Turboprop Skyraider?

Sell 'em a Cessna!

davebender said:

The A-10 uses tricycle landing gear. Does that cause problems?

Click to expand...

Not at all. It makes it easier to service and fly.

The AA threat is higher but in either case friendly infantry still need fire support delivered with precision.

Wow, after singing the praises of the Skyraider for some time now, and telling colleagues the tremendous capabilities of a possible modernized A-1, I have found a haven for my rants/dreams.

If this post is too much, please let me know b/c I have a thousand thoughts on this topic, which generally consumes my daydreaming. As far as an intro goes, I'm familiar with CAS, some light attack, medium/heavy ground attack support, Air to Ground weapons/sensors/capes due to my current job/career.

This idea is incredible and I have written down some ideas for this exact type of forum. Please feel free to contradict me or bash my ideas, it will only allow me to find my own errors and correct them for future debates/arguments.

A-1 Skyraider (turboprop/modernized) ideas:

• Large turboprop (no less than 3000 hp)-mentioned
• Armored engine bay-possibly dragon skin style armor (keep CG close to original)-mentioned
• Internally wing mounted forward firing guns - 2x 30mm M249 Chain guns
• Reduce outer pylon count from 6 pylons to 3 per side-increases spacing/increases load per pylon/allows for larger ordnance
• Keep folding wing capability to reduce ramp space (alway an issue at FOBs)
• Tandem cockpit for pilot/CSO-not my first thought, but incredibly advantageous later
• Dual Sensor loadout- 1x Sniper XR pod on one outer pylon, 1x larger ISR turret internal to rear fuselage that can retract for T/O, Landing/Cruise
• Modernized cockpit with integrated radios/datalinks/HMD (helmet mounted displays)/weaponeering systems
• Lighterweight external fuel pods on centerline and two inner pylons - capable of 10000lb gas load excluding internal tank
• Centerline tank removeable and trainable 1x M249 30mm chain gun - slaved to either sensor, selectable to pilot or CSO helmet
• Speed/Dive Brakes- Same three as classic Skyraider except bottom one size reduction to give way to High Definition ISR turret
• Pressurized cockpit - Also utilizing OBOGS
• IR countermeasures
• RWR - for SA and threat reduction

That is a brief list of ideas. I have a more involved list concerning countermeasures, weapons and capabilities, positive arguments for almost all areas, and defenses for those as well.

Ideas mentioned already in thread that were contradictory or possibly disadvantageous to my proposal. Tricycle gear - Yes, this would be an incredible advantage, as I currently fly a trailing-link tricycle gear that performs great on semi-prepped runways. Changing the gear design would add additional complications to aircraft design, not to mention, lower the nose--leading to a need for a small prop or an extremely tall landing gear. 5000-6000 hp, I personally would love this much power, but by adding this many ponies requires a larger rudder to additional technologies which would require computers and/or a heavy right boot when the computer failed/damaged. A smaller power plant closer to the original output would be enough for a modern skyraider and the turboprop aspect would give it greater performance up high for cruise and loiter. I know, I know--someone will tell me that you can do CAS from 25K', but you can climb and hang out up there sipping gas, waiting for a call, and then dive with a vengeance to glory.

The trainable 30mm on centerline could/would be used for firing while on orbit (similar to AC-130), for immediate-to-instantaneous firing capability. The gun would have auto-cutout capability if the gun was firing and manuevering the aircraft put the prop arc in between the gun and target. This situation would really only present itself in the act of engaging ground targets while aligning the aircraft for a forward firing shot--easily prevented with coordination between pilot and CSO While the other ordnance would allow for a larger weapons employment when rolling off orbit following a request from JTAC/FSO. Also, off-axis/forward firing weapons are an option and should be considered. Radios and datalinks would need to be siginificant and robust, which shouldn't be a challenge and should even be hundreds of pounds lighter than original radios and electronics.

CSO = Combat Systems Officer

Realistically, the glory of this platform is in the support in the CAS role. Objectively this aircraft would end up spending more hours filling and ISR roll than shooting bad guys. For this reason, an additional pylon on each side would be wet to provide another 600 lbs of gas to the loadout. Minimizing ordnance would reduce the drag, leaving the aircraft additional flight time. I do enjoy the idea of the prop brake though!! Great for hot gas/hot reloads at a FOB--minimizing turn time in a combat situation.
Also, re-engineering of the wing with modern materials is a must. Book/internet has told me that the original was only rated to carry less than 10000 lbs under the wings--not acceptable. If the original max gross T/O weight was kept at 25K lbs for the modernized aircraft, and the empty weight could be reduced by 2K-3k lbs b/c of modernized avionics/engine, the wing would need to allow for probably 15K capacity. Does not seem improbably with today's alloys/composites--I should probably get out my old excel files from Aerospace engineering to analyze wing loading!!

Anyone else want to talk again about this platform??? I welcome a healthy and educational discussion at all hours of the day!!

OMP

My apologies, M230 30mm chain gun in every place i mentioned M249. I understand the M249 is a SAW, I simply incorrectly typed the nomenclature...that's what happens when you're tired while working multiple projects!!!

I dig it, but unfortunately it won't see the light of day.

The A-10 already exists, a proven aircraft which has greater anti-armor capability. AC-130's offer tremendous firepower against personnel and light armor. Attack helis have better maneuverability and precision at low altitude, albeit with increased vulnerability and a number of other tradeoffs. And then you have Predator/Reaper UAV's and more capable drone designs down the road which sidestep the vulnerability issue entirely and are a lot cheaper to operate.

The A/D-1 is easily among my favorite aircraft but a modern heavy turboprop CAS aircraft like you're describing would look nothing like one, and it would offer little advantage (aside from maybe increased loiter) over existing machines. Modern COIN aircraft need to be cheaper and smaller to be affordable for third world air forces. Brilliant though it was the ol' Spad had its day.

Well...true, more than likely will not see the light of day, but not b/c of the lack of capability compared to it's brethren. More than likely due to politics and lack of military forethought---and budget restrictions.

"The A-10 already exists, a proven aircraft which has greater anti-armor capability."

This is true, but we aren't exactly fighting tanks and APCs in current battlefield. A-10s numbers are being reduced drastically (check the news). A-10s have one crew member, which currently they do an exception job, but an extra set of eyes running a sensor and clearing for terrain on gun passes at night could prove unparalleled. A-10 is aging, requiring higher cost for maintenance, not to mention higher fuel quantity requirements. The TOLD for an A-10 doesnt lend itself to FOB operations, or other than concrete runways...its published as having "off airfield" landing capability, but ask any current A-10 pilots how many have landed on anything other than regular Air Force pavement...my guess is 0%.


"AC-130's offer tremendous firepower against personnel and light armor."

Again, true, but how many fly during the day?--leaving soldiers vulnerable Accuracy of 25mm? Aging weapon system? Modern weapons? Datalinks? Loiter time?--I think i got enough knowledge to counter this argument


"Attack helis have better maneuverability and precision at low altitude, albeit with increased vulnerability and a number of other tradeoffs"

--tradeoffs being vulnerable based on speed. Also lack of altitude capability for transit once loaded up, and distance capable of traversing without refueling restricts remote support. I don't think helo maneuverability in a guerrilla style war is that advantageous based solely on the number of helos we've lost thus far...some additional smash (speed) pays dividends against ground based "dumb" weapons.


"And then you have Predator/Reaper UAV's and more capable drone designs down the road which sidestep the vulnerability issue entirely and are a lot cheaper to operate. "

Whew, where to start with these...the internet is full of "knowledge", but until you work with them, they sound incredible. Their lack/limit of capabilities is hardly spoken of. The cost of removing the aircrew saves $$$, but the cost is seen in their response time, adaptability to changing combat environment, 100% control, and a few others that I won't speak about. With this being a possibility for my future (and currently working with them), i feel like i can speak accurately about their roles/capes/limitations. They offer an incredible/unparalleled strategic ISR capability, but tactically, nope. As for CAS...when you have absolutely no other options or considerable to time coordinate...maybe, but otherwise, I'll take my chances.

"The A/D-1 is easily among my favorite aircraft but a modern heavy turboprop CAS aircraft like you're describing would look nothing like one, and it would offer little advantage (aside from maybe increased loiter) over existing machines. "

I would disagree, the turboprop would stretch the front a bit, less pylons wouldn't be that noticeable loaded up with current mix of GBUs and Hellfires. Cockpit wouldn't look too foreign since it more or less would be a tandem version of the Fat face AD-5. The advantages, if allowed to be utilized and not pushed by the wayside by contracts and politics, would be a direct response to the shortcomings of other platforms that are currently "making do"...like F-16s, F-15s, B-1s.

"Modern COIN aircraft need to be cheaper and smaller to be affordable for third world air forces."

I would agree if i cared about selling it to other countries. Don't really care though. Only care about supporting my boys, all others can benefit from a turboprop skyraider after the success has been seen from protecting our guys on the battlefield. Not to mention, I think there were more than 2 dozen variants of the original skyraider...if manufactured correctly (and it is possible, i've seen it with other programs), they could be produced inexpensively and pick up other missions where a large, expensive platform doesn't need to exist..(ie. EW, Small airlift/transport, CAS, ISR, FARP).


"Brilliant though it was the ol' Spad had its day."--100% truth, no objections.

I might add, that we are not taking into account that the US Air Force is quite possible the worst handler of contracts in history. The political involvement is ridiculous and constantly screws not only the American public out of money and time, but the operators of needed equipment/platforms out of making a difference and supporting the ground assets. Examples JSF, KC-X, OV-X, not to mention a half dozen others...

Let's speak strictly about what could happen without the political buffoonery and money-hungry individuals in the chain. Perhaps if a small number of purchases were made to support SOF units, and then expand once capabilities were proven. (Don't take all AFSOC contracts/aircraft into considerations with this argument as well...haha!)

I agree with OldmanP's more rational hypothersied choices.

Plus pragmaticaly thinking, realisticaly trainable guns upon the wings slaved to helmets, would make for some ugly thick and un-aerodynamic wings parts includind the associated disruption of airflows at all sorts of AoA's manouverings and the plus the weight of the supporting structurals, the control and ammo feed systems would severly also hinder roll-ability.

Even if F22 (R&D White Elehpant) based advanced aero computers were utilised along with cost-is-nothing state of the art materials, as in the original idea, would make an aircraft at least a third larger than the Spad/Sandy if not double size (dimmensionaly) with equal or higher aerodynamic parasitic drag and hence lower max average speed and higher fuel wastage even in its cleanest profile.

Don't misunderstand me or OldmanP, were not trying to shoot the idea down, just lean off some of the natural youthful exúberance (sic) for every idea in one, please continue all.
I like how this could develope, so thats why I chimed in, as the AD1/A-H1/A-1D etc is one of my favourite A/C of all time, along the Warthog, F-5-Tiger II, Spitfire Bf.109, the Tyhpoon II/EF2000.

Below is subtopical and so to be ignored for this threads development purposes, but highlights a few parsé things.

Now about the A10, while over engineered originally, still has more developemental room within it than the remaining current wing spar life methinks - originialy it had next to no avionics but room for them - well a co-incedental by product of spaced armour skin over its semi armoured structure.

Following the NAWS(?) 2 seater R&D A10 prototype they started adding some kit into it. Once it proved just how good it was during the Gulf Wars, then the 'general brass' (generally ignorant of things outside 'their niche' of knowledge skills/training) actualy took notice of it and decided not to axe it as was their earlier plan of action.
Which A10 supporters within the AF, Congress and US Aero-Industries instigated the NAWS project as a 'last stand' to try and market it save it, which in a unforseen backwards way it did - by extending service usage until the unforseen Fall of the Berlin Wall and subsiquent upheavals kept it on standy.

Since then it's slowely been getting more avionics and kit and brass respect as a sytem, as far as my amature civy knowledge knows, it is I believe still one of the least computerised frontline A/C within the USAF inventory.

Yet publicly or officially, no one has thought of how say a reduced in weight gun system, (4 barrels instead of 6, and a shorted in length ammo container by 300 rounds, could free up some space and wieght allocation for additional protected systems while still keeping roughly 85%+ of its main weapon effectiveness and not affecting its CoG too much with the shorter ammo drum is still kept (forwards) against its bulkhead/rear 'bathtub' wall.

Or that with podded engines, there if needs be, is some fair engine development/updrade/re-engining room to play with when 'push comes to shove' in the future for it.
Also forgive my South-Park inspred opinion, but Microshaft and/or Windraws based platforms or O/S's should never be allowed near any real aircraft for control augmentation purposes, - I'd personally rather use the Rockwell Industries PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) system - less buggy and exceeding well tried and tested in comparisson.

Click to expand...

3,000 hp would be a small turboprop.

Use this modern 11,000 hp turboprop engine for the next generation CAS aircraft.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/tp400_tcm92-6706.pdf

That looks pretty cool, but considering the size, probably couldn't carry enough fuel, not to mention the torque at takeoff may just flip the entire airframe over on it's back. Go-around would be sketchy at best...low airspeeds, low altitude, high torque, little rudder authority = high probability of death.

More HP than the original would be nice, Pratt and Whitney make some great engines with the new PW150A being around 4500-5000 hp. This would be a great engine, cramming it into the airframe would be the only challenge....note i said challenge not problem!

Plus ya gotta think about Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC)- How much fuel per hour is burned for every horsepower created...Bigger HP means more fuel = less flight time, there's a law of diminishing return.

Data from Wikipedia.

.39 lbs/shp. TP400 turboprop.
.....3.5m long x .92m diameter.
.....1,890 kg. Dry weight.
.....11,000 hp.

.4 lbs/hp. R3350 radial engine.
.....1.9m long x 1.4m diameter.
.....1,212 kg. Dry weight.
.....2,700 hp. A-1H.

Looks like all gain and no pain.
.....TP400 is 50% heavier but produces 4 times as much power.
.....TP400 is much smaller in diameter. However it is twice as long.
.....Specific fuel consumption similiar. If anything the TP400 turboprop is slightly superior.

With 11,000 hp our "Skyraider 2012" will have a range/payload the late 1940s design could only dream about.

True, but with a plane weighing in at 10-15K lbs upon return from a mission, and pilot pushes up throttle for a go-around, seems like no amount of rudder/aileron combo could prevent rolling the plane over into the ground...sure would climb like a banshee though. I'd volunteer for the time-to-climb record in it...New turboprop record i'm sure.

Dave, I think you've mixed up your units.

The R-3350 is about 1lb/hp. The TP400 is 2.68hp/lb = 0.37lb/hp.

The TP400 is listed as having a specific fuel consumption of 0.39lb/shp/hr. The specific fuel consumption of the turbo-compound R-3350 will match that, or better it, but I doubt the regular R-3350 comes anywhere close - especially at max power (2700hp).

Allison T56 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An older turbine with less power and higher sfc.

But it weighs less than the R-3350, but is longer.

The reason I would shy away from the T56 is the same reason I would lean toward a PW. If the engine dies (rarely with a PW, but will happen), the blades go to flat pitch, rather than feather, leaving the pilot without an engine and 4x speed brakes full out up front. Doesn't do much for your glide performance. The PW150A, similar to the PT6A I'm very familiar with, feathers upon failure, leaving the blades feathered for a greater glide capability. Not something we usually thing about, but since I fly single engine planes into some not so friendly places, gliding considerations are something to think about. Plus the PW150A is quite new, and is capable of reducing the RPMs during flight to reduce noise signature--very key element!

From a practical standpoint, if you are going to put piloted aircraft in HMG range of ground troops in stead of using drones, a twin engine aircraft has a lot going for it. Like the OV-10 X or something similar ( a bit larger?) A twin with a pair of 1500-2000hp engines shouldn't be that much more expensive than a single 3000hp machine, especially after you load thing up with enough electronics to require a back seater. The electronics and trick gun mounts are going to put it way beyond the armed trainer in terms of price no matter what engine/s you use so trying to save a few bucks isn't going to make it that attractive to 3rd world countries anyway.

if you are going to put piloted aircraft in HMG range of ground troops in stead of using drones, a twin engine aircraft has a lot going for it

Click to expand...

I agree.

A modern CAS aircraft should look a lot like the A-10. Would you gain anything by replacing turbofan engines with turboprops?

Aaah, I'm so glad someone brought up the OV-10 besides me. Not a WWII plane, so i figured i'd let that subject go here, but it and the skyraider top my list of Top 5 "awesomest" planes of all time. I can 100% agree with two engines over one in a high threat environment, especially if working at lower altitudes. The OV-10 was and can still be a great FAC(A) platform. This is a whole different discussion if we want to start that somewhere else! So, any aircraft working as a FAC(A) will/would have to work at an altitude in the threat area constantly--especially in order to utilize Type 1 and Type 2 control. This may not be the case for a Turboprop Skyraider supporting a FAC(A)/FSO/JTAC. With someone else calling the shots and modern weapons, the skyraider may maintain an altitude clear of most surface to air threat, and enter a high threat region while employing. This type of entry could be mitigated with speed (duration in threat zone) and EW/IR countermeasures (enemy weapon threat mitigation). At times, depending on the target, weapons can and are currently being delivered in CAS role without entering the threat area.

As it pertains to cost vs. engine count, simple math is "if you double the engines, you double the cost of ownership". This is true on the civilian side of flying, hence the reason pilatus and TBM manufacture small passenger turboprop planes that perform well against their Beechcraft dual engine counterparts. One larger engine will have to be inspected most likely at the same intervals as a smaller engine, but twice the engines takes twice the time or twice the manpower--either way, additional cost. Don't get me wrong, I could/can/do sing the praises of the OV-10 X, which i believe the military has completely dropped the ball on. I've personally witnessed several situation where they could have saved "a lot" during heated situations.

On the order of electronics and total cost, I would completely disagree. Not so much on trainable guns. I have zero experience in maintenance/operation of an M230 and it's reliability. I would simply go with this type of weapon b/c it is currently being manufactured, there isn't a viable 20mm with comparable cyclic rate at an equivalent reduction of price and weight...and there is something incredible about the 30mm round delivered with accuracy for anti-personnel/vehicles that is amazing. 20mm is not used on slow moving aircraft for some reason, but if there ever is a time, this might be an avenue to increase ammo capacity while dropping weight and overall cost of utilization. One of the current ways to keep things cheap is to develop the minimal necessary and use proven equipment/techniques in different fashions to complete varying mission sets...also called COTS--Commercial Off The Shelf. The electronics are available, not cheap, but incredibly easier and cheaper to integrate into a proven platform than start from scratch in an unproven venue. This can be seen when contractors invent new "aircraft computers" to fit a new fighter...everything is proprietary, and highly unadaptable. Could you imagine if you bought a computer and the sales rep told you that upgrading software or hardware would be almost as expensive as purchasing it the first time....probably wouldn't fly (no pun intended). But utilizing current equipment/computers, integrated properly drastically reduces cost/upgrade costs/spin up time.

Let's face it, the Super Tucano is not cheap, but cheaper than an A-10, especially if you asked someone to spin up the manufacturing process again. And again, 3rd world markets aren't what we're arguing here.

Turbofans vs. turboprops. By switching you would gain fuel flows and decibels. Yes you would go faster, but CAS doesn't need to necessarily move fast...they need to react quickly. The difference is huge, though the wording is subtle. The need to not be loud. When the gunship (AC-130) used to roll in overhead, people knew what they sounded like, so they ran and hid. Likewise, when they heard a normal C-130 transitting, they still ran and hid...human conditioning. If you are quiet, you can deceive the enemy, allowing your munitions to be airborne prior to the enemy being aware of your presence. Turboprops provide a great mix between piston and turbofan engines. Higher/faster/farther than pistons. Slower/quieter/cheaper than turbofans....a decent mix if anyone is thinking of buying a small family commuter! (though not too cheap i might add)

Big picture: CAS Platforms need to react quickly, but don't NEED to be low in the entirety of their sortie duration. Cost is relative, 2 engines are most often more costly (at least in time and manpower), turboprops aren't the end-all be-all, but they provide modernization from pistons, while scaling back the turbofan speed and cost--to fill the niche that is needed.

I thought this is a "World War II – Aviation" sub forum, next comes warp-speed engines ...
Cimmex