WacoFan
Bigly
Puss machine the PA-48 was. Bring back the Skyraider. I'd sell my wife and daughter into white-slavery for the chance to blow people up from a Skyraider.
A-10 THunderbolt Question
- Thread starter jwp_145
- Start date
Puss machine the PA-48 was. Bring back the Skyraider. I'd sell my wife and daughter into white-slavery for the chance to blow people up from a Skyraider.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
WacoFan
Bigly
If you've never read it, then this is a must read.
Will read that soon then. Never read it. Favorite part of Flight of the Intruder was the scenes with the Skyraiders.
If you've never read it, then this is a must read.
Best part of the book is how it demonstrates that in 40 years, the BS of the AF is the same today as was then.....just worse.
I wanted A-10s from even before I was in the AF. Was in ROTC in the late '80s, but due to the end of the Cold War, there were no pilot/nav slots available. Got a missileer slot and didn't want it, so I dropped out. Graduated and went to civvie flying. Applied for OTS multiple times and was finally selected for pilot even though I only had a 2.3 GPA, graduated #72 out of 74 in my OTS class. Went to UPT, finished T-37s and got fighter track. Finished -38s, but there were no A-10s available for my class. Got selected for F-15C even though it wasn't on my dream sheet. Had that slot for a bit before my Flt Commander, an A-10 guy, did a deal with a buddy Flt/CC of his at Columbus, MS who had a guy who got an A-10 but wanted an F-15C. So they got it traded.
For 117s, it was my third choice that became my second choice. I was working on an OA-37 exchange tour to be a FAC IP down in South America, but it fell through after we got held over for the OIF war and PCSs were limited (AEF Blue/Silver). Got held in the A-10 for 3 assignment cycles, and the exchange tour went away. My second choice was an EA-6B tour with the combined USAF/USN squadrons up at Whidbey Island, but they stopped taking AF pilots for that and only take Nav/EWOs. F-117s became my first choice then and I got it. Was a good plane too. Now that they're gone, its neat to be one of the limited cadre that flew the thing.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
The Enforcer was (or could have been) a worthy follow-on to the Skyraider. It was a great idea that was just not suited to the way the USAF was going in the 70s and 80s. It's a ton better IMHO than the AT-6B.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Quite honestly, that will have no bearing on the case for a couple reasons:
1. Employing an airplane as a weapon is entirely different than simply flying an airplane. The employment is 90% of a combat pilot's tasks, and by far the most difficult thing for a pilot to learn and perfect.
2. Previous time really makes very little difference in training. Whenever you go non-current, a pilot has to go through a lengthy re-qual program anyway. Someone who has been flying another aircraft in the interim has to go through an even longer qual. Having the AT-6B be based on an aircraft that many of the training pilots have flown before would, at most, save a couple sorties at the beginning of the training program. Even a current and qualified T-6 IP would still have "the other 90%" of the training program to go through, learning to employ the airplane as a weapon.
Fully agree.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
It could haul 8,000 pounds worth of stuff on 10 weapon stations -- higher, faster, further than the Skyraider and WAY more of everything than the AT-6B.
The reality is, the airplane never really got a chance to get far enough into serious development to flesh it out into an actual combat aircraft. It had some issues to overcome, and in fact the production PA-48s would have been quite a bit different than any of the 4 previous Enforcer prototypes.
Either way, it would have been a big bad machine, that would be PERFECT for the current battlefield. It was actually an idea that was WAY ahead of it's time.
Brian29
Well-Known Member
That PA-48 looks like it was badass! It looks like they took a P-51 and said "how can we make this thing a wicked ground attack platform?". As stated above, having people like MikeD and Hacker on this site is awesome. You get to hear and learn about aircraft you never knew existed.
It was based off the Cavalier design. Even though the final product had little in commonality with the Mustang, you can definitely see the lines.
It was initially a Mutang conversion, but as I said even though it had little commonality in its final form, you could still see the lines that scream "Mustang".
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
Right, that was supposed to be a sarcastic crack comparing using the T-6, to the civilian "lowest cost at all costs"management style... I guess it missed
WacoFan
Bigly
I'm glad you said it AND glad that it missed because Hacker made an interesting point that a lot of people wouldn't know.
juan valdez
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I chuckled at it but was also glad Hacker responded in a different manner which ended up giving more cool info.
Mike, out of curiosity, why did you want the EA6? Seems flying around jamming would be the exact opposite of what you had come from? From what I understand their mission is/was and the flight profiles they fly/flew in Iraq when I was there it seemed pretty boring. Not that carrying troops/cargo from point A to B was exciting itself.
Mostly location. Spend some time up at Whidbey Island, WA. Of course, those units spent most of their time away from home, so it was a blessing in disguise that I didnt get it I suppose. I also wanted to get day carrier qualed, but they had stopped doing that too, wanting to keep the "mixed" units landbased. As it was, they stopped taking AF pilots altogether. Rumor was that its because an AF guy bested trap scores one too many times......
RDoug
Well-Known Member
As it was, they stopped taking AF pilots altogether. Rumor was that its because an AF guy bested trap scores one too many times......
Now that's funny!