"Vee" Tail Bonanza?

[KSCessnaDriver]

As for the mite - they made one called an M-19 that had a thirty-caliber machine gun in each wing for a COIN aircraft. I do believe a Mite with machine guns would be a wet dream.

That would be sweet. I've been digging around on the internet for the past couple of hours (bored on a Friday night) and found a bunch of stuff on Bellanca, specifically the Viking line. Some of the sketches for proposals beyond the 300 hp Viking's were awesome. They had at least a drawing of one that was similar shape to the Viking, made out of various metals, with a TPE331 strapped out in front. Or, a basic 300 hp Viking with a machine gun, rocket launchers, and 3x 250 lb bombs. Neat stuff at this link http://home.att.net/~viking300/bhvh.html

 

[WacoFan]

I appeal to your love of the GeeBee, my friend. What is an airplane but a contrivance committed to the notion of going way faster than one has any right to go? If you're slinging 65hp, by all means, buy a Cub. But when you start burning more gas than is by any measure "sensible", you might as well be going far faster than prudence dictates, or you're just wasting dead dinosaurs. I realize that I'm outtting myself as not the perfect Purist by saying so, but anything over 100hp that doesn't have an absurdly high stall speed/wing loading leaves me...flacid. I should add, just in the spirit of being contentious, that the marvel of aeronautical engineering that is the MU-2 achieves ludicrously low landing distance numbers not through bolting a barn door to the fuselage, but through the ingenious use of high lift devices (in this case, full span flowler flaps) and ridiculously strudy gear (and God's gift to the turbine...reverse). I am nothing if not a lover of Tradition, but Tradition is Beautiful because Tradition is Elegant. There is nothing more Elegant than passing airliners on the downwind and landing in 500ft. This applies equally to less exalted metal. Let us not fall in to the all too common trap of NIH (Not Inveted Here) and give full props to the Nips for showing us the way to Have It All. Not to say, btw, that I wouldn't accept a ride in your riced out Waco when our book hits the best-seller list. I will, with pleasure. But a little perspective is key.

At least here is something we can all agree on. Aircraft held together with baling wire and a prayer but still packing a middle finger to point back at the insurgents? God Bless. It's a little bit Zero-San for my personal safety's liking, but I can't help but appreciate the notion.

In summary, if you aren't going faster than your more matronly peers deem wise, you're Doing It Wrong.

I am not disagreeing with you, particularly about the MU2, which is the only turbine airplane I wish to own (outside of Air Tractors). Also, you know that we have in common the "much maligned airplane" fetish.

But, where in your thinking does that leave airplanes that aren't fast...but do ridiculous things with payload...or get to ridiculous places? A Noorduyne Norseman? A homely airplane by any definition...yet a workhorse and "utilitarian". Six-hundred fifty P&W supplied horsepower...ten seatbelts along the two canvas sling-couches...just a hairy chested machine. What of the Helio Courier or Pilatus Porters and their incredible off airport capabilities? Pure speed is awesome. But, "ugly" and "utilitarian" can be wonderful.

 

[WacoFan]

That would be sweet. I've been digging around on the internet for the past couple of hours (bored on a Friday night) and found a bunch of stuff on Bellanca, specifically the Viking line. Some of the sketches for proposals beyond the 300 hp Viking's were awesome. They had at least a drawing of one that was similar shape to the Viking, made out of various metals, with a TPE331 strapped out in front. Or, a basic 300 hp Viking with a machine gun, rocket launchers, and 3x 250 lb bombs. Neat stuff at this link http://home.att.net/~viking300/bhvh.html

Good stuff there.

Man...I really want an airplane with worker ordinance. Just for personal use.

 

[727to7400]

Bellanca built some beautiful machines; as much as I like the Bonanza, I'd opt for the Viking in a heartbeat. Real sweet ride.

Backstory to Guiseppe is that his airplane was Lindbergh's choice for the trans Atlantic flight. Much better numbers and range. But Lindbergh's financial backers were opposed to Bellance because he was Italian, so they pushed Lindbergh to Ryan.

He moved from Long Island to not far from where I live. Had a nice farm with a beautiful grass strip. My wife and her friends grew up with his kids, said they were great people.

 

[MikeD]

I am not disagreeing with you, particularly about the MU2, which is the only turbine airplane I wish to own (outside of Air Tractors).
.

I doubt that.

If you were offered a Piper PA-48 Enforcer, I doubt you'd turn it down!

 

[WacoFan]

I doubt that.

If you were offered a Piper PA-48 Enforcer, I doubt you'd turn it down!

You are correct...I left that too open. I meant certified airplanes that made it to mass production.

You have some serious love for the Enforcer, and it is well placed - so here is your task:

Compare your intimate knowledge of the A-10 with the knowledge you have of what the Enforcer could have been. I understand you've never flown an Enforcer, but my estimation is that the Enforcer could have accomplished a significant percentage of what an A-10 can (perhaps 60% or more) at a significantly decreased cost. Add to that the new Beech T-6 with guns (I believe around $35 million) and the new AT-802U Air Tractor (I believe around $5 million) and the feasability of each. My guestimate is that the Air Tractor will lag on speed (obviously), but can accomplish 85-90% of what the Beech can at a fraction of the cost.

 

[MikeD]

You are correct...I left that too open. I meant certified airplanes that made it to mass production.

You have some serious love for the Enforcer, and it is well placed - so here is your task:

Compare your intimate knowledge of the A-10 with the knowledge you have of what the Enforcer could have been. I understand you've never flown an Enforcer, but my estimation is that the Enforcer could have accomplished a significant percentage of what an A-10 can (perhaps 60% or more) at a significantly decreased cost. Add to that the new Beech T-6 with guns (I believe around $35 million) and the new AT-802U Air Tractor (I believe around $5 million) and the feasability of each. My guestimate is that the Air Tractor will lag on speed (obviously), but can accomplish 85-90% of what the Beech can at a fraction of the cost.

OK. That's a fair challenge. Whats interesting is that the PA-48 was to be for the counter-insurgency battles that were primarily performed by the the A-37 Dragonfly and previous to that, the A-1 Skyraider. It also would've performed the Sandy CSAR escort role, since at that time in the '80s when it was being considered, the A-10 was primarily a tank killer CAS/BAI airframe for the Fulda Gap Warsaw Pact scenario. The A-10 back then didn't even have the Sandy role (a role it would perform "on the fly" in Desert Storm), and no one held that role, since the CSAR forces had taken a mauling from a $$$/funding-angle and had almost died in existance.

 

[WacoFan]

OK. That's a fair challenge. Whats interesting is that the PA-48 was to be for the counter-insurgency battles that were primarily performed by the the A-37 Dragonfly and previous to that, the A-1 Skyraider. It also would've performed the Sandy CSAR escort role, since at that time in the '80s when it was being considered, the A-10 was primarily a tank killer CAS/BAI airframe for the Fulda Gap Warsaw Pact scenario. The A-10 back then didn't even have the Sandy role (a role it would perform "on the fly" in Desert Storm), and no one held that role, since the CSAR forces had taken a mauling from a $$$/funding-angle and had almost died in existance.

I love the A-10 btw - just wondering, perhaps on a larger level, if the Enforcer would have been a better "value". Or...if the Enforcer was COIN and Sandy...but the A-10 a tank killer (and, for my money, the "tank-killer" role of any airplane - going back to the later variants of Stuka, the Typhon and Tempest, etc - that role is my favorite) could you have purchased less A-10's and filled the Sandy/COIN role with Enforcers? Or, did they build enough A-10's for the tank role, but they have simply taken the other role? Final question - does the need for an Enforcer/AT-802U/T-6 with guns exist within the US arsenal?

 

[MikeD]

I love the A-10 btw - just wondering, perhaps on a larger level, if the Enforcer would have been a better "value". Or...if the Enforcer was COIN and Sandy...but the A-10 a tank killer (and, for my money, the "tank-killer" role of any airplane - going back to the later variants of Stuka, the Typhon and Tempest, etc - that role is my favorite) could you have purchased less A-10's and filled the Sandy/COIN role with Enforcers? Or, did they build enough A-10's for the tank role, but they have simply taken the other role? Final question - does the need for an Enforcer/AT-802U/T-6 with guns exist within the US arsenal?

I believe it would've been economical. The AF didn't like the Enforcer because it had a tailwheel and a prop, to begin with; secondly, it was during the era that was beginning of single-mission aircraft dying a death. The Enforcer could've indeed done the Sandy and COIN role, and handled most of the CAS work on the line, releasing the A-10 for BAI work further past the FLOT. So the two would've actually complemented each other in both their missions, with each being able to swing to the other, if needed.....the only Enforcer limitation being anti-tank work by only having 20mm cannons and no heavy-missile capability such as the AGM-65 Maverick.

 

[WacoFan]

I believe it would've been economical. The AF didn't like the Enforcer because it had a tailwheel and a prop, to begin with; secondly, it was during the era that was beginning of single-mission aircraft dying a death. The Enforcer could've indeed done the Sandy and COIN role, and handled most of the CAS work on the line, releasing the A-10 for BAI work further past the FLOT. So the two would've actually complemented each other in both their missions, with each being able to swing to the other, if needed.....the only Enforcer limitation being anti-tank work by only having 20mm cannons and no heavy-missile capability such as the AGM-65 Maverick.

So...what role, if any, do the AT802U or T-6 with guns play into todays armed forces/battles? Does the US buy these things, or will it primarily be foreign govenrments?

And, finally...reading above in the thread - do you see any place - at all, for a Mooney Mite, perhaps upgraded to an O-200, with a single 30 Caliber machine gun on each wing? Could the USAF make use of this?

Also, the Navy could have them - could take off and land on a carrier without need of an arresting hook, catapult, etc. In fact, I think the hardest part would be carrying enough power to make it to the carrier as it steamed into the wind - the closing ratio would certainly be slow.

 

[MikeD]

So...what role, if any, do the AT802U or T-6 with guns play into todays armed forces/battles? Does the US buy these things, or will it primarily be foreign govenrments?

And, finally...reading above in the thread - do you see any place - at all, for a Mooney Mite, perhaps upgraded to an O-200, with a single 30 Caliber machine gun on each wing? Could the USAF make use of this?

Unfortunately, there's little role in the USAF for machines like the AT-802 ot AT-6, with the type of wars we fight. If I were king for a day, these are aircraft (if procured) I'd more likely assign to the US Army. Being slow, lightly armed, etc and designed for truly a single-mission usage (COIN), we'd be hard pressed to find funding for them, and we don't really operated in wars that would use them. They could be used for a Sandy role, since the 802 series does have some speed ability as well as being able to go low/slow, but that role is already being handled by the A-10, a community that probably wouldn't want to get rid of it. Tough call and a number of factors to consider.

Also, the Navy could have them - could take off and land on a carrier without need of an arresting hook, catapult, etc. In fact, I think the hardest part would be carrying enough power to make it to the carrier as it steamed into the wind - the closing ratio would certainly be slow.

They could also operate off of helicopter carriers, just like the Marine OV-10s used to.

 

[beasly]

+1...nuff said. im suprised that this comment isnt where the thread stopped....cause it's the be all, end all.

I think that is the best Christmas avatar on J.C.

Anybody disagrees I will triple dog dare you.


(and now back to this fascinating thread....)


Cordially,

b.

 

[beasly]

I cannot personally attest to this as I have not flown a bonanza. Nor have I ever performed this maneuver in anything not certified for spins and not in the utility category. Maybe we have someone here that can speak in more detail on the characteristics of non spin certified, or normal category, complex aircraft with this maneuver.

However, to my knowledge, bonanza's, are normal category. As per the normal category certification they must demonstrate a recovery (by a test pilot mind you) from a one turn incipient spin.

A cross controlled stall, skidding, performed properly, that is, to its worst (since this is a demo, the worst is your goal), will toss you inverted and a half a turn into your 1 turn. Recover quickly enough and you can demo it. Would I do it without sufficient practice, probably with a test pilot or a highly capable aviator first, no way in hell.

FYI I am talking 20-30 of these with a highly capably instructor/test pilot and another 20-30 solo. You really want to know your bird in this sort of case and you should fly it as a demo. Letting the student do it in an advanced bird like this, without 100s+ entries yourself and more special training, is suicide IMO.

In a trainer/aerobat, in utility category, as long as it isn't certified 'no spins,' have at it. It is a wonderful experience and really hammers home the "don't skid base to final" lecture provided in that link I gave you. The 'utility-no spin' certification has the same requirement as a normal category certification, recovery from a 1 turn incipient.

If you get past 1 turn, in a norma/utility (no spins) certificated aircraft, you are now mr beasly the super test pilot.

Thank you.

I see, read, and hear a lot of bravado and instinctively shy away from it. It is hard to get straight answers on this and I got my FIRST from you SHDW on j.c.

I guess the working meme I have been distrusting is that "if you stall it and spin it, you can recover and if you can't you are a (bypass profanity filter here)"


Thank you again.

I will now, happily, go back to being a prudent, cautious, conservative, stick-in-the-mud.


All respect.

b.

 

[beasly]

MikeD and Waco,

thx.

great reading.


b.

 

[WacoFan]

Unfortunately, there's little role in the USAF for machines like the AT-802 ot AT-6, with the type of wars we fight. If I were king for a day, these are aircraft (if procured) I'd more likely assign to the US Army. Being slow, lightly armed, etc and designed for truly a single-mission usage (COIN), we'd be hard pressed to find funding for them, and we don't really operated in wars that would use them. They could be used for a Sandy role, since the 802 series does have some speed ability as well as being able to go low/slow, but that role is already being handled by the A-10, a community that probably wouldn't want to get rid of it. Tough call and a number of factors to consider.



They could also operate off of helicopter carriers, just like the Marine OV-10s used to.

It would take a special kind of man...a brave man...to fly a Mooney Mite in combat.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Hey Mike, I've got a question for you. You seem to know everything there is to know about military stuff, and since this started as a Bonanza thread, I'll combine the two and ask away. I keep seeing a QU-22B for sale, which is advertised as a surveillance plane. They advertise it as a A36, with B55 Baron wings, with tip tanks, and a GTSIO-520, at 375 horsepower. Seems like it would be a blast to fly. You know any more about this thing, or is it a real rare piece?

 

[trafficinsight]

http://64.202.120.86/upload/image/personal-column/daniel-uziel/igloo-white/qu-22b-usaf.jpg


QU-22

 

[MikeD]

Hey Mike, I've got a question for you. You seem to know everything there is to know about military stuff, and since this started as a Bonanza thread, I'll combine the two and ask away. I keep seeing a QU-22B for sale, which is advertised as a surveillance plane. They advertise it as a A36, with B55 Baron wings, with tip tanks, and a GTSIO-520, at 375 horsepower. Seems like it would be a blast to fly. You know any more about this thing, or is it a real rare piece?

I wouldn't say I know everything, just know well what I've experienced and some stuff outside the scope of that.

Know the QU-22s well, as there's one base here in southern AZ. QU-22s were used in Vietnam as surveillance/signals platforms flying out of Thailand under the Pave Eagle program. They had a number of accidents during their time there, and offhand I believe the program was a marginal success. Following the war, many QU's were surplused and many went to technical colleges, etc. The one here in AZ originally went to Cochise College, but I believe was acquired by a private owned since. Neat airplane.

 

[Orange Anchor]

I believe it would've been economical. The AF didn't like the Enforcer because it had a tailwheel and a prop, to begin with; secondly, it was during the era that was beginning of single-mission aircraft dying a death.

I went down to Hurlburt when it was going through flight tests. Everyone knew it was a charade and the ONLY reason it got as far as it did was Lynn Helms at Piper.

But it performed the missions quite well and with a composite prop, the radar signature was much less than anticipated.

But you are correct. It had a prop and a tailwheel and did not do mach numbers. It was DOA before the first test flight.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_14.html