Modernized/Turboprop Skyraider

• Apr 22, 2014

• Thread starter
• #41

O

OldManP

Airman

43

0

Oct 13, 2012

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

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

OMP

 

• Apr 22, 2014

• #42

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

28,995

24,065

Aug 29, 2008

Redding, California

www.netallurgy.com

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

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

 

• Apr 23, 2014

• #43

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,097

8,752

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

BobR said:

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

Click to expand...

And even those carrier aircraft have tricycle landing gear.

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

 

• Apr 25, 2014

• #44

S

Shortround6

Major General

23,266

16,480

Jun 29, 2009

Central Florida Highlands

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

The difference was known even before WW II.

 

• Apr 26, 2014

• #45

gjs238

Tech Sergeant

1,889

330

Mar 26, 2009

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

 

• Apr 26, 2014

• #46

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,097

8,752

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

gjs238 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

gjs238 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

 

• Apr 26, 2014

• #47

S

Shortround6

Major General

23,266

16,480

Jun 29, 2009

Central Florida Highlands

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

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

 

• Apr 26, 2014

• #48

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,097

8,752

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

Shortround6 said:

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

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

Click to expand...

There is...

 

• Apr 26, 2014

• Thread starter
• #49

O

OldManP

Airman

43

0

Oct 13, 2012

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

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

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

 

• Apr 27, 2014

• #50

swampyankee

Chief Master Sergeant

4,034

3,261

Jun 25, 2013

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

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

 

• Apr 27, 2014

• #51

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

28,995

24,065

Aug 29, 2008

Redding, California

www.netallurgy.com

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

or a group of very athletic squirrels

Click to expand...

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

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuMdLm0ccU

 

• Apr 27, 2014

• Thread starter
• #52

O

OldManP

Airman

43

0

Oct 13, 2012

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

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

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

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

 

• May 1, 2014

• Thread starter
• #53

O

OldManP

Airman

43

0

Oct 13, 2012

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

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