Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:25 pm
Funny about fantasies......
I wanna build meseld a PBY fishing camper one day
Complete with all necessary commodities required.
Maybee re-engining it would be a good option also
I wanna build meseld a PBY fishing camper one day
Complete with all necessary commodities required.
Maybee re-engining it would be a good option also
????
Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:14 pm
What ya'll really want are your own personal Defenders!
Re: ????
Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:28 pm
Jack Cook wrote:What ya'll really want are your own personal Defenders!
YES!!!
Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:05 pm
Well, I SAW them doing the wing redesign. The contract was with Boeing in STL. I doubt the work would be subcontracted to Lockheed.RickH wrote:Interesting, I read where lockheed was awarded a multi billion program to build new wings for the A-10. Wonder who's really building them ?
Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:01 pm
If you consider the mission assignment for the A-10(Afghanistan), your needs are a ground support platform with good loiter time and a good mix (and a bunch)of ordanance. No doubt that's being considered and they need to extend the life of the existing airframes. Until the USAF comes up with a "Ground Support" aircraft that fulfills their (and the U.S. Army) requirements, the A-10 will be it. I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner.
To upgrade and restore B-26 airframes would take at least a couple of years and then getting pilots checked out and qualified would take time. Plenty of A-10 pilots and your still operational while modifying.
To upgrade and restore B-26 airframes would take at least a couple of years and then getting pilots checked out and qualified would take time. Plenty of A-10 pilots and your still operational while modifying.
Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:57 am
I can't help but think that the major military branches will have no interest in any airframe that is no longer in either commercial or military service (any WW2-era plane). The closest to that I think they come is probably the J-STARS which is a modified 707 (not a C-135 as many think) but which obviously still share many parts in common and which isn't a big leap at all from the -135. Plus, all the bad PR of the fire tanker accidents, even if not directly applicable, have probably poisoned the waters in this realm. The OV-10 has really maintained success in service in places where it is being used for the same purpose as it was originally designed... close-in, jungle-type fighting against enemies who are utterly devoid of their own air force. The current OV-10 operators are always searching for parts and expertise, be it the military of a non-US country that operates them, or even US government agencies who have had to resort to reverse-engineering major components including major engine components. Now, just imagine trying to talk the USAF bureaucracy into doing this stuff and creating a logistics chain for a plane built in 1945 and which hasn't been in service anywhere since Vietnam or before! It just ain't likely to happen, I think.
Plus, most all significant military (er, governmental) programs nowadays are as much about creating company profit and jobs in various politician's districts as they are about serving any actual defense needs. Since reworking old airplanes for a niche market doesn't really fit that goal too well, that makes it that much less likely to happen. As shown by the Enforcer, SkyFox and F-20 projects, just having a really good, relatively inexpensive aircraft based upon proven and capable airframes and even with in-place logistics and supply chains generally will get you nowhere on the world stage, without the end-user's full buy-in from the start... sadly, aviation history is littered with folks who fell for the "build it and they will come" myth. YES, that can happen in certain circumstances where there's a huge need that can't be met any other way (ie, the turbine DC-3), and a lot of that comes down to the company backing it and/or the prevalence of the type on the world scene. But for the many smaller countries that actually might want a COIN aircraft, which are often run by something close to an unstable dictatorship, their macho image is their reality. The mere perception of having to buy an "old" aircraft such as any WW2 type makes it a non-starter regardless of the final performance, cost, total effectiveness, or even their needs. It's the same reason that they tried to use the F-16 to shoot tanks... except unlike in the US, these countries can usually only have A *OR* B, not A *and* B and maybe a few C's for good measure.
Besides, not every airframe is really suited to swapping engine types. I'm sure that even the turbine DC-3 involved a HUGE amount of integration work and trial and error to develop... engineering, aerodynamics, electronics, vibration testing, the list of potentially fatal flaws could get very, very long... and that example isn't even a close-combat plane that has to pull high gs and maneuver aggressively all day long while surviving ground fire while being able to live well with the troops taking care of it between missions!
Now if you could find a country willing to fully support the development costs, AND had access to many low-time, very well-preserved and intact airframes, then just maybe this could work... but they'll still probably end up going for something that's still in active service somewhere.
I'd love to see a whole fleet of re-manufactured turbine B-26's take to the skies, but there just ain't no way. Now the OV-10X, perhaps has a chance to happen... largely because Broncos are still in active service with (and are dearly loved by) several operators around the world. But IF that ever comes to pass I suspect it will end up quite different from any currently-existing version... no airplane development project ever got simpler, lighter, or cheaper!! (OK maybe a couple, but not many...)
That being said, I got a lead on a combat ultralight, just right for struggling nations needing air defense on a tight budget. $150,000 and it's yours, I'll even include the first tank of fuel!
Plus, most all significant military (er, governmental) programs nowadays are as much about creating company profit and jobs in various politician's districts as they are about serving any actual defense needs. Since reworking old airplanes for a niche market doesn't really fit that goal too well, that makes it that much less likely to happen. As shown by the Enforcer, SkyFox and F-20 projects, just having a really good, relatively inexpensive aircraft based upon proven and capable airframes and even with in-place logistics and supply chains generally will get you nowhere on the world stage, without the end-user's full buy-in from the start... sadly, aviation history is littered with folks who fell for the "build it and they will come" myth. YES, that can happen in certain circumstances where there's a huge need that can't be met any other way (ie, the turbine DC-3), and a lot of that comes down to the company backing it and/or the prevalence of the type on the world scene. But for the many smaller countries that actually might want a COIN aircraft, which are often run by something close to an unstable dictatorship, their macho image is their reality. The mere perception of having to buy an "old" aircraft such as any WW2 type makes it a non-starter regardless of the final performance, cost, total effectiveness, or even their needs. It's the same reason that they tried to use the F-16 to shoot tanks... except unlike in the US, these countries can usually only have A *OR* B, not A *and* B and maybe a few C's for good measure.
Besides, not every airframe is really suited to swapping engine types. I'm sure that even the turbine DC-3 involved a HUGE amount of integration work and trial and error to develop... engineering, aerodynamics, electronics, vibration testing, the list of potentially fatal flaws could get very, very long... and that example isn't even a close-combat plane that has to pull high gs and maneuver aggressively all day long while surviving ground fire while being able to live well with the troops taking care of it between missions!
Now if you could find a country willing to fully support the development costs, AND had access to many low-time, very well-preserved and intact airframes, then just maybe this could work... but they'll still probably end up going for something that's still in active service somewhere.
I'd love to see a whole fleet of re-manufactured turbine B-26's take to the skies, but there just ain't no way. Now the OV-10X, perhaps has a chance to happen... largely because Broncos are still in active service with (and are dearly loved by) several operators around the world. But IF that ever comes to pass I suspect it will end up quite different from any currently-existing version... no airplane development project ever got simpler, lighter, or cheaper!! (OK maybe a couple, but not many...)
That being said, I got a lead on a combat ultralight, just right for struggling nations needing air defense on a tight budget. $150,000 and it's yours, I'll even include the first tank of fuel!
Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:14 pm
Let's not forget that one reason the A-26K did not last as long as the A-1 Skyraider is that the wings kept falling off. I can't see the USAF getting involved in that fiasco again. Plus what about CG considerations if you add a modern turboprop that is a lot lighter than the old recip? The reason the Basler Turbo DC-3 works so well is that he added fuselage plugs in order to keep the engines in relatively the same place. That had the added affect of adding more cargo space which in turn was engineered for standard size shipping containers thus tying the aircraft into the modern shipping arena.
If you want to bring an inexpensive COIN aircraft back into production I would suggest the Argentinean Pucara. What it really needs is a more modern engine and some Kevlar armored cowlings and GPS navigation. Besides the rudder pedals are supposed to be a direct copy of Bf 109 pedals.
If you want to bring an inexpensive COIN aircraft back into production I would suggest the Argentinean Pucara. What it really needs is a more modern engine and some Kevlar armored cowlings and GPS navigation. Besides the rudder pedals are supposed to be a direct copy of Bf 109 pedals.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:30 pm
John, there was a reason some of the wings fell off.
The aircraft in question were not K models. They were the same Douglas B & C models that were built no later than 1945. Some had already been through at least two wars, and they were loading the A-26s 10,000lbs over gross. Add the partial drops with high G pullouts and the results will eventually begin to meet the predictions. One of the K upgrades added an external spar strap to beef the original up.
Merlin, I wouldn't even begin to try to rebuild original airframes. There aren't that many left. But, like the OV-10, I would advocate new production of the A-26 with the necessary updates and mods to accomodate new engines and updated equipment. With new metallurgy used on the spar, I believe thhat a new stronger, lighter, spar could be engineered.
As far as CG, I think that if you used a T-56 with the associated gearbox and prop you might find that they are similar to the original R2800 and prop . Worked on the Convair 580.
The aircraft in question were not K models. They were the same Douglas B & C models that were built no later than 1945. Some had already been through at least two wars, and they were loading the A-26s 10,000lbs over gross. Add the partial drops with high G pullouts and the results will eventually begin to meet the predictions. One of the K upgrades added an external spar strap to beef the original up.
Merlin, I wouldn't even begin to try to rebuild original airframes. There aren't that many left. But, like the OV-10, I would advocate new production of the A-26 with the necessary updates and mods to accomodate new engines and updated equipment. With new metallurgy used on the spar, I believe thhat a new stronger, lighter, spar could be engineered.
As far as CG, I think that if you used a T-56 with the associated gearbox and prop you might find that they are similar to the original R2800 and prop . Worked on the Convair 580.
Last edited by RickH on Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:58 pm
How about a Bronco-like aircraft made of composites?
Dean the suggestive
Dean the suggestive