Warbird Information Exchange

For those of us interested in aircraft development, the A2D is a textbook example of how something simple...putting a turboprop on a Skyraider (a pretty basic aircraft)...can create a lot of issues.
The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Any discussion about an aircraft powered by the T40 engine, the discussion should be about the engine. It let down every plane it powered. In the infancy of turboprops they mated 2 underperforming engines into a common gearbox, with complex contra-rotating props, all with a plumbing nightmare to get to the desired 4,000 HP...what could go wrong? Everything.

If a more conventional (single turbine, single prop) 4,000 HP turboprop had been available the Skyshark and the others may have had a chance.

To its credit, the Skyshark did have one ground kill. Seriously damaged a Cessna that was a runaway from a hand-propping incident at Chino Airport in the 1980s.

Aside from any engine troubles...my point was the Skyshark shows the amount airframe changes necessitated by switching a recip with a turbine.

It was hardly "plug and play".

Not all turbine conversions require that amount of modification...The best example might be the Queen to King Air and certainly other GA types have been modded by third parties without a great deal of airframe work.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

yes, and the T-34, Otter and some Cessna's also seem to be closer to plug and play and have also been highly successful.

Regarding a turbine Skyraider, it was not until more recently that there was a turboprop engine in the 3000hp range with the size, dry weight, and fuel consumption numbers to replace the R-3350. The PT-6ish engines were too small and the T-56ish models were too large.

Modern survivability aside, comparing the actual mission capabilities (not manufacturer's brochure) of today's "Armed Overwatch" contenders, the A-1, and A-10, the A-1 was a very impressive machine. The A-10's numbers closely approximate two A-1's, however the A-10 needs tankers or drop tanks to match the A-1's time on station with a proportional load. The front-runner AT-6 is very disappointing in comparison.

A promising candidate is the AT-802U, which has a max gross takeoff of 16000#, max ordnance load of 6000#, 10 weapons pylons rated at 500# & 1000#, and can fly a 3.7 hour sortie (plus reserve) on internal fuel only. The AT-6 can do about 1/3 of this ...

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

To be fair I think the Skyshark was a whole lot more than just a turbine powered Skyraider.

Agree. Similar wing, but quite a bit different, and radically different forward fuselage, not a bolt on to a Skyraider firewall. As a teen I stumbled across the sole survivor at Chino (before it was moved) and was amazed by the size of the thing. Very impressive.

Turbo Prop Skyraider?

How about this one. Greg Plummer modeled a "what if" turbo prop sky raider. Don't know the feasibility, but I thought it looked cool.

John, I just had to steal that for my signature!

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22

Sorry - longtime proofreader. Carry on...

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

I agree it turned out like that, but I believe in the beginning, it was supposed to be just that, a turbine development of the successful AD.

Heinemann wasn't one to change things for the sake of change.
Whether it was the turbine itself that dictated many of the changes or "mission creep" ("...it would be neat to add this... "), I don't know.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.