Posted on 10/25/2010 9:06:30 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Irregular warfare offers new role for propeller driven aircraft
By Stephen Trimble
Bringing back the propeller-driven fighter in the age of counterinsurgency may seem to some a belated no-brainer or to others a wasteful diversion with potentially suicidal risk to the pilot.
As late as early 2008, the leadership of the US Air Force sided firmly with the sceptics. Lt Gen Donald Hoffman, then the USAF's top-ranking acquisition official, implied to a group of reporters in April of that year that the idea of deploying propeller-driven aircraft in modern combat is too risky.
"We can rebuild the [North American] P-51 - great airplane," said Hoffman, citing the propeller-driven Second World War fighter. Then, however, the former Lockheed Martin F-16 pilot pointed at each of the journalists. "All we need is you, you, you and you to go fly it into the threat zone," he said.
The Second World War P-51: a template for a modern-day propeller-driven fighter? Picture: Staff Sgt Jeremy Smith/US Air Force
Propeller-driven aircraft fly lower and slower than fast jets such as the F-16, and carry less cockpit armour than the "titanium bathtubs" surrounding pilots in the Fairchild A-10 or the Boeing AH-64 Apache.
It is this combination that drove the type out of the USAF inventory immediately after the Vietnam war, with the retirements of the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, the Cessna O-2 Skymaster and the de Havilland C-7 Caribou.
Paradoxically, however, the propeller-driven aircraft's ability to fly low and slow for long periods is responsible for a rebirth of enthusiasm within the USAF since shortly after Hoffman made his remarks about reintroducing the P-51.
The USAF leadership's position on the light attack mission would quickly
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
That was a fun read! I’m glad you are still around to tell the story!
The one true advantage the Mustang had was range and it was also cheaper. Range is always important, but was it a decisive factor in Korea?
Wow! Just getting a post like this, real first-hand stuff, alone makes my $10 a month worthwhile!
I also can attest to the construction of the thunderbolt from being involved with rebuilding one that had bellylanded in a plowed field.The property owner said he was fine with the ditch that the bird made as he would just lay pipe in it.I have a friend who is rebuilding old 49th fighter group thunderbolts(3) in australia.Were you ever at finchhaven or dobodura?I am a big 49th FG fan.Thanks so much for what you did and did quite well.
My Uncle as well as Wife’s Uncle flew P-47 “Jugs” in WW-II.
They weren’t the greatest fighter apparently, but they were one heck of a ground support vehicle and were about the closest thing to a flying tank they had back then.
Pretty decent dive bomber too, it seems.
The P-47 IIRC was one of the first to use A2G rockets extensively and effectively.
If one were to resurrect a WW-II design - an appealing but probably impractical option - I would think that replacement of the piston engine with a turboprop would be requisite for fuel compatibility with other aircraft and ground vehicles, as well as much less maintainance required on the turbos.
These planes were pushing the envelope on speed at which you could safely bail out - ejection seats would have to be incorporated IMHO.
Some kind of STOL capability would be a plus for operating in remote areas.
One nice thing about the A-10 or other jets; you don’t have a prop to shoot through. A machine gun can be synchronized, but can that work with a Vulcan system?
Mounting heavy gun pods out on the wings might be tough on the airframe I would think.
Any prop plane is hard to keep quiet; the A-10 has a reputation for being “silent death” to the enemy, we’re told.
As much as I would love to see a turbopropped P-48 or P-51, I don’t really see it in the cards for serious military application.
We aren't talking about a replacement for tactical aircraft, we are talking about a mixed ISR/FAC(A)/light attack aircraft to be used in a specific permissive counter insurgency environment.
There is the opportunity to procure the Tucano, but it was shot down in Congress because it wasn't a U.S. produced aircraft. This was an all but done deal and now the troops this aircraft was supposed to support have to go without.
Great post. Thanks for the education.
Excellent points.
.
Where did you hear it was cheaper?Did you know that Packard had to pay royalties to rollsroyce of $5000.00 US per merlin built under licence?That was a boatload of money that did not stay here in America whereas Pratt&Whitney was an American company that supplied the engines for the P-47s as well as the Corsair,P-61,Hellcat,B-26 and on and on and on. Maintainence was also better on the thunderbolt than the mustang.Just ask any mechanic that works on them today.
thank you for all this info. We are lucky to have Freepers with your kind of personal experience, and lucky that you fill us in knowing we are your friends here on FP. What a great online community.
and, thanks for your service.
The P47 was better than the P51 at ground attack. No coolant lines or radiator.
Sorry,I didnt answer your question fully.All the range in the world does you no good at all if the motor craps out on you on the way home.Round motors brought alot of guys home.Mustangs didnt fair that well in korea as they were not used for what they were designed for.It was politics pure and simple.
Maybe somebody here can answer this. I wonder how a P-47 would stack up against a skyraider AD-1? I realize we are talking two very differently designed airplanes. The former was an attack aircraft originally designed to operate off carriers. Certainly not designed as a fighter, whereas the P-47 was a fighter-bomber.
Wow! I’m in awe. I love firsthand posts and flowerplough, yours was one of the best in awhile!
I was fortunate enough to have a chance to interview General Doolittle at his home in Carmel, CA in 1985. Of course it would be silly NOT to ask about the raid and I’m sure by 1985 he’d only told the story a hundred thousand times, but he told it like it was his first time. My cohort and I were held spellbound as he gave us his firsthand account.
Anyhow, reading your P-47 post made me think of that interview!
For anyone who is interested, and I have a feeling Flowerplough may have seen it, but there is a History Channel upload on YouTube about P-47 dogfights. It’s a series of five videos, very well done, each about 10mins. I left each link open so you can cut and paste the link easily if you need to.
Dogfights: The Thunderbolt Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0WQV-f-dV8&feature=related
Dogfights: The Thunderbolt Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owwUq7yirfE&feature=related
Dogfights: The Thunderbolt Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhGlTAtkwLI
Dogfights: The Thunderbolt Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUU9oAuG06Q&feature=related
Dogfights: The Thunderbolt Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBNmBHh53Fk&feature=related
As far as bringing back some sort of prop aircraft; they kick the idea around every so often. I think as late as 1995 there still were some (props) organic to the Army or USAR. Anyone know if they still have some that are actually being used?
I can blow the whole night watching Dogfights.I pull them up on youtube and the history is researched very well.The picture of the T-bolt you have is that of the fighter collection of Duxford England by the way.Thank much
Roger that....MA...Well done!
Would love to see them bring back the Skyraider.
I haven’t flown any of these planes. From the perspective of the guy on the ground, I would want one of those puppies overhead for as long as possible with as much ordinance as possible. That makes Spooky the Gunship a contender, especially if it has artillery rounds.
Correction, this sentence should read: the latter (the AD-1, not the former, the P-47) was an attack aircraft originally designed to operate off carriers.
It looks like it might be the one at Duxbury. The one on display in the American Air Museum had a red cowl at one time but this one is also tagged as being at Duxbury, so I’m not 100% sure.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P47.750pix.jpg
http://futurshox.net/aeroview.php?level=image&id=507
http://futurshox.net/planes21/ra-P47-227.jpg
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
