Putting the P-47 back into production?

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.

Putting the P-47 back into production?

More options

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

Messy1

Master Sergeant

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

timshatz

Chief Master Sergeant

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

timshatz

Chief Master Sergeant

riacrato

Senior Airman

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

riacrato

Senior Airman

Matt308

Glock Perfection

Attachments

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

riacrato

Senior Airman

timshatz

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads