From: Arthur Leung <Arthur.Leung@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:36:11 GMT


From Arthur Leung <Arthur.Leung@eng.sun.com>

swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr)) writes:

>What about the conversion of common STOL aircraft like
>cropdusters (Pawnees, Fletchers etc) to a light strike role?

interesting question.

two big issues here would be power and weight.  most general
aviation aircraft use good ol 50's technology piston
engines.  while there are units that can generate lots
of power, they do this at the cost of complexity and
weight.

a mil-spec version of a GA airframe would be significantly
heavier.  you mention self-sealing fuel tanks.  you'd
also have to add weapons hardpoints and beef the structure
up to support the weapons both in cruise and when
maneuvering.  you'd like to give the pilot a modicum of
armor.  (GA skins are *thin*).  Add some structure to
prevent single point failures.

now, add weapons.

to carry this additional weight, deal with the drag and
loss of aerodynamic efficiency of external weapons, and meet
the loiter time goals, you need to add fuel capacity, which add
more weight.  hell, the wings might not be big enough.
add a new wing?

weight is the big problem.  you overcome some of this
with power and structure.  add a bigger engine.  add
more weight and complexity.  piston engines, while
reliable, have more working parts.you'd need to be able
to support these in the field.

does anyone know what the differences were between
the O-2 and the C-337 skymaster?  this seems to fit the description
what perry is driving at, tho it's limited weapons
loadout wasn't inteded for CAS.  (i've heard stories
to the contrary of course....)  i believe the successor
to the O-2 was the OV-10 - twin turbines, rockets,
20mm cannon, bigger, faster, purpose built.

[ Dan Flak sent me some info on the 337 about a year ago when I was looking
at buying one -- It carried around 1000 pounds of radio gear, as well as 4
(I think) hard points under the wings for marking rockets.  He said
performance wasn't stellar, but it could get the job done.  He didn't
mention if it has self sealing fuel tanks or not, but a lot of GA aircraft
do have rubber fuel bladders, so it wouldn't be too bad to replace them
with self sealing fuel bladders, and wouldn't increase the gross weight
that much.  

GA aircraft have a long history of being used by the military.
Some that come to mind are the O-1 Bird Dog (Cessna 140?), the King Air,
Learjets, Gulfstreams, Saberliner, 707 (KC-135), DC-9 (C-9 Nightingale),
Aero Commander, the Bell Jetranger (OH-58 Kiowa).  Of course, not a lot of
these are used in a direct combat role -- Steve ]

>Long MTBF. May even move with small units and be
>serviced/fueled/armed in the field. A pair could maintain constant
>air support and additional surveillance.

some big piston engines like to be carefully tended.  in
a tactical situation, i don;t know if this is possible - lowering
the MBTF.  might be more than a pair if you want to
keep contact.  their weapons loadouts are small and their
transit times and turnaround times are not negligible.

>When they fly low---they fly low, like a bout 2 feet off the ground.
>It must be hard to hit something coming between the trees at 80 mph at
>that altitude.

i dunno about that.  i think it would be easier to hit something
when you have a horizon reference in the sight picture.  helps
figure range and bullet drop.

how about rutan's mudfighter?  small, agile, cheap(er).  big gun.

-- arthur





Newsgroups: sci.military