A-1 is the tool for the job. Excellent machine.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
USAF Arsenal plane?...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostI've watched them dump paratroopers out of the back. Doesn't look like a fun ride at all.
They go into a climb until all the paratroopers slide out the back
[ATTACH]41155[/ATTACH]"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
I find this interesting from Wikipedia:
Colonel KP Rice:
"The original concept of a small, simple aircraft that could operate close to the supported troops had been almost completely eviscerated by the 'system.' The ability to operate from roads (20 ft span and 6.5 tread) had been ignored, and performance compromised by the short 30 ft span, the extra 1,000 lb for the rough field landing gear and another 1,000 lb of electronics. The 'light, simple' airplane also had a full complement of instruments, ejection seats and seven external store stations. The concept of using ground ordnance and a bomb bay had been ignored, although it did have provisions for four M60 [medium] machine guns. In spite of this growth (almost double the size and weight of our home built), the YOV-10 still had great potential. It would not achieve the advantages of integration with the ground scheme of maneuver, but it did have capabilities at the low end of the performance envelope that were still valuable and unique."
According to Pentagon and industry officials, while the aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, the 21st century modernizations would include a computerized glass cockpit, intelligence sensors and smart-bomb-dropping capabilities."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dazed View PostIn the OV-10 you will sit in a spread leg sitting spoon position in a dark metal box no sound insulation and the melodic throbbing of two garrett engines."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostThere's an easy solution to that. We'll refurbish the air frame, replace the engine with a modern turboprop, add computerized controls, a second crew member to share the workload, radar, night vision, ejection system....and should look like this:
Last edited by Dazed; 15 Mar 16,, 20:54.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostI find this interesting from Wikipedia:
*snip*
Originally posted by gunnut View PostFast forward 50 years:
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostSo...bring your own noise cancelling headphones and a flash light?Last edited by Dazed; 15 Mar 16,, 20:55.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dazed View PostYou don't really fly a lot in a garret powered aircraft. Noisy, confined and wicking up another mans sweat in a non environmentally control black box.
You know it's a jump plane when the skydivers screw with the pilot by yanking on the exposed control cables...
Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostLike
Armed for bear. And can kill MIGs
[ATTACH]41156[/ATTACH]
In the early 1950s Douglas was designing/developing the XA2D Skyshark turboprop aircraft loosely based on the AD Skyraider. Skyshark was roughly similar in size to the Skyraider, but was not an attempt to replace the Skyraider with a slightly upgraded aircraft powered by a turboprop, instead they chose to pursue a overly complex redesign with doubled power using counter-rotating props powered by two gas turbines interconnected through a complex gear box. The gearbox was problematic, and turboprop technology was lagging. The design development didn't mature quickly enough, and Navy terminated it.
Not much later the turboprop powered YC-130 was flying, and by the late 50s the C-130A was in production. Skyshark might have been more viable had they planned to use the same engine (and maybe also the same prop) as the C-130A (or B), which would have been a signficant incremental improvement over the radial used in the Skyraider, more evolutionary than revolutionary. Regardless any of that, Navy wanted jets and large fleet carriers, so I suspect they would not have funded production of a turboprop Skyshark.
Last edited by JRT; 16 Mar 16,, 04:17..
.
.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JRT View Post
Not much later the turboprop powered YC-130 was flying, and by the late 50s the C-130A was in production. Skyshark might have been more viable had they planned to use the same engine (and maybe also the same prop) as the C-130A (or B), which would have been a signficant incremental improvement over the radial used in the Skyraider, more evolutionary than revolutionary. Regardless any of that, Navy wanted jets and large fleet carriers, so I suspect they would not have funded production of a turboprop Skyshark.
Comment
-
Republic pursued a similar (and just as doomed) project with their Republic XF-84H "Thunderscreech" (and, trust me, there's a reason they called it the "Thunderscreech"); they basically took a regular F-84F Thunderstreak, removed the jet engine, and stuck a turboprop in the nose. And not just ANY turboprop, but a turboprop with a supersonic propeller. According to first-hand accounts, the noise and vibration the supersonic propeller gave off was so bad it was actually capable of incapacitating people:
ZWRRWWWBRZR
That's the sound of the prop-driven XF-84H, and it brought grown men to their knees. It didn't fly all that great either"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
Comment