I to though of the Skyraider, also the P-47 and the F4U Corsair. And thanks for the reminder of the A4D Skyhawk, which was just recently retired from a couple of air forces.
Realistically, I expect the 3 designs that are being offered are based upon current trainer aircraft that are in current production with aviation mechanics already trained on the airframes and the turbo- or pure jet engines, especially the latter as a deciding factor.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the classic 4 I listed with the 3 being tested.
Thanks for the ping. I’m not sure why we need such a light attack aircraft. I wish we would build more A-10s.
“...It would be interesting to see a comparison of the classic 4 I listed with the 3 being tested.”
Any “classic” (1940s vintage) aircraft would cost five to ten times more to build today - even if the tooling and skilled labor could be found and applied.
Turbine engines cannot simply be slapped on in place of piston engines: weight & balance simply won’t work. Swapouts are trickier with single-engine than multi-engine airframes. And the performance parameters are quite different: no turbine engine could be used at maximum efficiency on airframes built for a piston engine.
The greatest drawback would be handling characteristics: aircraft with a tailwheel are much more difficult to land than nosewheel aircraft. The mishap rate would rise alarmingly.
And none of the “classics” can fly fast enough to survive, over today’s battlefield. Doesn’t matter what powerplant might be fitted: upper limits are set by the size and shape of the wings and tail surfaces.