Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Look deeper, you overlooked the Breuget 'Elize'.Yesterday I was reading that the RN used Westland Wyverns to attack Egyptian airfields during the Suez Crisis, carrying 1000 lb bombs. I got to thinking about how many turboprops have actually seen combat. Here is the list I came up with:
C-130 in the Cold War, Vietnam, Panama, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan. This was not only as a transport taking fire, but as an ECM airplane, a bomber, a gunship, and a flare dropper.
OV-10 in Vietnam and Desert Storm.
Westland Wyvern (what is a Wyvern that the airplane is named after, anyway?) By the way, I'd guess that Frog/Airlines had a model of it.
Pucara in the Falklands War
T-6 is supposed to be built in an light attack version, but I do not know if it has seen combat yet.
Tucano/A-29, also do not know if it has seen combat. Probably has, in Afghanistan and in drug interdiction.
Look deeper, you overlooked the Breuget 'Elize'.
Sorry, I don't quite follow your pitch. My response was directed at the original poster and not in response to anyone else's submission. Nor am I in a contest with anyone else on the subject. On my smartphone's limited screen real-estate I have not the time or patience to scroll through every single response.No "we" didn't - see post No.15.
Antonov An-10?
Although only a prototype and not used in combat it is also worthwhile to include mention of the XF-84H 'ThunderScreech' whose donor airframe, the turbojet powered F-84F 'Thunder' was. It is not only technically interesting but also reflects US naval aircraft carrier design philosophy of the time.
Although only a prototype and not used in combat it is also worthwhile to include mention of the XF-84H 'ThunderScreech' whose donor airframe, the turbojet powered F-84F 'Thunder' was. It is not only technically interesting but also reflects US naval aircraft carrier design philosophy of the time.
I operate from a smartphone with limited screen real estate and an annoying overtype facility. On the other hand I am also not a pedantic 'rivet-counter'. They have a tendency to turn otherwise civilised forum exchanges, 'toxic'.Ok, I'm gonna have to do this, dang it. Firstly, this is a Thunder, but its not an F-84F.
View attachment 578478Thunder and Thunderbolt
In the background is a Thunderbolt, made by the same company as the F-84F and XF-84H.
View attachment 578479P-47 side
This is an F-84F Thunderjet.
View attachment 578480F-84F
This is also a Thunderjet, but it isn't an F-84F, it's an F-84G.
View attachment 578481F-84G
And NONE of these aircraft are carrier capable nor developed by the US Navy.
Clear?
On the other hand I am also not a pedantic 'rivet-counter'. They have a tendency to turn otherwise civilised forum exchanges, 'toxic'.
Sorry, I don't quite follow your pitch.
the original poster had also overlooked the Fairey 'Gannet' and the Short S.B.6 'Sea Mew'.
I got to thinking about how many turboprops have actually seen combat.
I was around and paying attention, back in the day. The F84F fighter bomber was called "Thunderstreak" and the similar-profile RF84F recon version was "Thunderflash". I built models of all of the series.This is an F-84F Thunderjet.
Republic's XF-84HThere was also a Prototype called the Thunderscreech which was turboprop powered
Actually, the other way round. The Skyraider was a Navy bird which USAF adopted later on, when the Navy was starting to phase them out.the USN had little interest in USAF prop types after WWII (with the exception of the A-1 Skyraider)