Turboprop Skyraider?
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
GregP
Major
I haven't done any propeller calculations and probably won;t because I can't afford to build it anyway, but any competent propeller maker can produce a propeller for a 5,000 - 6,000 HP turboprop.
I'm thinking it might come out to be something like an 8-blade, wide-chord unit similar to a C-130 propeller. That's why I lean toward two cahin guns outside the prop arc and two or more fixed guns also out of the prop arc.
Again, it would be simlilar to a Skyraider or Skyshark, and the chain guns might be in fairings along the wing fold line at the front.
I'm thinking the spinner might be in two parts, the prop part at the rerar of the spinner and the stationary front p[art with a radar in it. On the other hand, it might be simpler to put the radar in dedicated pods near the wingtip. Hey, I have not finished the design and won't since I'm not in the business, but I think it could be a real contributor weapon system assuming a decent powerplant and decent avionics. The basic Skyraider airframe is a known-good quantity with known construction and known strengths and weaknesses. I say make it again, address the weaknesses, and update it for modern power, avionics, and weapons. Perhaps the planes drop smart ordnance from a long way off and orbit out there until the area softens up a bit before popunding what is left up close and personal.
In any case, a 5,000 - 6,500 HP aircraft is a couple of steps removed from a 1,500 HP Super Tucano, particularly in ability to carry ordnance. The Super Tucano is a hard-hitting aircraft, and I believe the Super Turboprop Skyraioder would be a game changer ... but I could be wrong. If you have to get decision through a committee, youa re doomed to failure. In most of the successful WWII and immediate post-war designs, there a committee of one or two people ... the DESIGNERS ... who made the decisions. Only after they went to design by committee did we get into 25-year gestations and there have been few great planes since then.
Just my thoughts and no, I don't have the money to develop it myself, so it would be left to the kings of committees and long expensive developments like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. If Boeing's ofering were anything like the offering in the JSF (X-32), it would be the ugliest aircraft ever made! No thanks! I'd rather go flying than gagging.
I'm thinking it might come out to be something like an 8-blade, wide-chord unit similar to a C-130 propeller. That's why I lean toward two cahin guns outside the prop arc and two or more fixed guns also out of the prop arc.
Again, it would be simlilar to a Skyraider or Skyshark, and the chain guns might be in fairings along the wing fold line at the front.
I'm thinking the spinner might be in two parts, the prop part at the rerar of the spinner and the stationary front p[art with a radar in it. On the other hand, it might be simpler to put the radar in dedicated pods near the wingtip. Hey, I have not finished the design and won't since I'm not in the business, but I think it could be a real contributor weapon system assuming a decent powerplant and decent avionics. The basic Skyraider airframe is a known-good quantity with known construction and known strengths and weaknesses. I say make it again, address the weaknesses, and update it for modern power, avionics, and weapons. Perhaps the planes drop smart ordnance from a long way off and orbit out there until the area softens up a bit before popunding what is left up close and personal.
In any case, a 5,000 - 6,500 HP aircraft is a couple of steps removed from a 1,500 HP Super Tucano, particularly in ability to carry ordnance. The Super Tucano is a hard-hitting aircraft, and I believe the Super Turboprop Skyraioder would be a game changer ... but I could be wrong. If you have to get decision through a committee, youa re doomed to failure. In most of the successful WWII and immediate post-war designs, there a committee of one or two people ... the DESIGNERS ... who made the decisions. Only after they went to design by committee did we get into 25-year gestations and there have been few great planes since then.
Just my thoughts and no, I don't have the money to develop it myself, so it would be left to the kings of committees and long expensive developments like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. If Boeing's ofering were anything like the offering in the JSF (X-32), it would be the ugliest aircraft ever made! No thanks! I'd rather go flying than gagging.
Last edited:
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
I can't help feeling this is like a dive bomber. A very effective and accurate strike aircraft but assumes total air superiority. It presumes future conflicts will always be asymmetric.
However, if you are going to go down this road, then a twin engine single contra rotating prop allows single engine operation to extend duration on call (as with the reliable Gannet.)
However, if you are going to go down this road, then a twin engine single contra rotating prop allows single engine operation to extend duration on call (as with the reliable Gannet.)
- Thread starter
- #24
GregP
Major
I've said this several times before in here, but the Skyraider didn;t need fighter protection. It was an awsome fighter all by itself. All it needed was an escort of lightly loaded Skyraiders ... they were VERY hard to interdict.
The Skyrider was certainly an awesome machine but I can't see a Skyrider with simply a turboprop mounted in the nose.
Just to say one thing, the weights of piston engines and turboprop are much different: mounting a turboprop would have moved the CoG unacceptably behind, so the necessity to lenghten the nose.
But lenghtening the nose the Moments of the second order would have been much greater, so a complete difference in handling would have been the result.
I remember that the US Navy asked at the end of the '60 for this "upgrade", but all stopped at the preliminary designs for this very reason.
Just to say one thing, the weights of piston engines and turboprop are much different: mounting a turboprop would have moved the CoG unacceptably behind, so the necessity to lenghten the nose.
But lenghtening the nose the Moments of the second order would have been much greater, so a complete difference in handling would have been the result.
I remember that the US Navy asked at the end of the '60 for this "upgrade", but all stopped at the preliminary designs for this very reason.
- Thread starter
- #26
GregP
Major
If you don't want to change the airframe you can lengthen the nose; people have DONE that. I am suggesting a new aircraft. So, I don't want to lengthen the nose, I woudl rather move the wing backward on the fuselage and redesign the wing attach points to handle the load. use whatever wngine you want and relocate the wing. I've done it with RC aircraft and there is no great skill involved ... do the calculations and move the wing. What's the big deal?
It is VERY popssible to make a Skyraider-like aircraft, with the wing moved backward by what I'd estimate off the top of my head might be 3 - 5 feet and not resort to ballast at all. The end result might even be lighter than a real Skyraider.
The intent is to make a stronger airframe with much more capability that is a dedictaed attack-fighter. It musy maneuver well, have strong weight hauling capability and should hit very hard as both a fighter and as an attack plane. Such a plane is possible, and a Skyraider-type aircaft would be just the ticket for a formidable weapon system.
Think outside the box.
Don;t add ballast, move the wing. Don't think it has to balance at 30%MAC ... think of the F-16 fly-by-wire software that makes it possible to fly a plane with a CG tat is otherwise way too far aft. There is nothing that says that technology must be applied only to jets.
The inernal fuselage of a Skyraider was cavernous. You could fit 4 people in it! Fill it with helpful items such as fuel, avionics, weapons, or even a bomb bay for an internally-carried drone that could be dispatched to attack radar sites or jet fghters.
The point is to make an ATTACK plane that function as a figher when the main ordnance is dropped. That way the only escort a heavily-laden plane woudl need is a lightly-loaded plane of the same variety. Simply remove the heavy ordnance but leave the guns and/or air-to-air missiles intact and play fighter escort ... with teeth.
It is VERY popssible to make a Skyraider-like aircraft, with the wing moved backward by what I'd estimate off the top of my head might be 3 - 5 feet and not resort to ballast at all. The end result might even be lighter than a real Skyraider.
The intent is to make a stronger airframe with much more capability that is a dedictaed attack-fighter. It musy maneuver well, have strong weight hauling capability and should hit very hard as both a fighter and as an attack plane. Such a plane is possible, and a Skyraider-type aircaft would be just the ticket for a formidable weapon system.
Think outside the box.
Don;t add ballast, move the wing. Don't think it has to balance at 30%MAC ... think of the F-16 fly-by-wire software that makes it possible to fly a plane with a CG tat is otherwise way too far aft. There is nothing that says that technology must be applied only to jets.
The inernal fuselage of a Skyraider was cavernous. You could fit 4 people in it! Fill it with helpful items such as fuel, avionics, weapons, or even a bomb bay for an internally-carried drone that could be dispatched to attack radar sites or jet fghters.
The point is to make an ATTACK plane that function as a figher when the main ordnance is dropped. That way the only escort a heavily-laden plane woudl need is a lightly-loaded plane of the same variety. Simply remove the heavy ordnance but leave the guns and/or air-to-air missiles intact and play fighter escort ... with teeth.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
The nearest to a 'modern' test of the survivability of a quasi Skyraider and jet fighters I know of was the RAF testing of Lightnings against a Spitfire in the early 1960's. The conclusion was that the agility of the Spitfire certainly made it a tricky target but the Lightning could disengage and reengage at will so would always score a kill. The Spitfire never even saw the Lightning in the gun camera. Modern fighter jets are more capable dogfighters than a Lightning even if a turbo Skyraider had a better speed and rate of climb than a Spitfire. This was to test the ability of RAF Lightnings to engage Philippine Mustangs.
My conclusion is that a modern turboprop Skyraider would be an easy target for a modern fighter unless it operated under air superiority. Does anyone know of similar or more recent such tests?
My conclusion is that a modern turboprop Skyraider would be an easy target for a modern fighter unless it operated under air superiority. Does anyone know of similar or more recent such tests?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not 100% sure but I think the USAF did a similar test with the Cavalier Turbo Mustang during the 1960s
1. Since Vietnam ended, we have never failed to establish complete air dominance
2. Add a pair of AIM-9X Sidewinders to the Skyraider. The A-10 simply carried a pair of Sidewinders for self protection on both Gulf wars, Completely unnecessary I might add.
3. Add engine armor instead of ballast or relocating the wing or engine. Simple, adds survivabillity and restores center of gravity
2. Add a pair of AIM-9X Sidewinders to the Skyraider. The A-10 simply carried a pair of Sidewinders for self protection on both Gulf wars, Completely unnecessary I might add.
3. Add engine armor instead of ballast or relocating the wing or engine. Simple, adds survivabillity and restores center of gravity
- Thread starter
- #31
GregP
Major
Let's see, anything with lower performance than a jet fighter is meat on the table?
How do you explain the Embraer Tucano, Super Tucano, and ALX? What about the FMA Pucara? And a large desire for aturboprop attack plane today in many air forces? In a dogfight between an Apache attack helicopter and something like a BAE Hawk, which would you pick as a winner? I'd take the Apache any day.
In a very narrow set of circumstances, the jet has a theoretical advantage, particularly if the turboprop has no modern avionics (like a WWII Spitfire). I'm not talking about WWII technology in the turboprop, I'm talking modern avionics and a modern airframe. The turboprop Skyraider would not wonder where the jet fighter was, it would KNOW. And it has missiles and chain guns to boot. Did you READ my description? Or just think of a Skyraider with a turboprop and no technological upgrades?
One could also stick LCD camoflage to the skin and cause the turboprop to dispper to the eye. Wouldn't fool a radar-guided missile, but would fool the pilot of the enemy A/C.
I think you underestimate the capability of a modern turboprop attack plane designed from the outset to handle air-to-ground and air-to-air. But that is just my opinion and it could be wrong. Since we don't seem to HAVE one today anywhere in the world, maybe it IS wrong. Then again, maybe there is an opportunity.
I'm not saying I am right; I put forth an idea for an attack plane with modern avionics along the lines of the Skyraider becasue the Tucano, as good as it is, cannot haul 8,000 pound of ordnance and loiter around with lots on ammunition for suppression. The Tucano can haul about 3,000 pounds and that includes the crew and fuel as well as the ordnance. I'm talking about a plane that can haul itself, the crew, and 5,000 - 6,000 pounds of ordnance in addition to formidable weaponry in the form of both fixed and trainable guns, with avionics as good as a modern jet fighter, or at LEAST generations ahead of a the real Douglas Skyraider, possibly with an internal drone of its own to employ for attack or defense.
I think it is a different animal from a Skyraider or a Spitfire!
How do you explain the Embraer Tucano, Super Tucano, and ALX? What about the FMA Pucara? And a large desire for aturboprop attack plane today in many air forces? In a dogfight between an Apache attack helicopter and something like a BAE Hawk, which would you pick as a winner? I'd take the Apache any day.
In a very narrow set of circumstances, the jet has a theoretical advantage, particularly if the turboprop has no modern avionics (like a WWII Spitfire). I'm not talking about WWII technology in the turboprop, I'm talking modern avionics and a modern airframe. The turboprop Skyraider would not wonder where the jet fighter was, it would KNOW. And it has missiles and chain guns to boot. Did you READ my description? Or just think of a Skyraider with a turboprop and no technological upgrades?
One could also stick LCD camoflage to the skin and cause the turboprop to dispper to the eye. Wouldn't fool a radar-guided missile, but would fool the pilot of the enemy A/C.
I think you underestimate the capability of a modern turboprop attack plane designed from the outset to handle air-to-ground and air-to-air. But that is just my opinion and it could be wrong. Since we don't seem to HAVE one today anywhere in the world, maybe it IS wrong. Then again, maybe there is an opportunity.
I'm not saying I am right; I put forth an idea for an attack plane with modern avionics along the lines of the Skyraider becasue the Tucano, as good as it is, cannot haul 8,000 pound of ordnance and loiter around with lots on ammunition for suppression. The Tucano can haul about 3,000 pounds and that includes the crew and fuel as well as the ordnance. I'm talking about a plane that can haul itself, the crew, and 5,000 - 6,000 pounds of ordnance in addition to formidable weaponry in the form of both fixed and trainable guns, with avionics as good as a modern jet fighter, or at LEAST generations ahead of a the real Douglas Skyraider, possibly with an internal drone of its own to employ for attack or defense.
I think it is a different animal from a Skyraider or a Spitfire!
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The A-10 uses tricycle landing gear. Does that cause problems?
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Any modern turboprop coin aircraft will be more Pucara and less Skyraider.
Bring back the Mosquito I say. Plenty bomb load range and speed. Need to be a twin seater anyways. One to drive and one to shoot.
Bring back the Mosquito I say. Plenty bomb load range and speed. Need to be a twin seater anyways. One to drive and one to shoot.
- Thread starter
- #34
GregP
Major
Re post 32: Not as long as it operates from airstrips.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Long range and high speed are typically not required for CAS.
You want low speed maneuverability to improve accuracy and armor protection against ground fire. You also want a CAS aircraft to be as small a target as possible for enemy soldiers plinking away with rifles and machineguns.
You want low speed maneuverability to improve accuracy and armor protection against ground fire. You also want a CAS aircraft to be as small a target as possible for enemy soldiers plinking away with rifles and machineguns.
wuzak
Captain
Surely they require endurance = range.
- Thread starter
- #38
GregP
Major
Obvsiously, if you go with one truboprop engine, the loiter time would decease since you must feed it. If you went with two turboprop engines and unconnected contra props, you could shut one down and loiter longer.
I'd probably opt for a single turboprop and add fuel tanks on ordnance stations for loiter, knowing that the guns were fully armed for supression duty and I still had some ordnance for antipersonnel operations.
I'd probably opt for a single turboprop and add fuel tanks on ordnance stations for loiter, knowing that the guns were fully armed for supression duty and I still had some ordnance for antipersonnel operations.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I agree.
Range doesn't necessarily = endurance as some aircraft have a relatively high economical cruise speed.
Range doesn't necessarily = endurance as some aircraft have a relatively high economical cruise speed.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
It would have to be a turboprop for fuel availability.
Taking on the Soviet army is different from taking on guerrillas. The Pucara is ideal but didn't do well in the Falklands War.
If your enemy has MANPADs and heavy calibre anti aircraft guns then speed is good. If all your enemy has are bolt action rifles then a cheap Cessna with a machine gun will suffice.
Taking on the Soviet army is different from taking on guerrillas. The Pucara is ideal but didn't do well in the Falklands War.
If your enemy has MANPADs and heavy calibre anti aircraft guns then speed is good. If all your enemy has are bolt action rifles then a cheap Cessna with a machine gun will suffice.
