Warbird Information Exchange

Now that is BADASS!!!

Interesting ... I took this air to air shot of the prototype a while back.
The pic has been "updated" by Paramount as development has moved forward.
For example, in the original pic I took, there were no weapons on the wings

It certainly is an option as a modern day Bronco

Isn't that what Textron (parent of both Cessna and Beechcraft) did with the Scorpion? http://www.scorpionjet.com/

C2j

The Garrett TPE 331 or T-67 and the Pratt and Whitney Canada PT 6 are about the same age both first flying in the early 1960s and are probably best considered second generation turbo props. The Garrett engine is fully capable of feathering in flight or on the ground because it is capable of reversing pitch. It is necessary for the Garrett to be shut down on the ground with the blades in low pitch since the starter would have a very hard time overcoming the resistance from the propeller blades in feather during start. After start the props must go slightly into reverse in order to unlock the low pitch stops before the powerplant can develop forward thrust. It is possible to shut down the engine in flight with the propeller on the low pitch stops but this is usually a mistake by someone doing a ground shut down rather than an in flight shut down. (I worked for an operation where this was done inadvertently and we were lucky there was enough altitude and wing area for the aircraft to keep flying long enough to get a restart.) There is no way the FAA or USAF would ever accept a twin engine aircraft that could not feather propellers during an inflight shut down.

The PT-6 propellers shut down in feather only because as a free turbine engine there is no physical connection between the power turbine connected to the reduction gear case and propeller and the compressor turbine connected to the compressor and accessory case and starter. On shut down the propeller blades go into feather in order to allow the power turbine section to spool down otherwise the propeller would keep turning for minutes from inertia alone. Feathering also keeps the blades from being turned by the wind after shut down since there is no inertia resistance from the rest of the engine.

Two very different design solutions but both are very efficient small turbo prop engines.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

Nicely explained John Dupre. My writing skills aren't that great. Yes the PT-6 has been around since the 1960's. They have only been improved since then. Many propellor designs are such that if you lose oil pressure, they will go to full feather. Better yet, if you have auto-feather certain conditions like loss of power , or oil pressure will cause them go to go to full feather. At which case the aircraft is imminently more desirable than not going to full feather which will greatly increase controllability, VMCa. drag and the airplane's ability to maintain level controlled flight.
So my thoughts were to the suitablity in a hostile combat environment versus say, flying for fun. With the Garrett's , an RPG or whatever could hit an engine and damage it stopping rotation before the pilot had a chance to do the correct feathering procedures. Especially if the pilot was momentarily incapacitated. On the A-10, there of course are no propellor blades that can be damaged by small arms fire, etc. On the A-10,the turbofan engines are on pylons. It's great if the pilot does the correct emergency procedures , but if he's injured and incapacitated, the engine can sit out there on that pylon burning and the aircraft will still fly just fine. It's not a big deal. A turbofan engine on a pylon is a much smaller, safer design than any turboprop mounted in the wing or fuselage with its engine, transmission, and prop system being susceptible to ground fire.

Need an updated Skyraider.

_________________
Better is the enemy of Good.

Very nice Skyraider project. I always thought they should've put an Allison T-56 turboprop, a nose gear (like the T-28).
I think the ultimate replacement for the OV-10/ A-10 etc. role would be a new design. Something with small turbofans mounted on pylons like the A-10, a high wing like the Pucara' and a bullet proof enclosure for tandem seating like the Ah-64 Apache helicopter. This would free up the wing for fuel and hardpoints. The nice thing about turbofans is they would have DEEKs and you don't have to watch the temp and torque limitations of the turboprops. The fuselage would be wide and near the C.G. so it would be possible to have a cargo area about three or four times the size of the OV-10 or say the size of a King Air 350.
Possible versions could be. 1) Observation and light offensive air 2) could carry up to 8 commandos and their gear. 3) Gunship version that has a minigun on the nose of the aircraft, a second at the rear of the fuselage and possibly a third mounted for a smaller , cheaper kind of "mini-AC-130". Something that can circle and fire at ground targets. 4) an ISR bird. the fuselage can carry lots of "ISR stuff" and the wing hardpoints can carry fuel drop tanks. 5) a KC refueling version. How cool to have an aircraft that can go on long range special ops missions, carry fuel for the helicopters, and then continue with them and deliver some offensive capability?

Would like someone to take a realistic look at the A-10s and even F-16s in flyable storage at AMARC. The A-10A was good enough for Desert Storm ... outfit a squadron or two and let them fly the daytime, good weather missions and let the existing C-models run the night/IMC missions. The airplanes would need some updates, mainly in chaff/flare systems, but they could be up and running much sooner than a new design could go from the drawing board to delivery. Not to mention, we already have units set up to train A-10 and F-16 guys, plus appropriate ground equipment, a supply chain, and the planes are proven and already sitting there ... isn't that why we have planes carefully cocooned at AMARC?

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

Spotted a pair of "Navy" OV-10G+ birds in Fort Worth a while back....

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

This thing still looks lethal ...

_________________
Zero Surprise!!...

What is that?

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

Convair Model 48 "Charger"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_Model_48_Charger

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

It is actually the Lockheed CL-760. It was their proposed idea for the Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (LARA) competition, which the OV-10 ended up winning. The Charger was Convair's entry into the same competition, and I believe the only other design that actually flew. None of the others got past the drawing board or mock-up stage.

Ooops! You are correct sir!. That's what I get for posting before the coffee has kicked in completely.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.