CAS Birds where made of steel?! Relevant today?!

Chrome moly tube is the tubular “steel” structure commonly used in aircraft construction. “Aluminium” aircraft often have it for engine mounts and the like. Along with stainless steel for firewalls and the like.

Typically chrome moly is used in the internal framework structure, not the other way around.

To say that an aircraft is made of a particular material is not the complete story.

Aircraft are made of a combination of many materials. Depending on the aircrafts intended role, different materials may play a greater role.

1/ chrome moly tube

2/ https://youtu.be/9I7PLtb6g_w

Brilliant. 2 is a bit like the Air Tractor. 1) sounds fascinating but no idea what it is (reading the other thread sounds like a long defunct form of steel from WW2). The Third world countries I have in mind have steel mills, if I get the specs I am sure they could churn those specs out. Steel is a lot more durable than aluminum and much easier to build with… Although to be realistic the spars would prob. Have to be alum alloy and we could use chrome moly steel for the outer structure.

Many small, inexpensive types have been mooted for CAS.
Just the other day I saw a reference that Beech put hardpoints on a Bonanza A36 and I believe Piper did the same on a Cherokee Six.

And lets recall the Canadian who designed a combat plane where you could buy a 100 for the cost of a light strike jet. His “fill the skies with guys in cheap aircraft” forgot the basic fact that in western counties, pilots lives do matter and the training of the crews is expensive, so most air forces would like to get them back. 🙂

However, even “third world” nations know unless you’re fighting pretty basic enemies (naked blokes with sharp sticks is what Blackadder called them with typical British humour/disdain for colonials), such types aren’t very useful. Even small countries can come up with the money for a few more useful types.

And in these days of portable SAMs/and Stingers, they’re probably right to get a dedicated type.
Still Broncos and armed PC-9s seen like useful weapons…in some circumstances. But you better have a squadron of F-16s (or similar) to protect the capital from air attack.

This topic was addressed here a year or two ago. At that time, our resident experts seemed to think a turboprop Skyraider was the way to go. That’s why I mentioned the Skyshark in my original post.
Besides, a new build Mosquito or Mustang still wouldn’t be cheap…the engine (new build or overhauled WWII metal) cost alone would be considerable and in terms of serviceability and fuel availability, a turbine would probably be better.

Definitely agree on turbine, however, don’t agree that such a plane will be useless. Given recent experience in the ME, such planes are in good demand and proving their value proposition much better than jets. Remember manpads have a particular range limit and are not often handy. Very few jets shot down by manpads in the present conflicts.

A clear niche exists between f16s and pc9s or even attack helos. A niche exploited by aircraft such as the Super Tucano and Air Tractor quite successfully. Yet neither of these are cost effective, rather they end up being priced high. The Tucano because it has a whole list of features and materials and the US planes because of high labor costs and small scale production.

1/ chrome moly tube

2/ https://youtu.be/9I7PLtb6g_w

Yet, the third world is always busy mimicking whatever the US does, whether its optimal for them or not…

Many small, inexpensive types have been mooted for CAS.
Just the other day I saw a reference that Beech put hardpoints on a Bonanza A36 and I believe Piper did the same on a Cherokee Six.

And lets recall the Canadian who designed a combat plane where you could buy a 100 for the cost of a light strike jet. His “fill the skies with guys in cheap aircraft” forgot the basic fact that in western counties, pilots lives do matter and the training of the crews is expensive, so most air forces would like to get them back. 🙂

However, even “third world” nations know unless you’re fighting pretty basic enemies (naked blokes with sharp sticks is what Blackadder called them with typical British humour/disdain for colonials), such types aren’t very useful. Even small countries can come up with the money for a few more useful types.

And in these days of portable SAMs/and Stingers, they’re probably right to get a dedicated type.
Still Broncos and armed PC-9s seen like useful weapons…in some circumstances. But you better have a squadron of F-16s (or similar) to protect the capital from air attack.

This topic was addressed here a year or two ago. At that time, our resident experts seemed to think a turboprop Skyraider was the way to go. That’s why I mentioned the Skyshark in my original post.
Besides, a new build Mosquito or Mustang still wouldn’t be cheap…the engine (new build or overhauled WWII metal) cost alone would be considerable and in terms of serviceability and fuel availability, a turbine would probably be better.

Remember, re-engineering…or simply swapping a turboprop for a piston in an aircraft isn’t as easy as it sounds.
Remember, we’re not talking Airfix kits here.

Remember the Douglas Skyshark? It began life as a turboprop Skyraider…and in the end, the faster , Skyhawk was a better choice for the Navy.

I know exactly what you mean. I’m actually wanting a clean sheet design. We also don’t need that much armor as we’d be lobbing smart munitions from a distance mostly rather than always going down and dirty.

The navy needs the best planes given its space premium and power projection premium. Same is not true for other users, so solutions SHOULD differ. Yet, the third world is always busy mimicking whatever the US does, whether its optimal for them or not…

Remember, re-engineering…or simply swapping a turboprop for a piston in an aircraft isn’t as easy as it sounds.
Remember, we’re not talking Airfix kits here.

Remember the Douglas Skyshark? It began life as a turboprop Skyraider…and in the end, the faster Skyhawk was a better choice for the Navy.

Interesting and fascinating suggestion Red and John!

What do any of these history ‘refreshes’ do that a OV-10 Bronco cannot do??

Bronco does the job just fine. Sad its never been replaced in a meaningful way. A few places where the Bronco wouldn’t score is speed and low costs of a single engine, but otherwise its right on the money.

With modern SDBs, laser guided rockets and ATGMs, smaller CAS planes can reinvent themselves in a way they couldn’t even 15 years ago. Kind of like being a manned UAV… Would sell pretty well me thinks specially in this insurgency climate.

Look good?

What do any of these history ‘refreshes’ do that a OV-10 Bronco cannot do??

Someone on the forum, some while back, suggested an ally Mosquito. Then someone went one stage further and suggested a steel Mosquito. Now there’s an idea !

Another possible WWII airframe for a modern conversion that springs to mind is the Hs 129. Yes, the performance was less than expected, but that was a weight / power issue. Henschel intended to use the BMW 801 engines, but that was simply denied (if not outright forbidden) by RLM. So they had to use the low power Gnome-Rhone 14 M engines (~700 to 740 hp each, depending on version, compared to 1700 hp each of the BMW´s). Though severely hampered by lack of power and airspeed (if use of the BMW´s had been possible, the D version would have ~ 2000 hp more than the B version!), it was a very good design and proved its ability in the Russian theatre. If converted to powerful turboprops, modern electronics and modern weapons, it might be a good enough design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129
[ATTACH=CONFIG]240014[/ATTACH]

Michael

fascinating, look at all the steel on the IL-2!

Supposing we use aluminum, some steel and kevlar, a turbo prop, I think it could really be a lot cheaper Super Tucano (which goes at about $15 million). U could get 80 percent of the capability at 20% of the cost.

Here is an expression of it, in real terms, the Piper PA48:

Yes I was wrong, edited original

I believe the whole of the V1 structure was of steel.

Anon.

This is the best pic I can find of the steel bits of the Il-2:
http://www.repulomuzeum.hu/Leltar/Leltarfotok/IL-2.htm

Adrian

The main spars of the Spitfire were made of several nested layers of channel form spring steel.[/QUOTE]

No, not steel – Aluminium (L168 springs to mind but I may be incorrect on that) tubes, nested within each other (other than the Spitfire 18 which had solid spar booms)

Just google Hawker Hurricane Structure and you should see skeletal diagrams, the main fuselage frame and wing spars were steel ( but mechanically jointed rather than welded).Aluminium alloy and wood frames were used to support a doped fabric covering, The outer wings were redesigned around 1939 to be alloy skinned but some fabric winged Hurricanes flew in the Battle of Britain
EDIT..I was wrong , the Spitfire wing spars were an unusual aluminium alloy construction NOT steel, see post below
http://www.aero-mag.com/features/63/20122/1268/

Maybe a Grumman Tigercat fitted with a pair of Turbo prop engines would fit the bill ? The Tigercat was a pretty nippy performer so assume the airframe was stressed to deal with high speed, some were converted as fire bombers so their loading carrying is not in doubt, and the night fighter version could carry radar and a second crewman, so although small must have had enough internal room. Fitted with either multiple guns or heavy canon in the nose and underwing stores, its only disadvantage might have been lack of fuel / range. Guess the DH Hornet, fitted with turbo props, would have had great performance but too small to carry heavy ground attack loads.

It was steel tubing. Lots of it!

Electronics can be added.. after all, there are designs getting close to that vintage in service in other roles with little more than electronic systems upgrades – eg B-52