Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
one million may not be realistic, but with a cheap avionics package, 4 should be within reason.
P.S. I'd like to see 4x 20m M39 Cannon or 2x30mm M230 cannon armament.
Putting the P-47 back into production?
- Thread starter Dark Matter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P.S. I'd like to see 4x 20m M39 Cannon or 2x30mm M230 cannon armament.
Very true. Development costs are lowered as they are spread over the production run instead of all on a couple of aircraft. Development cost would probably be considered a fixed cost after some point.
Gotta wonder what the point would be in developing a whole new airframe where there are so many other options out there for a COIN aircraft that are close to the present design requirements. While not perfect, it would save money to buy the Texan or some other similar bird tricked out for the requirements.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
It would so long as you can trick it out enough to bring enough hurt and still arrive at speed.
I'd love to see a Super Texan (as tricked out as the Super Tucano) with cheaper avionics and heavier armament.
Messy1
Master Sergeant
Anyone else find it funny that Dark Matter started this post about the P47 going back into production, and will not be in production of anymore posts himself?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Personally I don't think you don't want to skimp on avionics no matter where the aircraft is going to be operated.
I think if a country was to approach a manufacturer like Embrair, the "cheaper avionics" would probably be readily available. The customer usually dictates what avionics suite they want in their aircraft and if the manufacturer won't support an avionics suite, a mod center is usually called upon to complete the requirement. Right now the Brazilians are using a suite developed by an Israeli company; in many cases the suites found in aircraft like Super Tucano are not much more expensive than avionics you'll find in a newer GA high performance single or corporate jet. the biggest add on you may see are NVGs.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
You know way more about the industry than I do, why does the cost of aircraft balloon way beyond inflation? The cost of the P-51 was $50,985 in 1945 ($603,685 in today's dollars), now if you put it back into production we are looking at 6 million easy, right? That's ten times the rate of inflation. It's absurd and there must be some fix for it.
The cost of the F-86 in today's dollars would also be under 2 million.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The avionics are one part of it but at the same time you have avionics that weigh one tenth of what you were dealing with say in the early 1950s doing 100 times more. But there are a lot of costs added on because of additional requirements, specifications, engineering and development costs becasue of increased analytical requirements and accountability. You also have to consider employee wages and the unions.
My back ground is quality assurance. I could tell you that compared to the 1980s there's about 10x more QA requirements placed on contractors, one of the biggest farces is ISO 9001.
Also, let's not forget software requirements and support for that. that doesn't also include computers that are used in the aircraft, but computers that store data that support production
Just drop a Garmin 1000 in the thing for the no-military end of the application. The package is very slick. Does most of what you need for getting there and back. Especially when you look at the SVT option. Stands for "Synthetic Vision Technology". Slick as snot Man, just off the board good.
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=153&pID=6420
But once you get there, all the things that go "bang" (or help stuff get to the right point to go "bang") are another matter. Need another flat screen for that, most likely. In truth, I don't know much about the avionics at that level.
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=153&pID=6420
But once you get there, all the things that go "bang" (or help stuff get to the right point to go "bang") are another matter. Need another flat screen for that, most likely. In truth, I don't know much about the avionics at that level.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
We just put a Chilton EFIS system in the Twin Otters, the same set up that Viking is going to offer on their new production aircraft, very slick!
I agree about the garmin 1000. I'd add a UHF radio and maybe a cheap chaff dispenser set up and I think you're set. Could also think about an IR set up as well.
Yeah, that system is going to put somebody out of business. Probably Avadyne. I fly an SR22 with that in there and, after having flown steam guages forever, it is really neat. The Avadyne is something you are always tinkering with in Flight. Still getting used to it but definitely a different way to fly.
But the Garmin 1000 with that SVR, forget it. It's a whole different level of flying. You have that, chaff dispensers, a head's up display for unguided rockets and the 20mm cannons linked into a targeting package on a seperate computer to the Garmin and you probably could go with the Texan or Tucano.
Come to think of it, with a variation of the flight aware/WAAS setup, you could have a handheld transponder on a SOC guy and use that as a marker for your attack runs. Lay the rounds wherever the guy says based on what the info sent to your flight aware program. Could probably have it show up in the Head's Up too.
Now that would be really wild. Probably not too expensive either.
But the Garmin 1000 with that SVR, forget it. It's a whole different level of flying. You have that, chaff dispensers, a head's up display for unguided rockets and the 20mm cannons linked into a targeting package on a seperate computer to the Garmin and you probably could go with the Texan or Tucano.
Come to think of it, with a variation of the flight aware/WAAS setup, you could have a handheld transponder on a SOC guy and use that as a marker for your attack runs. Lay the rounds wherever the guy says based on what the info sent to your flight aware program. Could probably have it show up in the Head's Up too.
Now that would be really wild. Probably not too expensive either.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree Tim - and all "off the shelf" for the most part.
What? you mean the A-10 has something in common with......something that might have been taken from........the FAIREY BATTLE!
I need a lie down
Last edited:
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
The Ilyushin Il-2 shturmovik was designed in the same way, the gear didnt fully retracted.
wheelsup_cavu
1st Sergeant
I went throuth the certification process for ISO before we shut down our machine shop.
Lots of paperwork for no gain in efficiency or quality.
Wheels
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep - IMO ISO is like a big "good ole boys" club. It's supposed to tell the world that "we have these standardized processes that ensure top quality" when in essence it's an excuse for a lack of common sense. It also brings in a bunch of analytical "know-nothings" that are going to tell you how to do your job when in essence they couldn't do your job. I ran into this at a place I worked at about 6 years ago. the Director of QA was always trying to micro manage based on charts and graphs when in essence he didn't know the first thing about the product line or how to produce it.
wheelsup_cavu
1st Sergeant
That sounds like a good assesment of what I ran into when I was implementing it.
Another problem is too many purchasing agents have bought into the notion that this QA procedure works and require you to have it.
I personally have never seen a piece of paper make a good part.
Before we started our machine shop I had seen several QA reports that stated the parts were good when they weren't.
The main problem with all Quality Assurance programs is that they are only as good as the individuals using them.
That and managements resolve to stick to them when the monthly shipping quotas are on the line.
One of my former bosses philosophies regarding that was, "keep it in UPS, they will need them eventually and they WILL buy them."
I didn't last there very long after we had that discussion.
Wheels
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
AGREE 100%!!!!I personally have never seen a piece of paper make a good part.
Again 100% on the money!!!!
Sounds like we had some similar experiences there. I remember the early 1980s at the time of the defense booms. Mil-I-45208 and Mil-Q-9858A IMO were the best systems in the world to control quality. Those systems combined with competent inspectors and managers were the key for a successful manufacturing company. TQM started the boondoggle; ISO took it out of control.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Naval Reactors (the group that audits Navy Nuclear Reactors) is just like that. They work an 8 hour day and try to pick on people who work an 18 hour day about how they aren't spit and polish enough without having any idea what the Nukes actually do.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Yup.
When I was at HUGHES, when we started implimenting ISO-9000, we had to document all of our processes so we could bid on govt programs. And if we didnt do it, we couldnt bid.
So even though we had a superior product, but we werent 9000 compliant and thus out of the running. A competitor though, with a piece of crap as a product but was 9000 compliant, would win. Figure that out.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
When ISO 9000 first came out I wanted to make a recording decribing everything needed to gain ISO certification and then put it on a 1-900 phone number - 1-900-ISO-9000 (1-900-476-9000). $2.99 a minute. I'd bet it was cheaper than bringing in the dumbsh!t auditors who didn't know a damn thing about the company or its product line!