Putting the P-47 back into production?

[Capt. Vick]

Yahoo! Image Detail for http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/4825.jpg

Remarks by Bernhard C. F. Klein: "Designed by Rutan Aircraft Factory, this is the Scaled Composites Model 151 "ARES" (Agile Responsive Effective Support) designed as a "Mud fighter" ground support aircraft in response to the US Army's request for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). It is powered by a single Pratt Whitney JT15D-1 turbojet engine. The original design was a pusher turboprop and evolved into the current design when Scaled Composites decided to build N151SC as a demonstrator. The ARES first flew on February 19, 1990 and is still available for use as a research testbed."

 

[Clay_Allison]

Yahoo! Image Detail for http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/4825.jpg

Remarks by Bernhard C. F. Klein: "Designed by Rutan Aircraft Factory, this is the Scaled Composites Model 151 "ARES" (Agile Responsive Effective Support) designed as a "Mud fighter" ground support aircraft in response to the US Army's request for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). It is powered by a single Pratt Whitney JT15D-1 turbojet engine. The original design was a pusher turboprop and evolved into the current design when Scaled Composites decided to build N151SC as a demonstrator. The ARES first flew on February 19, 1990 and is still available for use as a research testbed."

I doubt a jet like that would be fuel efficient enough to have a long loiter time.

 

[Matt308]

P-47? Sheesh... too much maintenance for real world viability.

But what about this beaut?

 

[Graeme]

The original design was a pusher turboprop and evolved into the current design when Scaled Composites decided to build N151SC as a demonstrator."

Rodney Schapel was a keen advocate of the pusher-prop attack aircraft concept in the early 80's. He was approached by a Middle Eastern company for a low cost light attack aircraft able to operate from very poor airfields. One of his reasons for such a layout was to reduce airframe damage by sand. Unit cost was less than $200,000 (1982).

 

[Capt. Vick]

...and after it's done bombing the Taliban, it can be quickly turned around to spray the poppy crops. Now there is killing two birds with one stone! Brilliant!!

 

[GrauGeist]

I will concede that the need for a light (disposable?) and durable COIN aircraft for smaller air services would over-rule the A-10 as an option. Money would be a primary reason, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that half of these groups would either sell the aircraft to the highest bidder (by way of a deal made by a corrupt official) or lose it in a coupe, etc...

I will hold fast to the idea that the U.S. needs to keep the Thunderbolt II in it's inventory. Using the excuse that it's "outdated" doesn't fly with me, especially if one looks at the service length of the B-52.

That aside, I can see the Pucará, Super Tucano or even the evil crop duster (AT-802U) filling the role. As far as the PC-21 goes, can it compete against the other three as far as payload goes? It's wings look a little narrow for any significant hardpoints.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

No and in today's world a PA-48 would cost about the same price. Additionally anything with a PT-6 would be much better.

 

[Matt308]

...and after it's done bombing the Taliban, it can be quickly turned around to spray the poppy crops. Now there is killing two birds with one stone! Brilliant!!

It was actually at the Paris Air Show this year. It is a candidate for the Iraqi Air Force.

 

[beaupower32]

What a idiot. That boy doesnt realize that most people in here were dealing with aircraft while he was still getting shot into towels. (for those who dont get that, use a little imagination)

 

[Clay_Allison]

P-47? Sheesh... too much maintenance for real world viability.

But what about this beaut?

I've thought of cropduster-types with wing hardpoints before they sure have the power and lift, but do they have the speed to run after they hit?

 

[Clay_Allison]

No and in today's world a PA-48 would cost about the same price. Additionally anything with a PT-6 would be much better.

In today's world no plane is manufactured on an assembly line like in WWII, I think the last mass-production fighter was the F-16, although the F-35 is supposed to be manufactured in numbers once sales rise. Of course the cost of production will be higher on individually hand built items.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In today's world no plane is manufactured on an assembly line like in WWII, I think the last mass-production fighter was the F-16, although the F-35 is supposed to be manufactured in numbers once sales rise. Of course the cost of production will be higher on individually hand built items.

Not in the numbers like WW2, but an assembly line is still used - about 20/ 24 a year at peak. here are the production numbers prior to the cutback.

F-22 Raptor Production

 

[Matt308]

Great pic!!!

 

[Matt308]

I've thought of cropduster-types with wing hardpoints before they sure have the power and lift, but do they have the speed to run after they hit?

For the types of unsophisticated operations envisioned for these relatively inexpensive airplanes, the answer is yes. We aren't talking about a typical operation where every enemy is armed with a shoulder mounted SAM. The AirTractor derivative included armoring for vital areas (i.e., engine, cockpit, etc), but those apparently were not on display at Paris... just technically spec'd. They did include options for IRCM.

If you have never seen one of these AirTractors working, you really can't appreciate the power and maneuverability of these things. Now take out the significant liquid agriculture payload (802gal), and substitute 6400lbs of armour, weapons and gas for loitering and you have a relatively formidable combat airplane for unsophisticated enemies.

 

[CharlesBronson]

The Pucara is good but slow, the A-29 is a nice little aircraft with very good electronics but it have poor fixed armament, so I think there is still a gap for a better, heavier truboprop COIN aircraft.

IT should had a speed of 650 - 700 km in orden to intercept drug planes fast and no less than 8 .50 Mgs or 4 x20mm or 2x30mm in order to bring them down quickly as well to sunk river boats and motorboats up to 150 tons and destroy trucks and light armored vehicles effectively.

It would be nice also that it could aim and launch 500 lb guided bombs as the A-29 does.

I would include a inflight refueling probe for long range/ long station missions.

 

[Matt308]

In flight refueling probe certainly does change things. That will exclude many lower cost airplanes. It all depends upon the final mission need. The AirTractor is an interesting concept in that none of the weapons are integral to the airframe. All weapons are intended to be modular. This, in my opinion, makes airplanes like the AirTractor attractive on a wider scope and more able to suit low intensity conflicts much better.

However, your point CB, about ability to make intercepts is a very good one. And I suspect that the AirTractors inability to perform such duties detracts from its peacetime appeal. Once the "war" is over, what are you going to do with a airframe that can haul missiles, guns, cannon and bombs, but cannot exceed 180mph. Certainly civilian intercept ops would be hugely constrained.

 

[CharlesBronson]

However, your point CB, about ability to make intercepts is a very good one. And I suspect that the AirTractors inability to perform such duties detracts from its peacetime appeal. Once the "war" is over, what are you going to do with a airframe that can haul missiles, guns, cannon and bombs, but cannot exceed 180mph. Certainly civilian intercept ops would be hugely constrained

Well, I feel that requeriment is vital, specially for latin american Air Forces, in the majority of cases of our hipotetyc Turboprop P-47 should be able to do the job without committing more sofisticated or expensive airplanes like a Mirage 2000 or F-16, wich cant follow properly a low and slow flying aircraft with their guns aniway.

I would keep missile armed modern fighters for facing a faster, high flying treath like an 9/11 stile attack.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In today's world no plane is manufactured on an assembly line like in WWII, I think the last mass-production fighter was the F-16, although the F-35 is supposed to be manufactured in numbers once sales rise. Of course the cost of production will be higher on individually hand built items.

Thats not true, as Joe has pointed out many aircraft are still made that way. I would say that most aircraft still are. I know more a fact that Sikorsky and Boeing still make their helicopters that way. The Blackhawk and the Apache are pushed from station to station on their wheels.

Sections of larger aircraft might be made in other locations but they all meet up in an assymbly line and are put together. Just saw a nice documentary about Boeing and the 747 plant. It is an assymbly line as well.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Thats not true, as Joe has pointed out many aircraft are still made that way. I would say that most aircraft still are. I know more a fact that Sikorsky and Boeing still make their helicopters that way. The Blackhawk and the Apache are pushed from station to station on their wheels.

Sections of larger aircraft might be made in other locations but they all meet up in an assymbly line and are put together. Just saw a nice documentary about Boeing and the 747 plant. It is an assymbly line as well.

20-24 per year is not going to lower cost per unit any. I also think the state of the art Avionics are unnecessary. They account for a huge amount of the cost of these armed supertrainers.

If you put 1000 simplified A-6 Super Texans on order I think you could drive the cost per unit down pretty quickly.

As for the Air Tractors, I appreciate that they are powerful, maneuverable, and versatile. I just worry that one .50 or several .30s on a rooftop will bring it down because it is so slow. Add armor and it may be slow enough to get shot by a simple RPG the way our helicopters have been on occasion.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

20-24 per year is not going to lower cost per unit any. I also think the state of the art Avionics are unnecessary. They account for a huge amount of the cost of these armed supertrainers.

If you put 1000 simplified A-6 Super Texans on order I think you could drive the cost per unit down pretty quickly.

As for the Air Tractors, I appreciate that they are powerful, maneuverable, and versatile. I just worry that one .50 or several .30s on a rooftop will bring it down because it is so slow. Add armor and it may be slow enough to get shot by a simple RPG the way our helicopters have been on occasion.

Sure they will. Any number of "mass produced" aircraft is going to drive the cost down. 24 instead of 5 is going to drive the cost down, no matter how miniscule or not.