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

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

But what about this beaut?
 

Attachments

  • a.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 148
  • AT-802U_2-thumb-560x372-37412.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 108
  • paris2.jpg
    59.7 KB · Views: 120
Capt. Vick said:
The original design was a pusher turboprop and evolved into the current design when Scaled Composites decided to build N151SC as a demonstrator."
Click to expand...

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).

 
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 Using the excuse that it's "outdated" doesn't fly with me, especially if one looks at the service length of the B-52.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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
Matt308 said:
P-47? Sheesh... too much maintenance for real world viability.

But what about this beaut?
Click to expand...
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?
 
FLYBOYJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

 
Clay_Allison said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
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
751
MIflyer
M
M
Beta Starts Electric Aircraft Production
Replies
0
Views
412
MIflyer
M
B
NOS P-2 Neptune Parts
Replies
0
Views
222
Bigmerle
B
M
Launch the Alert Fighters ....And Grab the Xbox Controller
Replies
1
Views
233
Denniss
D
Menu
Log in
Register