60+ years of Airplane Technology Advance.

[Rusty Heap]

60+ years of Airplane Technology Advance summed up in one photo.

[944Larry]

The top one is probably the better airplane. For the kind of wars we seem to be fighting now the P51 with a gas turbine would probably be a better choice.

[fanaudical]

A P-51 with a turboprop would be the PA-48:

Piper PA-48 Enforcer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neat photo above; it really is amazing how far we've come in 100 years of flight.

[944Larry]

Originally Posted by fanaudical

A P-51 with a turboprop would be the PA-48:

Piper PA-48 Enforcer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neat photo above; it really is amazing how far we've come in 100 years of flight.

'Bout right, I get a good idea and somebody else has already thought of it! Of course the Air Force doesn't want it if it's not supersonic.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by 944Larry

Of course the Air Force doesn't want it if it's not supersonic.

Well, if you have not been in combat, it can be difficult to explain.

Easiest way to put it is that "speed is life" in airborne combat, and if you do not have the speed and a good weapons system, best to stay in the bunker on the ground...

[Peterfrans]

Now if you put a SR71 in between it seems development is slowing down...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg

[Bill Douglas]

Nice.




Dave, does the SC go faster with the cams and all that stuff? Mines an ordinary 82 with SSIs and dansk muffler.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by Peterfrans

Now if you put a SR71 in between it seems development is slowing down...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg

Not really. While the SR-71 is cool (and one of my personal favorite aircraft of all time) it is extremely crude technology and has virtually no maneuverability and no combat capability. It leaks fuel like a sieve on the ground because engineers didn't know how to solve the problem of thermal variation in fittings then - they just left enough clearance / tolerance such that when things got hot during operation the gaps sealed due to expansion. The aircraft is fast for sure but in terms of a "step forward" comparing it to a modern jet like a raptor is like comparing a 1960s Mercury Atlas (also cool in its own way) to the Space Shuttle - or a VW Beetle to a Prius.

[944Larry]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Well, if you have not been in combat, it can be difficult to explain.

Easiest way to put it is that "speed is life" in airborne combat, and if you do not have the speed and a good weapons system, best to stay in the bunker on the ground...

I should have clarified myself here. I'm not advocating getting rid of high performance aircraft. We now have the F35 here at Eglin and, like all locals, I'm proud of them. I just think there is a need for a slower aircraft that has a longer loiter time over target than what we have now. I point to the A10 as a perfect example of the success of this type aircraft. The wars we seem to be involved in now do not seem to need expensive high performance. The slower plane probably could be maintained easier in the field and not need long concrete runways. It could be given to any ally without any worry of some high tech secrets falling into the wrong hands. I'm like Dennis Miller on this "this is my theory-I could be wrong".

[edgemar]

Originally Posted by 944Larry

I should have clarified myself here. I'm not advocating getting rid of high performance aircraft. We now have the F35 here at Eglin and, like all locals, I'm proud of them. I just think there is a need for a slower aircraft that has a longer loiter time over target than what we have now. I point to the A10 as a perfect example of the success of this type aircraft. The wars we seem to be involved in now do not seem to need expensive high performance. The slower plane probably could be maintained easier in the field and not need long concrete runways. It could be given to any ally without any worry of some high tech secrets falling into the wrong hands. I'm like Dennis Miller on this "this is my theory-I could be wrong".

Would this be an example of that:

[surflvr911sc]

Originally Posted by 944Larry

I should have clarified myself here. I'm not advocating getting rid of high performance aircraft. We now have the F35 here at Eglin and, like all locals, I'm proud of them. I just think there is a need for a slower aircraft that has a longer loiter time over target than what we have now. I point to the A10 as a perfect example of the success of this type aircraft. The wars we seem to be involved in now do not seem to need expensive high performance. The slower plane probably could be maintained easier in the field and not need long concrete runways. It could be given to any ally without any worry of some high tech secrets falling into the wrong hands. I'm like Dennis Miller on this "this is my theory-I could be wrong".

I think that these two are pretty nice complements to the F-22 & F-35.

[Joeaksa]

Larry,

Agreed. The A-10 was really given a hard time when it first came out. Never flown them (I flew for McDonnell Douglas and they did not like us in other companies planes!) but friends flew them for years and loved them. Tough as nails and would bring you home every mission. Also they are very unforgiving in the ground support area and are a tanks worst enemy, as well as like you said have a very good loiter time...

[Flieger]

They did seal the SR-71 tanks with a rubber-like sealant but it could not withstand the thermal stress. So, after a few missions the tanks would start to leak and they would leak a bit more until the next re-seal. It was no big deal for normal missions because they would top-up from the tanker right after takeoff and then get high and hot as quick as possible, at which point things would expand and the tanks would seal up.

For the record flights (at least the speed over long distance ones) they used "tight" aircraft that had just been re-sealed.

[944Larry]

Originally Posted by edgemar

Would this be an example of that:

yep, I think in a firefight with rebel forces that would be just the thing. Might do away with the backseat and carry even more ordinance though. I like the dollar sign on the rudder!!!

[944Larry]

"I flew for McDonnell Douglas and they did not like us in other companies planes!"

Hey, all you would be doing is evaluating the competion!!!! We must have some A10's down on Eglin. Thet were using a range down there a few years ago when I was down there on a job.

[KNS]

Originally Posted by 944Larry

I should have clarified myself here. I'm not advocating getting rid of high performance aircraft. We now have the F35 here at Eglin and, like all locals, I'm proud of them. I just think there is a need for a slower aircraft that has a longer loiter time over target than what we have now. I point to the A10 as a perfect example of the success of this type aircraft. The wars we seem to be involved in now do not seem to need expensive high performance. The slower plane probably could be maintained easier in the field and not need long concrete runways. It could be given to any ally without any worry of some high tech secrets falling into the wrong hands. I'm like Dennis Miller on this "this is my theory-I could be wrong".

That's exactly what the Piper Enforcer (Turbine Mustang) was intended for, and I think would have been successful had the Air Force not killed the project. Their excuse was that they didn't have the facilities to train pilots in tail dragger aircraft (any civilian contractor could have taken on that role).

[john70t]

Originally Posted by 944Larry

The slower plane probably could be maintained easier in the field and not need long concrete runways. It could be given to any ally without any worry of some high tech secrets falling into the wrong hands.

-The AK47 with sloppy clearances(which can be fired from a puddle of mud) vs. the tight M-16.
-A single Tiger II vs. 20 T-34s.

There will always be a need for a ringer(F22 "air superiority" while satellites, drones, and bio-infiltration exists in an electronic age).

There will always be a need for a backup plan for that ringer.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by Peterfrans

Now if you put a SR71 in between it seems development is slowing down...

And then there's the stuff we don't know about yet.

[mikeesik]

Excellent write-up on the-Douglas A-1D Skyraider v.s the A-10 Thunderbolt II in September issue of- AIR and SPACE magazine.

[944Larry]

That was another good one, the Skyraider. Seems like I read once it could carry it's own weight in ordinance.