Putting the P-47 back into production?

[mlsco]

So what do people think the cost of a pilot these days is?

The numbers for production line planes have been kicked about here pretty well, but maybe we're missing another useful piece of information since cost effectiveness and survivability calculations also involve replacing that part of the aircraft...

I suspect the number is grimly low, based on commercial aviation salaries, but I could be way off.

 

[Matt308]

Well, if we are clinically talking about bean counter assessment, the cost of a pilot is what resources you put into them. In the US, that cost is literally in the millions based upon pilot training time and those whom support them. There is a reason that US pilots are world class, leading edge and worthy of rescue in virtually all cases. The latter says it all doesn't it?

 

[drgondog]

Are we talking new A-10s for the USAF? Or for sales abroad? The A-10C is currently being done for the former and likely engine upgrade will follow (A-10D?). If I recall correctly the A-10C is being rewinged (new wing box) and will include various avionics/mission system upgrades (comm, target designators, etc.).

Matt - when I was at Heritage/Davis Monthan AFB in March I took a tour with several Command Chiefs of the A-10 IRAN and upgrade center where they were rebuilding the wings - 24x7.

 

[vikingBerserker]

They were stationed at Charleston AFB back in the 80's and we got to tour it. Everything about the plane said "bad-ass"

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

Wheels - you're example is a poster child of why ISO-9000 is a sham. I can't believe why industry allowed itself to embrace this, but then again, it is a great excuse to raise prices at the end of the day for something that is totally useless to begin with!

I wish I knew why industry embraced it but it doesn't seem to be on its way out.

I've heard from some people who I knew at the companies that they are having trouble with their production lines now.
Their IS0 9000 certified companies aren't meeting the BP specifications and I didn't give them all my trade secrets.
Some of the products took me over 5 years of trial and error to learn how to run consistently with all of the "Off Blueprint" requirements they kept adding to the parts.
Most of them only documented fully on my end.
For what I went through trying to meet their a**inine requirements I feel no sympathy for them.

Oh yea, you do get a fancy certificate!

I called it quits before I finished but that would have been the only thing I got out of the experience.


Wheels

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'd definately keep the AP round for anti-armor and hard hitting missions. Nothing can really compare to a little lovin' from a warthog...

I was referring to switching to HE for the COIN role, for conventional deployments we'd still keep the uranium rounds in production.

HE with airburst would be incredible against lighter, more spread out targets.

 

[drgondog]

I was referring to switching to HE for the COIN role, for conventional deployments we'd still keep the uranium rounds in production.

HE with airburst would be incredible against lighter, more spread out targets.

HEI is the dominant round of choice for the A-10's in Afghanistan

 

[Clay_Allison]

HEI is the dominant round of choice for the A-10's in Afghanistan

Good to hear, I've looked for what ammunition is produced in 30x173 and I wasn't able to find any reference to anything but Uranium AP rounds. That was a while ago, I found it just now.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I wish I knew why industry embraced it but it doesn't seem to be on its way out.

I've heard from some people who I knew at the companies that they are having trouble with their production lines now.
Their IS0 9000 certified companies aren't meeting the BP specifications and I didn't give them all my trade secrets.
Some of the products took me over 5 years of trial and error to learn how to run consistently with all of the "Off Blueprint" requirements they kept adding to the parts.
Most of them only documented fully on my end.
For what I went through trying to meet their a**inine requirements I feel no sympathy for them.




I called it quits before I finished but that would have been the only thing I got out of the experience.


Wheels

About my same feelings toward my former boss wo heavility embraced ISO 9000.

 

[drgondog]

Good to hear, I've looked for what ammunition is produced in 30x173 and I wasn't able to find any reference to anything but Uranium AP rounds. That was a while ago, I found it just now.

Apparently the new stuff has some smart technology built into the round to dramatically improve CEP at slant ranges exceeding 7000 meters.

 

[trysBennett2003]

I don't think so, because I heard that planes with round emblems on them were slower.

I read that too, maybe. In a book.

If you put flames on the side , it'll go faster and counter the roundels!

 

[trysBennett2003]

If someone was going to bring back any WWII vintage kite into production, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a C-47!

Basler Turbo Conversions, LLC  Basler Turbo 67 Aircraft

They modernize them, but don't build them from scratch as far as I'm aware.

Even some non-(extensively) mod examples are in use still, here and there.

 

[Clay_Allison]

If someone was going to bring back any WWII vintage kite into production, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a C-47!

Basler Turbo Conversions, LLC* Basler Turbo 67 Aircraft

They modernize them, but don't build them from scratch as far as I'm aware.

Even some non-(extensively) mod examples are in use still, here and there.

Hm, needs to be "spookier" if you know what I mean.

 

[krieghund]

Problem with the A-10 production is the DA is Northrop and our stupid contracts always has the manufacturer destroying the jigs after production is finalized so no jigs = expensive reverse engineering

The P-47 (F-47) would be produced without the turbo and its weight and ducting making it lighter with room for fuel/armor and instead of 8 x .50s you would have two podded GEPOD 30s (same ammo as A-10) or maybe just produce the A1E again

 

[Clay_Allison]

Problem with the A-10 production is the DA is Northrop and our stupid contracts always has the manufacturer destroying the jigs after production is finalized so no jigs = expensive reverse engineering

The P-47 (F-47) would be produced without the turbo and its weight and ducting making it lighter with room for fuel/armor and instead of 8 x .50s you would have two podded GEPOD 30s (same ammo as A-10) or maybe just produce the A1E again

want to talk about reverse engineering? try putting the R-2800 back into production.

 

[renrich]

If any WW2 single engine fighter was to be put back into production, the only use would be as an air to ground attack plane. It would have to be optimised for low altitude performance which, to me, would rule out the P47 since it was definitely not at it's best down in the weeds. The most likely candidate, for my money, would be a modified, up armored and oil cooler relocated F4U4. That reincarnation would be much like the last Corsair, the F4U7. V max-450 mph at 26000 feet, max takeoff weight- 13426 pounds.

 

[Bug_racer]

I would think a plane more based upon the Tempest would be used ?

T-28 back in production seems like a better option ??

 

[Brant]

Just my two cents, but even the thought of bringing either aircraft, the P-47 or the P-51 back into product as front line fighters is taking a step backwards. Both aircraft in their time were outstanding within their assigned tasks. The Mustang, fast, sleek, a pilots dream was perfect for long range escort of the bombers flying into Germany as well it was perfect as a fighter. The power of six .50cals is still awesome in this day and age. However, as well as the P-51 was, it's fault as a ground pounder was the fact it was very vaunerable because it was an in-line engined fighter with a big radiator. Other then that minor thing it was a nearly perfect aircraft. The P-47 Thunderbolt was an awesome weapon in that alone it was seven tons of no bullshit, heavy metal comin' at ya with eight 50's powered by a Pratt Whitney 2800 Double Wasp engine.
The P-47 was a no nonsense powerful aircraft yet it's only fault was a thirsty engine. It just didn't have the range the P-51 did yet, the P-47 proved itself to be a highly respected fighter and as a ground pounder it ripped the heart out of Hitler's army. Today we do more with less back then we needed more, faster, simplier, and easier to produce. Both the P-47 the P-51 fit that bill very nicely.

 

[timshatz]

Think krieg got it right. If you're going to do it, just start building Spads (A1E). It was a great machine for what it did. From what I have heard about them, they though about bringing it back a couple of times but the production lines were done and that was pretty much that.

They didn't retire the thing as much as they just fell apart from use. That and the A-26 were probably the best ground attack prop planes made.

 

[renrich]

No question, the Able Dog would be the best piston engine attack plane considering everything but if only WW2 aircraft are considered the AD was not in service then.