LAAR She Blows! Part Two

 

1. RightWingNews asked me to stick my oar in the water about the flap over the choice of aircraft for the LAAR mission profile.

   John Hawkins asked your opinion? I’m impressed! I know diddly-squat about aircraft.

   Posted by Christopher       04/16/2011  at  08:32 AM  



2. Channeling your inner Skipper again Drew.
   I approve.Im sure he would too.

   Posted by Rich K       04/16/2011  at  09:49 AM  



3. Back in the ‘70’s a company down here in Srasota FL tried to interest the military in a COIN plane they had built.  Basicly they started with a Mustang frame and then added a turbo engine and enough renforced hard points to carry a ton or so of ordnance.  Nobody was interested, NIH, didn’t go fast enough, no need, etc.  This was shortly before the A-10 came on line.  ‘Course you could have had five or six of those super Mustangs for the cost of one A-10. 
   If they really wanted to go this route they should pull out the plans for the old A-4 “SPAD” and be done.  Five tons of droppy stuff plus four 20mm cannons. And harder to shoot down then an original Thunderbolt.

   Posted by emdfl       04/16/2011  at  10:42 AM  



4. Arrrrgh, teh brainfat came on me.  A-4 s/b A-1 and SPAD of course = Skyraider.

   Posted by emdfl       04/16/2011  at  10:45 AM  



5. emdfl - the Skyraider had a whole boxful of nicknames, depending on the variant of the airplane and what it got used for. I remember them as “Sandys” because the main role I knew them in was search and rescue. Pretty sure Nat Geo did a piece on them way back in the day, since the plane was so versatile.

   Hope you guys did follow that last link I put in. That post really tells the whole story the best. Using a $65 million jet fighter to linger over the combat zone waiting for the support call is wearing them out and wasting tremendous amounts of fuel. Something does need to be done. I’d think one of the old C-47 gunships would be just about right too, but they’re too big a target for any kind of diving and zooming.

   Posted by Drew458       04/16/2011  at  12:12 PM  



6. They made turboprop spitfires I believe, I was going to ask if they had lost the plans for the Mustangs?? ge they could give most of us 250K a year and we could do way better than these jokers, make the top brass go on missions, that would help the procurement of good kit!

   Posted by Chris Edwards       04/16/2011  at  12:50 PM  



7. IMHO, the Skyraider would be a much better choice - built like a shrick bithouse and can loiter onsite for hours.  These 2 planes look like enlarged Q-Stars.
   Also, may i direct your attention to the avitar at the right......... While not ideally suited for this kind of operation, I’d rather have something like this cradling my delicate fat butt than a dragonfly with an engine.

   http://www.skyraider.org/skyassn/index.htm

   Posted by Corsair       04/16/2011  at  02:30 PM  



8. They are said to be armored around the cockpit, but I hear ya.

   OTOH, one thing I do like about them is visibility. You can see everything, whereas flying a Corsair would be like riding a giant sewer pipe across the sky. Can’t see diddly in front of you, can’t see the ground ahead, can’t see down to the left or right. Pretty amazing how much smaller a turboprop is to make >1/2 the HP of that big radial.

   Posted by Drew458       04/16/2011  at  03:59 PM  



9. Don’t know much about aircraft, but it looks like it could be shredded by an AK at low levels.

   Posted by grayjohn       04/16/2011  at  04:18 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.