Putting the P-47 back into production?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
You are an idiot...
Click to expand...

Ah job done, thank you!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 

Attachments

  • A-10_damage1.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 145
  • A-10_damage2a.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 155
  • A-10_damage3a.jpg
    59.6 KB · Views: 132
  • A-10_EAFB-wheelsupa.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 145
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
 
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
Click to expand...
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".
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
vikingBerserker said:
I'm curious, why the PA-48 over the A-1?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The Oscar Goes Back Into Production
Replies
7
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
M
Stinger Missile Goes Back Into Production
Replies
4
Views
864
MIflyer
M
M
Beta Starts Electric Aircraft Production
Replies
0
Views
468
MIflyer
M
B
NOS P-2 Neptune Parts
Replies
0
Views
385
Bigmerle
B
M
Launch the Alert Fighters ....And Grab the Xbox Controller
Replies
1
Views
359
Denniss
D
Menu
Log in
Register