Warbird Information Exchange

The world is looking for a tough cheap to run COIN aircraft , Boeing is talking about reopening OV-10 production and we now have 'armed cropdusters' like the AT-802U .

The Indonesian crews LOVED their B-25 and A-26 gun ships and so being a bit bored on a Tuesday night (Jakarta time) I kept looking a photos of the A-26 and B-25J (with the 8 gun nose and 4 guns on the side of the fuselage) and was trying to imagine a re-powered re-engineered version of those aircraft.





OK , scarilege not to have nice round (and proud) R-2800s but modern forces want turbines so ;

2 - PW127G 3,058 hp turbines (at least they're still Pratts )

4 nose guns replaced with 4 x 25 mm cannons still leaving 4 in the nose

FLIR, Garmin 1000 GPS

Kevlar belly and engine nacelle armor , titanium tub for the cockpit crew

I figure you would probably come in at US$7 to $10 million each which would be half the cost and probably twice the firepower of an OV-10

Watcha think ?

ps. purists bleat away , this is all in fun

-

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

The engine cowlings could still look radial (ish) if an annular intake were used? Then add a nice large spinner on the prop to streamline it a bit like on the executive versions.

It's got to have the tip tanks, like on the B-26K. If we go with the slightly lengthened (Marksman?) nose too we can have bigger guns.

If we don't need the bomb-bay then we can use that to add a gun pack.

"I want enough guns to be able to blow a hole in the side of a battleship. I want... a gunship"

Ric

Don't need a bomb bay.

Whack some small cluster bombs on the wing hard points.

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

Scrap the B-25 idea.

The A-26 used a laminar wing, was 100 miles an hour faster than the B-25. Carried 4000 lbs internal and there are wing hard points that were pretty versatile. Bombs, or rockets were carried. If you used the K model fit you would have hardpoints nearly all the way to the wingtip !

If you built the A26B with a hardnose and went with the original armament you would have a pretty potent machine with any reengineering. 8 gun hardnose, 6 .50 cal internal wing guns, 2 .50 in an upper turret. I don't think I would enjoy being on the receiving end of 16 .50 all focused at one spot.

Additional fuel needed for the turbines could be carried in the forward portion of the bombbay.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

I always wonder why the military never go for re-engineered older designs , examples I can think of was the Piper Enforcer (Dart powered Mustang) and a repowered T-33 running twin engines on pylons about mid point off the fuselage (anyone remember that ?)

The only one I can think of with some success was the Basler turbine DC-3

How much better would an A-26 go with an additional 2,000hp from the 2 PW127Gs ?

It would look wicked with 6 blade composite props

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

As part of the design team I'll still push for some cannons as well , a lot more 'punch' , we're talking about a retro 'chariot of armageddon' here.



You're right Richard , the K model would be the one to start with , look at all those hard points

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

I would like to see what it looks like. I am all thumbs when it comes to "Photo-chop." But I would like to see what some of you could do working wonders with photoshop to put these "mods" into something visual!!!

_________________
Once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards... for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo daVinci

I don't have photoshop but this is the engine and prop set up I was thinking of which is used on the EADS C-295

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

What is the price tag on a top quality shoulder fired sam? Are you putting a hot seat in this design? I'm a big fan of the C-47's with the turbines so it seems like a good fit for the A-26 just be sure to save room for some chafe dispensers.

Why bother? What would you get from the additional power that the radials wouldn't give you? Maybe a little less maintenance and a little lighter weight, but at what cost? Less of an exhaust heat signature too I would think. I think the B-26K with modern radios would still be viable.

North American tried to reengine a B-25H with 2800s during WWII with disastrous results. The airframe just wasn't designed for A-26-type speeds.

Scott

Good point on SAM defences , overwing exhaust with an air mixer ?

The idea is to come up with concepts for a modern redo of the A-26 so hot seat and chaff would need to be fitted

Undercarriage would probably go to a trailing link design with dual wheels on the mains and a bit higher for better prop clearance. The props look very close to the ground on the A-26

What systems are in the back of the engine nacelles ?

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

Nothing wrong with R-2800s , great engine , excellent power to weight ratio , proven battle tough design etc except the military doesn't want to use avgas anymore particularly in third world countries (PC word now is developing countries)

It would keep the costs down dramatically by using the R-2800s but for market resistance reasons you would have a have a turbine unforetunately

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

Thanks BDK , yep that's the one

T-33 plus 2 Garretts = Boeing Skyfox

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia