be interchanged for battle damage repair. I'd skin it with .050" or thicker 2024-Aluminum for ruggedness and stress it for 8g at mnaximum load out (which would mean 12+g at light weights ... though "light" might be relative). 

Speed brakes very similar to the Skyraider would be fitted, too. I'd also want a propeller brake, and the plane could have the engine running with the propeller stopped if the turbine were selected to be an indirectly-coupled unit. That might or might not prove useful in normal circumstances, be WOULD in a quick-turn rearm in a hot combat zone.

Just some thoughts about what would be effective today ina limirted war. In unlimited war it could also be effective or could be irrelvant if the Earth is destroyed by nuclear arms.

The concept can be argued as good or bad, but the product has absolutely shown itelf to be useful in real war. The Skyraider was only retired when the R=3350 engine became difficult to service and keep running with the available spares. If the new plane were modular, worn or damaged sections could simply be replaced at any depot. If we mandated an engine mount taht was, say 15 - 20% bigger than needed, then the engine compartment would allow for growth engines to be fitted as well. That adds a bit of otherwise unnecesary wetted area, but we're only talking 400 - 500 mph anyway, so the ectra area isn't very critical.

All just an idea that will probably never see the light of day other than in here ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2012)

Would be great to see an aircraft like this fly today but you won't see it flown by any military branch of the US...

Taildragger.


----------



## GregP (Apr 21, 2012)

Yeah, the Military doesn't seem to think that the conventional gear aircraft exists ... despite the fact that WWII was won by them. Of course, with a turboprop, a Skyraider-type aircrft would have the best visibuility forward of any taildragger ever.

The real issue seems to be pilot training ... or lack thereof. Any tailwheel pilot can fly a nosewheel aircraft. The reverse is simply not true.


----------



## davebender (Apr 21, 2012)

If you were designing a CAS aircraft today why not use tricycle landing gear?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'd put either two Vulcans (or similar) gattling guns fixed or four 20 mmm cannons fixed, and either one or two chain guns slaved to the pilot's helmet. If one, the mount would be centerline in front of whatever centerline pylon is mounted ... could even be in the front OF the centerline pylon. If two, the mount would be inside the wing with the chain guns protruding out underneath the wing in relatively streamlined installations. I'd allow for as much as 90° of travel off-axis. Alternately, they COULD be mounted at the wing leading edge, allowing for training the chain guns UPWARD as well as downward. In certain circumstances, it could work to a huge advantage. and the firing arcs could be electronicallty connected to the propeller arc to prevent shooting off your own prop or even the pilot.



I keep confusing the chain gun with the Gatling types...

You are suggesting using one of these on the centreline?








M230 chain gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus two of these?






M61 Vulcan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that the best field of fire would be achieved by a pusher aircraft, with the trainable M230 near the nose. The M61s, or equivalent, could be mounted behind the pilot.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2012)

Could end up looking something like this

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/VulteeXP-54AnigrandPhoto.jpg


----------



## GregP (Apr 21, 2012)

Yes, I'm suggesting a chain gun on the cernertline or two in the wing leading edges. I lean toward the wing leading edges.

Why not use a tricycle gear? Because forward area inproved airfield are not freindly to tricycle gear, and the ARE friendly to conventional gear aircraft.

That is proven every day in Alaska. The tri-gear palnes land on good runweays and the conventional gear planes land almost anywhere. It is a question of utility, not convenience. Forward basing means you can carry less fuel for the same time over target.

And it wouldn't look anything like the Vultee. It would look more like the Douglas Skyshark.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 22, 2012)

What prop would you sartick on the front of this thing Greg? 4 blade, 5 blade, 6 blade? Straight paddle or scimitar?


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2012)

I haven't done any propeller calculations and probably won;t because I can't afford to build it anyway, but any competent propeller maker can produce a propeller for a 5,000 - 6,000 HP turboprop.

I'm thinking it might come out to be something like an 8-blade, wide-chord unit similar to a C-130 propeller. That's why I lean toward two cahin guns outside the prop arc and two or more fixed guns also out of the prop arc.

Again, it would be simlilar to a Skyraider or Skyshark, and the chain guns might be in fairings along the wing fold line at the front.

I'm thinking the spinner might be in two parts, the prop part at the rerar of the spinner and the stationary front p[art with a radar in it. On the other hand, it might be simpler to put the radar in dedicated pods near the wingtip. Hey, I have not finished the design and won't since I'm not in the business, but I think it could be a real contributor weapon system assuming a decent powerplant and decent avionics. The basic Skyraider airframe is a known-good quantity with known construction and known strengths and weaknesses. I say make it again, address the weaknesses, and update it for modern power, avionics, and weapons. Perhaps the planes drop smart ordnance from a long way off and orbit out there until the area softens up a bit before popunding what is left up close and personal.

In any case, a 5,000 - 6,500 HP aircraft is a couple of steps removed from a 1,500 HP Super Tucano, particularly in ability to carry ordnance. The Super Tucano is a hard-hitting aircraft, and I believe the Super Turboprop Skyraioder would be a game changer ... but I could be wrong. If you have to get decision through a committee, youa re doomed to failure. In most of the successful WWII and immediate post-war designs, there a committee of one or two people ... the DESIGNERS ... who made the decisions. Only after they went to design by committee did we get into 25-year gestations and there have been few great planes since then.

Just my thoughts and no, I don't have the money to develop it myself, so it would be left to the kings of committees and long expensive developments like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. If Boeing's ofering were anything like the offering in the JSF (X-32), it would be the ugliest aircraft ever made! No thanks! I'd rather go flying than gagging.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 22, 2012)

I can't help feeling this is like a dive bomber. A very effective and accurate strike aircraft but assumes total air superiority. It presumes future conflicts will always be asymmetric. 

However, if you are going to go down this road, then a twin engine single contra rotating prop allows single engine operation to extend duration on call (as with the reliable Gannet.)


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2012)

I've said this several times before in here, but the Skyraider didn;t need fighter protection. It was an awsome fighter all by itself. All it needed was an escort of lightly loaded Skyraiders ... they were VERY hard to interdict.


----------



## Elmas (Apr 22, 2012)

The Skyrider was certainly an awesome machine but I can't see a Skyrider with simply a turboprop mounted in the nose.
Just to say one thing, the weights of piston engines and turboprop are much different: mounting a turboprop would have moved the CoG unacceptably behind, so the necessity to lenghten the nose.
But lenghtening the nose the Moments of the second order would have been much greater, so a complete difference in handling would have been the result.
I remember that the US Navy asked at the end of the '60 for this "upgrade", but all stopped at the preliminary designs for this very reason.


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2012)

If you don't want to change the airframe you can lengthen the nose; people have DONE that. I am suggesting a new aircraft. So, I don't want to lengthen the nose, I woudl rather move the wing backward on the fuselage and redesign the wing attach points to handle the load. use whatever wngine you want and relocate the wing. I've done it with RC aircraft and there is no great skill involved ... do the calculations and move the wing. What's the big deal?

It is VERY popssible to make a Skyraider-like aircraft, with the wing moved backward by what I'd estimate off the top of my head might be 3 - 5 feet and not resort to ballast at all. The end result might even be lighter than a real Skyraider.

The intent is to make a stronger airframe with much more capability that is a dedictaed attack-fighter. It musy maneuver well, have strong weight hauling capability and should hit very hard as both a fighter and as an attack plane. Such a plane is possible, and a Skyraider-type aircaft would be just the ticket for a formidable weapon system.

Think outside the box.

Don;t add ballast, move the wing. Don't think it has to balance at 30%MAC ... think of the F-16 fly-by-wire software that makes it possible to fly a plane with a CG tat is otherwise way too far aft. There is nothing that says that technology must be applied only to jets.

The inernal fuselage of a Skyraider was cavernous. You could fit 4 people in it! Fill it with helpful items such as fuel, avionics, weapons, or even a bomb bay for an internally-carried drone that could be dispatched to attack radar sites or jet fghters.

The point is to make an ATTACK plane that function as a figher when the main ordnance is dropped. That way the only escort a heavily-laden plane woudl need is a lightly-loaded plane of the same variety. Simply remove the heavy ordnance but leave the guns and/or air-to-air missiles intact and play fighter escort ... with teeth.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 22, 2012)

The nearest to a 'modern' test of the survivability of a quasi Skyraider and jet fighters I know of was the RAF testing of Lightnings against a Spitfire in the early 1960's. The conclusion was that the agility of the Spitfire certainly made it a tricky target but the Lightning could disengage and reengage at will so would always score a kill. The Spitfire never even saw the Lightning in the gun camera. Modern fighter jets are more capable dogfighters than a Lightning even if a turbo Skyraider had a better speed and rate of climb than a Spitfire. This was to test the ability of RAF Lightnings to engage Philippine Mustangs.

My conclusion is that a modern turboprop Skyraider would be an easy target for a modern fighter unless it operated under air superiority. Does anyone know of similar or more recent such tests?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2012)

yulzari said:


> The nearest to a 'modern' test of the survivability of a quasi Skyraider and jet fighters I know of was the RAF testing of Lightnings against a Spitfire in the early 1960's. The conclusion was that the agility of the Spitfire certainly made it a tricky target but the Lightning could disengage and reengage at will so would always score a kill. The Spitfire never even saw the Lightning in the gun camera. Modern fighter jets are more capable dogfighters than a Lightning even if a turbo Skyraider had a better speed and rate of climb than a Spitfire. This was to test the ability of RAF Lightnings to engage Philippine Mustangs.
> 
> My conclusion is that a modern turboprop Skyraider would be an easy target for a modern fighter unless it operated under air superiority. Does anyone know of similar or more recent such tests?



Not 100% sure but I think the USAF did a similar test with the Cavalier Turbo Mustang during the 1960s


----------



## pinsog (Apr 22, 2012)

1. Since Vietnam ended, we have never failed to establish complete air dominance

2. Add a pair of AIM-9X Sidewinders to the Skyraider. The A-10 simply carried a pair of Sidewinders for self protection on both Gulf wars, Completely unnecessary I might add. 

3. Add engine armor instead of ballast or relocating the wing or engine. Simple, adds survivabillity and restores center of gravity


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 22, 2012)

Would the hull cannon be synchronized? The wing cannons - how much trainable would they be?


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2012)

Let's see, anything with lower performance than a jet fighter is meat on the table?

How do you explain the Embraer Tucano, Super Tucano, and ALX? What about the FMA Pucara? And a large desire for aturboprop attack plane today in many air forces? In a dogfight between an Apache attack helicopter and something like a BAE Hawk, which would you pick as a winner? I'd take the Apache any day.

In a very narrow set of circumstances, the jet has a theoretical advantage, particularly if the turboprop has no modern avionics (like a WWII Spitfire). I'm not talking about WWII technology in the turboprop, I'm talking modern avionics and a modern airframe. The turboprop Skyraider would not wonder where the jet fighter was, it would KNOW. And it has missiles and chain guns to boot. Did you READ my description? Or just think of a Skyraider with a turboprop and no technological upgrades?

One could also stick LCD camoflage to the skin and cause the turboprop to dispper to the eye. Wouldn't fool a radar-guided missile, but would fool the pilot of the enemy A/C.

I think you underestimate the capability of a modern turboprop attack plane designed from the outset to handle air-to-ground and air-to-air. But that is just my opinion and it could be wrong. Since we don't seem to HAVE one today anywhere in the world, maybe it IS wrong. Then again, maybe there is an opportunity.

I'm not saying I am right; I put forth an idea for an attack plane with modern avionics along the lines of the Skyraider becasue the Tucano, as good as it is, cannot haul 8,000 pound of ordnance and loiter around with lots on ammunition for suppression. The Tucano can haul about 3,000 pounds and that includes the crew and fuel as well as the ordnance. I'm talking about a plane that can haul itself, the crew, and 5,000 - 6,000 pounds of ordnance in addition to formidable weaponry in the form of both fixed and trainable guns, with avionics as good as a modern jet fighter, or at LEAST generations ahead of a the real Douglas Skyraider, possibly with an internal drone of its own to employ for attack or defense.

I think it is a different animal from a Skyraider or a Spitfire!


----------



## davebender (Apr 22, 2012)

The A-10 uses tricycle landing gear. Does that cause problems?


----------



## The Basket (Apr 22, 2012)

Any modern turboprop coin aircraft will be more Pucara and less Skyraider.

Bring back the Mosquito I say. Plenty bomb load range and speed. Need to be a twin seater anyways. One to drive and one to shoot.


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2012)

Re post 32: Not as long as it operates from airstrips.


----------



## davebender (Apr 22, 2012)

Long range and high speed are typically not required for CAS. 

You want low speed maneuverability to improve accuracy and armor protection against ground fire. You also want a CAS aircraft to be as small a target as possible for enemy soldiers plinking away with rifles and machineguns.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 22, 2012)

davebender said:


> Long range and high speed are typically not required for CAS.
> 
> You want low speed maneuverability to improve accuracy and armor protection against ground fire. You also want a CAS aircraft to be as small a target as possible for enemy soldiers plinking away with rifles and machineguns.


 
Surely they require endurance = range.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 22, 2012)

I believe the phrase everyone is looking for is "long loiter time"

GREGP,
How would that monster turboprop affect the long loiter time of the original Skyraider?


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2012)

Obvsiously, if you go with one truboprop engine, the loiter time would decease since you must feed it. If you went with two turboprop engines and unconnected contra props, you could shut one down and loiter longer.

I'd probably opt for a single turboprop and add fuel tanks on ordnance stations for loiter, knowing that the guns were fully armed for supression duty and I still had some ordnance for antipersonnel operations.


----------



## davebender (Apr 23, 2012)

I agree.

Range doesn't necessarily = endurance as some aircraft have a relatively high economical cruise speed.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 23, 2012)

It would have to be a turboprop for fuel availability.

Taking on the Soviet army is different from taking on guerrillas. The Pucara is ideal but didn't do well in the Falklands War.

If your enemy has MANPADs and heavy calibre anti aircraft guns then speed is good. If all your enemy has are bolt action rifles then a cheap Cessna with a machine gun will suffice.


----------



## GregP (Apr 23, 2012)

Sell 'em a Cessna!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 24, 2012)

davebender said:


> The A-10 uses tricycle landing gear. Does that cause problems?


Not at all. It makes it easier to service and fly.


----------



## davebender (Apr 24, 2012)

The AA threat is higher but in either case friendly infantry still need fire support delivered with precision.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 13, 2012)

Wow, after singing the praises of the Skyraider for some time now, and telling colleagues the tremendous capabilities of a possible modernized A-1, I have found a haven for my rants/dreams.

If this post is too much, please let me know b/c I have a thousand thoughts on this topic, which generally consumes my daydreaming. As far as an intro goes, I'm familiar with CAS, some light attack, medium/heavy ground attack support, Air to Ground weapons/sensors/capes due to my current job/career.

This idea is incredible and I have written down some ideas for this exact type of forum. Please feel free to contradict me or bash my ideas, it will only allow me to find my own errors and correct them for future debates/arguments.

A-1 Skyraider (turboprop/modernized) ideas:

Large turboprop (no less than 3000 hp)-mentioned
Armored engine bay-possibly dragon skin style armor (keep CG close to original)-mentioned
Internally wing mounted forward firing guns - 2x 30mm M249 Chain guns
Reduce outer pylon count from 6 pylons to 3 per side-increases spacing/increases load per pylon/allows for larger ordnance
Keep folding wing capability to reduce ramp space (alway an issue at FOBs)
Tandem cockpit for pilot/CSO-not my first thought, but incredibly advantageous later
Dual Sensor loadout- 1x Sniper XR pod on one outer pylon, 1x larger ISR turret internal to rear fuselage that can retract for T/O, Landing/Cruise
Modernized cockpit with integrated radios/datalinks/HMD (helmet mounted displays)/weaponeering systems
Lighterweight external fuel pods on centerline and two inner pylons - capable of 10000lb gas load excluding internal tank
Centerline tank removeable and trainable 1x M249 30mm chain gun - slaved to either sensor, selectable to pilot or CSO helmet
Speed/Dive Brakes- Same three as classic Skyraider except bottom one size reduction to give way to High Definition ISR turret
Pressurized cockpit - Also utilizing OBOGS
IR countermeasures
RWR - for SA and threat reduction

That is a brief list of ideas. I have a more involved list concerning countermeasures, weapons and capabilities, positive arguments for almost all areas, and defenses for those as well.

Ideas mentioned already in thread that were contradictory or possibly disadvantageous to my proposal. Tricycle gear - Yes, this would be an incredible advantage, as I currently fly a trailing-link tricycle gear that performs great on semi-prepped runways. Changing the gear design would add additional complications to aircraft design, not to mention, lower the nose--leading to a need for a small prop or an extremely tall landing gear. 5000-6000 hp, I personally would love this much power, but by adding this many ponies requires a larger rudder to additional technologies which would require computers and/or a heavy right boot when the computer failed/damaged. A smaller power plant closer to the original output would be enough for a modern skyraider and the turboprop aspect would give it greater performance up high for cruise and loiter. I know, I know--someone will tell me that you can do CAS from 25K', but you can climb and hang out up there sipping gas, waiting for a call, and then dive with a vengeance to glory. 

The trainable 30mm on centerline could/would be used for firing while on orbit (similar to AC-130), for immediate-to-instantaneous firing capability. The gun would have auto-cutout capability if the gun was firing and manuevering the aircraft put the prop arc in between the gun and target. This situation would really only present itself in the act of engaging ground targets while aligning the aircraft for a forward firing shot--easily prevented with coordination between pilot and CSO While the other ordnance would allow for a larger weapons employment when rolling off orbit following a request from JTAC/FSO. Also, off-axis/forward firing weapons are an option and should be considered. Radios and datalinks would need to be siginificant and robust, which shouldn't be a challenge and should even be hundreds of pounds lighter than original radios and electronics.

CSO = Combat Systems Officer

Realistically, the glory of this platform is in the support in the CAS role. Objectively this aircraft would end up spending more hours filling and ISR roll than shooting bad guys. For this reason, an additional pylon on each side would be wet to provide another 600 lbs of gas to the loadout. Minimizing ordnance would reduce the drag, leaving the aircraft additional flight time. I do enjoy the idea of the prop brake though!! Great for hot gas/hot reloads at a FOB--minimizing turn time in a combat situation. 
Also, re-engineering of the wing with modern materials is a must. Book/internet has told me that the original was only rated to carry less than 10000 lbs under the wings--not acceptable. If the original max gross T/O weight was kept at 25K lbs for the modernized aircraft, and the empty weight could be reduced by 2K-3k lbs b/c of modernized avionics/engine, the wing would need to allow for probably 15K capacity. Does not seem improbably with today's alloys/composites--I should probably get out my old excel files from Aerospace engineering to analyze wing loading!!

Anyone else want to talk again about this platform??? I welcome a healthy and educational discussion at all hours of the day!!

OMP


----------



## OldManP (Oct 13, 2012)

My apologies, M230 30mm chain gun in every place i mentioned M249. I understand the M249 is a SAW, I simply incorrectly typed the nomenclature...that's what happens when you're tired while working multiple projects!!!


----------



## ShVAK (Oct 13, 2012)

I dig it, but unfortunately it won't see the light of day. 

The A-10 already exists, a proven aircraft which has greater anti-armor capability. AC-130's offer tremendous firepower against personnel and light armor. Attack helis have better maneuverability and precision at low altitude, albeit with increased vulnerability and a number of other tradeoffs. And then you have Predator/Reaper UAV's and more capable drone designs down the road which sidestep the vulnerability issue entirely and are a lot cheaper to operate. 

The A/D-1 is easily among my favorite aircraft but a modern heavy turboprop CAS aircraft like you're describing would look nothing like one, and it would offer little advantage (aside from maybe increased loiter) over existing machines. Modern COIN aircraft need to be cheaper and smaller to be affordable for third world air forces. Brilliant though it was the ol' Spad had its day.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 13, 2012)

Well...true, more than likely will not see the light of day, but not b/c of the lack of capability compared to it's brethren. More than likely due to politics and lack of military forethought---and budget restrictions.

"The A-10 already exists, a proven aircraft which has greater anti-armor capability."

This is true, but we aren't exactly fighting tanks and APCs in current battlefield. A-10s numbers are being reduced drastically (check the news). A-10s have one crew member, which currently they do an exception job, but an extra set of eyes running a sensor and clearing for terrain on gun passes at night could prove unparalleled. A-10 is aging, requiring higher cost for maintenance, not to mention higher fuel quantity requirements. The TOLD for an A-10 doesnt lend itself to FOB operations, or other than concrete runways...its published as having "off airfield" landing capability, but ask any current A-10 pilots how many have landed on anything other than regular Air Force pavement...my guess is 0%. 


"AC-130's offer tremendous firepower against personnel and light armor." 

Again, true, but how many fly during the day?--leaving soldiers vulnerable Accuracy of 25mm? Aging weapon system? Modern weapons? Datalinks? Loiter time?--I think i got enough knowledge to counter this argument 


"Attack helis have better maneuverability and precision at low altitude, albeit with increased vulnerability and a number of other tradeoffs"

--tradeoffs being vulnerable based on speed. Also lack of altitude capability for transit once loaded up, and distance capable of traversing without refueling restricts remote support. I don't think helo maneuverability in a guerrilla style war is that advantageous based solely on the number of helos we've lost thus far...some additional smash (speed) pays dividends against ground based "dumb" weapons.


"And then you have Predator/Reaper UAV's and more capable drone designs down the road which sidestep the vulnerability issue entirely and are a lot cheaper to operate. "

Whew, where to start with these...the internet is full of "knowledge", but until you work with them, they sound incredible. Their lack/limit of capabilities is hardly spoken of. The cost of removing the aircrew saves $$$, but the cost is seen in their response time, adaptability to changing combat environment, 100% control, and a few others that I won't speak about. With this being a possibility for my future (and currently working with them), i feel like i can speak accurately about their roles/capes/limitations. They offer an incredible/unparalleled strategic ISR capability, but tactically, nope. As for CAS...when you have absolutely no other options or considerable to time coordinate...maybe, but otherwise, I'll take my chances.

"The A/D-1 is easily among my favorite aircraft but a modern heavy turboprop CAS aircraft like you're describing would look nothing like one, and it would offer little advantage (aside from maybe increased loiter) over existing machines. "

I would disagree, the turboprop would stretch the front a bit, less pylons wouldn't be that noticeable loaded up with current mix of GBUs and Hellfires. Cockpit wouldn't look too foreign since it more or less would be a tandem version of the Fat face AD-5. The advantages, if allowed to be utilized and not pushed by the wayside by contracts and politics, would be a direct response to the shortcomings of other platforms that are currently "making do"...like F-16s, F-15s, B-1s. 

"Modern COIN aircraft need to be cheaper and smaller to be affordable for third world air forces." 

I would agree if i cared about selling it to other countries. Don't really care though. Only care about supporting my boys, all others can benefit from a turboprop skyraider after the success has been seen from protecting our guys on the battlefield. Not to mention, I think there were more than 2 dozen variants of the original skyraider...if manufactured correctly (and it is possible, i've seen it with other programs), they could be produced inexpensively and pick up other missions where a large, expensive platform doesn't need to exist..(ie. EW, Small airlift/transport, CAS, ISR, FARP).


"Brilliant though it was the ol' Spad had its day."--100% truth, no objections.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 13, 2012)

I might add, that we are not taking into account that the US Air Force is quite possible the worst handler of contracts in history. The political involvement is ridiculous and constantly screws not only the American public out of money and time, but the operators of needed equipment/platforms out of making a difference and supporting the ground assets. Examples JSF, KC-X, OV-X, not to mention a half dozen others...

Let's speak strictly about what could happen without the political buffoonery and money-hungry individuals in the chain. Perhaps if a small number of purchases were made to support SOF units, and then expand once capabilities were proven. (Don't take all AFSOC contracts/aircraft into considerations with this argument as well...haha!)


----------



## razor1uk (Oct 13, 2012)

I agree with OldmanP's more rational hypothersied choices. 

Plus pragmaticaly thinking, realisticaly trainable guns upon the wings slaved to helmets, would make for some ugly thick and un-aerodynamic wings parts includind the associated disruption of airflows at all sorts of AoA's manouverings and the plus the weight of the supporting structurals, the control and ammo feed systems would severly also hinder roll-ability. 

Even if F22 (R&D White Elehpant) based advanced aero computers were utilised along with cost-is-nothing state of the art materials, as in the original idea, would make an aircraft at least a third larger than the Spad/Sandy if not double size (dimmensionaly) with equal or higher aerodynamic parasitic drag and hence lower max average speed and higher fuel wastage even in its cleanest profile.

Don't misunderstand me or OldmanP, were not trying to shoot the idea down, just lean off some of the natural youthful exúberance (sic) for every idea in one, please continue all.
I like how this could develope, so thats why I chimed in, as the AD1/A-H1/A-1D etc is one of my favourite A/C of all time, along the Warthog, F-5-Tiger II, Spitfire Bf.109, the Tyhpoon II/EF2000.

Below is subtopical and so to be ignored for this threads development purposes, but highlights a few parsé things.


> Now about the A10, while over engineered originally, still has more developemental room within it than the remaining current wing spar life methinks - originialy it had next to no avionics but room for them - well a co-incedental by product of spaced armour skin over its semi armoured structure.
> 
> Following the NAWS(?) 2 seater R&D A10 prototype they started adding some kit into it. Once it proved just how good it was during the Gulf Wars, then the 'general brass' (generally ignorant of things outside 'their niche' of knowledge skills/training) actualy took notice of it and decided not to axe it as was their earlier plan of action.
> Which A10 supporters within the AF, Congress and US Aero-Industries instigated the NAWS project as a 'last stand' to try and market it save it, which in a unforseen backwards way it did - by extending service usage until the unforseen Fall of the Berlin Wall and subsiquent upheavals kept it on standy.
> ...


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2012)

3,000 hp would be a small turboprop.

Use this modern 11,000 hp turboprop engine for the next generation CAS aircraft.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/tp400_tcm92-6706.pdf


----------



## OldManP (Oct 13, 2012)

That looks pretty cool, but considering the size, probably couldn't carry enough fuel, not to mention the torque at takeoff may just flip the entire airframe over on it's back. Go-around would be sketchy at best...low airspeeds, low altitude, high torque, little rudder authority = high probability of death. 

More HP than the original would be nice, Pratt and Whitney make some great engines with the new PW150A being around 4500-5000 hp. This would be a great engine, cramming it into the airframe would be the only challenge....note i said challenge not problem!

Plus ya gotta think about Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC)- How much fuel per hour is burned for every horsepower created...Bigger HP means more fuel = less flight time, there's a law of diminishing return.


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2012)

Data from Wikipedia.

.39 lbs/shp. TP400 turboprop.
.....3.5m long x .92m diameter.
.....1,890 kg. Dry weight.
.....11,000 hp.

.4 lbs/hp. R3350 radial engine.
.....1.9m long x 1.4m diameter.
.....1,212 kg. Dry weight.
.....2,700 hp. A-1H.

Looks like all gain and no pain.
.....TP400 is 50% heavier but produces 4 times as much power.
.....TP400 is much smaller in diameter. However it is twice as long.
.....Specific fuel consumption similiar. If anything the TP400 turboprop is slightly superior.

With 11,000 hp our "Skyraider 2012" will have a range/payload the late 1940s design could only dream about.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 13, 2012)

True, but with a plane weighing in at 10-15K lbs upon return from a mission, and pilot pushes up throttle for a go-around, seems like no amount of rudder/aileron combo could prevent rolling the plane over into the ground...sure would climb like a banshee though. I'd volunteer for the time-to-climb record in it...New turboprop record i'm sure.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 13, 2012)

Dave, I think you've mixed up your units.

The R-3350 is about 1lb/hp. The TP400 is 2.68hp/lb = 0.37lb/hp.

The TP400 is listed as having a specific fuel consumption of 0.39lb/shp/hr. The specific fuel consumption of the turbo-compound R-3350 will match that, or better it, but I doubt the regular R-3350 comes anywhere close - especially at max power (2700hp).


----------



## wuzak (Oct 13, 2012)

Allison T56 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An older turbine with less power and higher sfc.

But it weighs less than the R-3350, but is longer.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 13, 2012)

The reason I would shy away from the T56 is the same reason I would lean toward a PW. If the engine dies (rarely with a PW, but will happen), the blades go to flat pitch, rather than feather, leaving the pilot without an engine and 4x speed brakes full out up front. Doesn't do much for your glide performance. The PW150A, similar to the PT6A I'm very familiar with, feathers upon failure, leaving the blades feathered for a greater glide capability. Not something we usually thing about, but since I fly single engine planes into some not so friendly places, gliding considerations are something to think about. Plus the PW150A is quite new, and is capable of reducing the RPMs during flight to reduce noise signature--very key element!


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 14, 2012)

From a practical standpoint, if you are going to put piloted aircraft in HMG range of ground troops in stead of using drones, a twin engine aircraft has a lot going for it. Like the OV-10 X or something similar ( a bit larger?) A twin with a pair of 1500-2000hp engines shouldn't be that much more expensive than a single 3000hp machine, especially after you load thing up with enough electronics to require a back seater. The electronics and trick gun mounts are going to put it way beyond the armed trainer in terms of price no matter what engine/s you use so trying to save a few bucks isn't going to make it that attractive to 3rd world countries anyway.


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2012)

> if you are going to put piloted aircraft in HMG range of ground troops in stead of using drones, a twin engine aircraft has a lot going for it


I agree.

A modern CAS aircraft should look a lot like the A-10. Would you gain anything by replacing turbofan engines with turboprops?


----------



## OldManP (Oct 14, 2012)

Aaah, I'm so glad someone brought up the OV-10 besides me. Not a WWII plane, so i figured i'd let that subject go here, but it and the skyraider top my list of Top 5 "awesomest" planes of all time. I can 100% agree with two engines over one in a high threat environment, especially if working at lower altitudes. The OV-10 was and can still be a great FAC(A) platform. This is a whole different discussion if we want to start that somewhere else! So, any aircraft working as a FAC(A) will/would have to work at an altitude in the threat area constantly--especially in order to utilize Type 1 and Type 2 control. This may not be the case for a Turboprop Skyraider supporting a FAC(A)/FSO/JTAC. With someone else calling the shots and modern weapons, the skyraider may maintain an altitude clear of most surface to air threat, and enter a high threat region while employing. This type of entry could be mitigated with speed (duration in threat zone) and EW/IR countermeasures (enemy weapon threat mitigation). At times, depending on the target, weapons can and are currently being delivered in CAS role without entering the threat area. 

As it pertains to cost vs. engine count, simple math is "if you double the engines, you double the cost of ownership". This is true on the civilian side of flying, hence the reason pilatus and TBM manufacture small passenger turboprop planes that perform well against their Beechcraft dual engine counterparts. One larger engine will have to be inspected most likely at the same intervals as a smaller engine, but twice the engines takes twice the time or twice the manpower--either way, additional cost. Don't get me wrong, I could/can/do sing the praises of the OV-10 X, which i believe the military has completely dropped the ball on. I've personally witnessed several situation where they could have saved "a lot" during heated situations.

On the order of electronics and total cost, I would completely disagree. Not so much on trainable guns. I have zero experience in maintenance/operation of an M230 and it's reliability. I would simply go with this type of weapon b/c it is currently being manufactured, there isn't a viable 20mm with comparable cyclic rate at an equivalent reduction of price and weight...and there is something incredible about the 30mm round delivered with accuracy for anti-personnel/vehicles that is amazing. 20mm is not used on slow moving aircraft for some reason, but if there ever is a time, this might be an avenue to increase ammo capacity while dropping weight and overall cost of utilization. One of the current ways to keep things cheap is to develop the minimal necessary and use proven equipment/techniques in different fashions to complete varying mission sets...also called COTS--Commercial Off The Shelf. The electronics are available, not cheap, but incredibly easier and cheaper to integrate into a proven platform than start from scratch in an unproven venue. This can be seen when contractors invent new "aircraft computers" to fit a new fighter...everything is proprietary, and highly unadaptable. Could you imagine if you bought a computer and the sales rep told you that upgrading software or hardware would be almost as expensive as purchasing it the first time....probably wouldn't fly (no pun intended). But utilizing current equipment/computers, integrated properly drastically reduces cost/upgrade costs/spin up time. 

Let's face it, the Super Tucano is not cheap, but cheaper than an A-10, especially if you asked someone to spin up the manufacturing process again. And again, 3rd world markets aren't what we're arguing here.

Turbofans vs. turboprops. By switching you would gain fuel flows and decibels. Yes you would go faster, but CAS doesn't need to necessarily move fast...they need to react quickly. The difference is huge, though the wording is subtle. The need to not be loud. When the gunship (AC-130) used to roll in overhead, people knew what they sounded like, so they ran and hid. Likewise, when they heard a normal C-130 transitting, they still ran and hid...human conditioning. If you are quiet, you can deceive the enemy, allowing your munitions to be airborne prior to the enemy being aware of your presence. Turboprops provide a great mix between piston and turbofan engines. Higher/faster/farther than pistons. Slower/quieter/cheaper than turbofans....a decent mix if anyone is thinking of buying a small family commuter! (though not too cheap i might add)

Big picture: CAS Platforms need to react quickly, but don't NEED to be low in the entirety of their sortie duration. Cost is relative, 2 engines are most often more costly (at least in time and manpower), turboprops aren't the end-all be-all, but they provide modernization from pistons, while scaling back the turbofan speed and cost--to fill the niche that is needed.


----------



## cimmex (Oct 14, 2012)

I thought this is a “World War II – Aviation” sub forum, next comes warp-speed engines ...
Cimmex


----------



## OldManP (Oct 14, 2012)

I didn't' start the thread, but we can always cuss and discuss this elsewhere...too bad the ole skyraider wasn't used in WWII...

..i think there is a thread about that though


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2012)

I just wondered if anyone but me ever wished for a turboprop Skyraider. The original WWII Skyraider was one of the baddest attack planes ever built and it seems like a good idea. The rest deserves their own threads, but don't address the turboprop Skyraider question at all.

I have seen it said the military won't buy a taildragger, but I think if it were available, they'd change their minds.

I see that maybe I am not thinking of it like the rest of you, but I know a LOT of former soldiers that would LOVE to see a Skyraider turboprop in service for CAS.


----------



## razor1uk (Oct 14, 2012)

'General Brass' always seems to view equipment more than 5 years old as something to be contemptable about, unless its so awe inspiring at its job, that it gives them more pride or they know it inside and out better than their buttocks... 

Note; no offence is meant towards any unfortunate General(s) named Brass, if so, accept my profuse apologies for stereotyping them along with Major Ballsup - and a similar sorry to him to.

I'm sure a good enough tail dragger could generate such feelings if so inspiring to them. 
A modern '..Raider'-ish inspired design, with heavy-duty/rough-field/extended-carrier-strong trike gears, butterfly style flaps and perhaps some sort of actuated partial leading edge slats/flaps could begin to crumble that facade of theirs.
Perhaps even with some sort of partial flap blowing system linked to reducing prop revolutions, not engine revolutions; like a wastegate/bypass bleed system or an aero power KERS thingymajig, a hyperthetical engine generated energy conservation redirection system.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 14, 2012)

Agreed. anyone know of any aviation forums that would proliferate an educational discussion of such topics. A WWII aviation forum doesn't seem like a place where something of the previous post's nature would reside. 

The top military officials, usually have to please their bosses (politicians) and make their decisions negating the needs/capabilities of the "lower people". And if that ain't true, that's the perception....And perception is reality!

I like the thoughts you expressed in the last paragraph, i have had thoughts on large, well design flaps and leading edge slats (love then AN-2 Colts leading edge slat design!). interesting idea about reducing prop revolutions with a partial blown flap system... ingenious really. Some might say it sounds complicated, but have you ever looked inside a PT6 engine--4x 180* turns to airflow before returning to the environment, but one of the greatest, most reliable designs ever (I stake my life on it multiple times a week!).

OMP


----------



## jim (Oct 16, 2012)

Mr OldMan P
Your opinions and ideas are very very interesting and informative. Keep posting!


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 16, 2012)

cimmex said:


> I thought this is a “World War II – Aviation” sub forum, next comes warp-speed engines ...
> Cimmex



Should it be redirected to the modern section? I don't have my knickers in bind. Yet. Cimmex me thinks you are too cynical for your own good.


----------



## OldManP (Oct 16, 2012)

Yes, please redirect if it keeps the thread going! Additional request would be to add a link to the new area if possible to redirect lost souls for more information and participation!

Thanks for the encouragement, I love this type of brainstorming and interaction--someone might think it's crazy, but 30 years ago who thought the internet was a crazy idea. Or cell phones--or smart phones!!


----------



## OldManP (Oct 16, 2012)

If a moderator wants to become, please do in order to clean up this mess of thread redirection. I don't have priveleges to move entire threads, but I will make a new thread in the modern section that references this one, then post the new link in this thread for any readers to find "the rest of the story"--and Paul Harvey fans????

Standby for links and hopefully fun new stuff!


----------



## OldManP (Oct 16, 2012)

TA-DA!!!

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/modernized-turboprop-skyraider-34386.html

See previous thread if interested. Your imagination will grow...maybe like Reading Rainbow...or not

OMP


----------

