slipperysam
Why again waste millions in a complete redesign of a single engine tail dragger plane when theres already turboprop trainers in service with a nosewheel at the front?All that extra training at simple take of and landings for pilots who have probably never ridden in a tail dragger… Im sure they would appreciate that…
OK. Compare their perfs and specs then, are we talking Close air support or aerobatic scools? (Trainer programes are alreay covered)
It’s one or the other, trainers doesn’t do better in A2G close support and certainly have a lot less punishment taking capabilities built-in, to do as well as this design they would need a total redesign too and front wheel or not flying it, i wouldn’t mind at all.
Jets? A-10 is unbeatable.
Other than that, show us a turbo trainer equaling a Skyraider in the role. Please.
http://skyraider.org/hook/weapons.html
A rather unconventional view of the standard Sandy load used until April, 1972.
On a mission like this, we normally would make about a half dozen passes each, which seems like a lot until you consider that we had 12 external stations carrying ordnance plus a minigun and four 20 mm cannons. A typical strike of this nature may have gone like this.
First pass – LAU-3 HE (high explosive) rockets, ripple fire both pods, total of 38 rockets, from stations 6-7
Second pass – CBU-25 pairs from stations 1-12
Third pass – AN-M1A4 frag clusters, pairs from stations 2-11
Fourth pass – AN-M1A4 frag clusters, pairs from stations 3-10
Fifth pass – LAU-68 WP (white phosphorus) rockets, ripple fire both pods, total 14 rockets, from stations 5-8
Sixth pass – M-47A4, white phosphorus bombs, pairs from stations 4-9
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1482940&posted=1#post1482940
Yes i know the front wheel is old fashioned.
Well how much weight does a retractable front wheel takes out of a design this size?
EdLaw
Another blast from the past, alongside the excellent OV-10: a new build A-4 Skyhawk! It was incredibly tough, due to its very rugged design, and could be updated quite easily.
+1. Dismissing the old proven values is a little ungrateful, they both proved themself as the best in their roles.
Of course they had their limitations but they had the right design for the role too, which is not the case for a F-16 or a Super Tucanno, give me an A-10 or a Sandy with a new engine any time for doing CAS.
Merlock
Then why not reuse the breguet Alizé’s design with a bigger tuboprop ?
Because the Alize was never designed (nor good at it) for the role the Skyraider was designed to fill.
As a matter of FACT it has always been the most efficient CAS aircraft in the US inventory when it comes to this mission and was widely used for SAR as well.
http://skyraider.org/hook/ToC.htm
SAR
The Skyraider had all the necessary assets; speed, ordnance carrying capability, communications, and the ability to withstand punishment. Of course when I talk of speed I am talking about the optimum speed to perform the SAR mission. Since the A-1 was frequently operated near its maximum gross weight, its speed capability was not fast. There was a standing joke among Spad drivers. There was only one speed you had to remember- 120 knots. You took off at 120 knots, cruised at 120 knots, and landed at 120 knots. Weapons deliveries were planned at higher airspeeds, maybe as high as 250 knots. (You fast mover guys can quit laughing now.) But working a target area was an energy losing proposition. You could be back up on base at the desired altitude or airspeed, but not both. After your third or fourth pass, 120 knots worked for weapons delivery too! This is precisely why the A-10 is the second best close air support aircraft ever built, it doesn’t go fast.
http://skyraider.org/hook/seaskymi.html
Byron E. Hukee
This guy looks PROUD (he sould be) and happy…
Good read. I didn’t pick it by chance, and sorry to the purist i’ll stick to my old fashioned performances vs look on the ground.
For the benefit of all don’t misuse the name of Paul Metz to cover up your lack of knowledge. 😎
Yeah we got much of that these days.
But good, validated information are rare even less qualifed writers who can distinguish between reality and fiction.
We still are waiting for the famous Paul Metz article instead of having to trust the words of those who’s sole contributions are flame bates and incorrect, substandards pseudo-technical explainations.
I recon Raptor One knows his theorical but he mixes standards to non-standard measurements and at the end we got whatever is needed for sustaining theories which aren’t even considered as being valid in US Flight-Test centres.
The other Sci-fi lovers are the same who can’t read official source when they don’t make their points and keep taking people on because they don’t have the bottle to debate properly.
Now that we’re done with this stupid “KPP tresherhold” legend can we see a link to P-M interview please?
Sens
Under the limiting European weather-conditions it is important to have the best practical range here, whatever it will be.
Main drive for developing long-range/all-weather IR technology has always been the European weather conditions.
Requierements are much more demanding for operations in Europe than in the Gulf.
djcross
It shows the limitations of a non-technically schooled aviation writer. Writing books/articles doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about. Cyanate ester is more of a limitation than BMI.
Some of us can actually guess the Combat ceilling properly by starting with Politico-Industrial history, aerodynamics, requierements, predicted roles, Maximum Designed Mach, Equivalent Airspeed… Long before Lockheed Martin publishes the predicted mission profiles for the benefit of the foreign Ministers to which they are trying to sell the aircraft.
Other still believe that ~ 1200 mp/h is M 1.8 at the tropopause vs a Maximum Mach of 1.6, don’t comprehend the meaning of ~ even less the reason why a Resulting Airspeed wouldn’t possibly be given as a Maximum but an approximated before flight-test and validation of the Equivalent Airspeed at Maximum Mach at Combat celling (BEST performances).
It’s a good idea to stick to procedural measurement and standard at least one comprehend a lot of things other posters are just completly missing (and some other inventing).
Oh yeah i forgot, we also know configuration clearence limits, with external loads, A2A and A2G as Machs and g Max, and as Scorpion puts it, Operational and DASH; we also undestand that Maximum Mach means DASH in standard measurements.
Just wondering what opinions are of the various competitors for this particular program. I’m not asking if you agree with the need for the program or not so please keep that discussion elsewhere. I just want to know which aircraft you all think would be the best solution for the competition.
My opinion is that the old “Sandy” should be redesigned, re-engined with a good turboprop and equiped with modern avionics, there havent been better design since Vietnam bar the A-10.
It could be used with two crew members for FAC, and since it is a carrier-borne aircraft there would be no problem for use by all services.
Another thaught, if i was the French Defense Minister (LOL) i would propose a collaborative programe involving Dassault-Aviation and to cut the developement cost, use an existing US engine.
Then plan for procuring 120 of them for both AdA and Marine Nationale, i truely think it would be THAT good.
This image suggests that the Brazilians would be involved in other areas than milling metal and putting parts together. Co-op regarding IRST, EW, IFF, Radar etc sound pretty high-tech to me.As you said Embraer don’t focus on the above mentioned but I think the Saab proposal is focused on Brazilian industry rather than only Embraer. Embraer would of course get their fair share of ToT. Either they’re interested in getting know how in the above mentioned areas or they’re happy continuing doing airframe parts and systems integration.
Thanks for posting this, although it is not news it gives a better insight of SAAB proposal.
The point i was making conserns design points:
Conceptual, Aerodynamic, Structural, etc.
These are already done in the case of all concurents and are not likely to change in the future.
Brazil needs to start with less performant aircrafts design to expect a real independence of capabilties at this level, and this is where that of SAAB and Dassault canot be thaught over even ten years of trying.
Sign In
