Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Way more, if you're talking about literally the A-1's R-3350 18 cyl. radial engine, v comparatively very low maintenance modern turboprop engines as on a Pucara, not to mention a single engine turbine plane. At today's labor costs in a first world AF, maintaining the A-1's engine is out of the question, plus again gasoline is now a special item in military logistics (though Predator A does have a simple Rotax gasoline engine, the Army's Warrior version uses a diesel engine for just the logistical reasons mentioned; the larger Predator B/Reaper are turbine). The question should probably assume you re-engine the A-1 with a turbine; then I still don't see a compelling reason for such a plane, but actually bringing back the A-1 engine and all is just not realistic at all, IMO.would the maintainance hours on a single engined A1 be more than a twin engined plane like the Pucura?
Way more, if you're talking about literally the A-1's R-3350 18 cyl. radial engine, v comparatively very low maintenance modern turboprop engines as on a Pucara, not to mention a single engine turbine plane. At today's labor costs in a first world AF, maintaining the A-1's engine is out of the question, plus again gasoline is now a special item in military logistics (though Predator A does have a simple Rotax gasoline engine, the Army's Warrior version uses a diesel engine for just the logistical reasons mentioned; the larger Predator B/Reaper are turbine). The question should probably assume you re-engine the A-1 with a turbine; then I still don't see a compelling reason for such a plane, but actually bringing back the A-1 engine and all is just not realistic at all, IMO.
Joe
Just for information, I went to school in around 1958 with a former Marine pilot who told of practise missions in ADs, long flights, many hours at low altitudes, under the radar, to deliver nuclear bombs.
Nice pic ..... but it just doesnt look right with a SE Asian paint job on a snowy runway.
That's definitely true of carrier ops as of early Korean War, the carriers didn't have jet fuel stowage, so both jets and props burned AVGAS. The gasoline for the jets was mixed with some lube oil to ease wear on the engines' fuel pumps intended for kerosene type fuel. The Marines also did this ashore in Korea with a/c like F9F, though AF didn't AFAIK. Of course the same thing was also done on a/c like B-36, C-123, C-119, P2V etc, in versions which had both jet and piston engines. The planes didn't have two separate fuel systems, the jets just burned straight AVGAS in those cases.High octane avgas being used in jet engines? I didnt think it was possible.
All true - lead deposits on fuel nozzles and turbine blade, aside from that it burns right through.
The SkyShark, Douglas's effort to take the Spad into the jet-age would have been successful if Allison had developed a successful counter-rotating turbo prop engine. The SkyShark was actually twin-engined (2 smallish turbos) mounted side-by-side in the mid-section of the airframe (would it have had the flight characteristics of the P-39/P-63 ??)
MM