Originally Posted by
F172Driver
That makes sense. Thanks for the answer. Do you know why they were developing the props when they had jets? Were they for ground support?
Early Jets were pretty anemic in performance, both total thrust, as well as fuel-consumption (very thirsty..the J-79 in the F-4 was considered a huge
improvement in specific fuel consumption!!).
As an example, the US has perhaps close to 100 runways around the country (mostly in the midwest) in the 10-13,000 ft long category, that were runways for B-47s (3000 B-47s were built).
British Carriers had very short decks; shorter than comparable US ships. The early jets didn't have the capability of taking off from those short decks...they couldn't accelerate fast enough.
But, the new-found power source of a turboprop (which was about a 100% increase in horsepower, lower engine weight, and while burning more fuel than a piston, about one-fourth of the fuel consumption of the early jets) made for a very capable airplane from a short-decked carrier.
And generally, carriers are best-suited for ground attack: move a floating 'airport' near the place you need to fight, because there is no other airport available. So yes, I would say that the Wyvern was primarily suited for CAS (and substantiated by its combat record in Suez).
I'll throw this in the mix even though it's not contra-rotating - I've heard the prop was taken from the A-1D with a heavily modified P-51D airframe and an Avco-Lycoming YT-55-L-9 turboprop of 2,445 hp. The Piper PA-48 Enforcer:
I saw the Enforcer fly out of Eglin in 1984 (I was going through a school at Hurlburt). It flew over me on downwind, and despite the turboprop, sounded a lot like a P-51 at cruise-power (at full-throttle, the Merlin has a characteristic sound and bark).
The history I have read on it said that Piper claimed it was an 'all-new airplane.' But, knowledgable sources say the fuselage was actually a P-51D that was cut and lengthened (the lengthening was supposedly about where the tail wheel was originally; about a foot or two). The main-gear were also modified stock P-51 units (not sure if that was the wheel, the strut, or both).
One airplane was lost in testing, but the others performed as advertised.
Ironically, there is now a move to make the AT-6B Texan II....which would have significantly less dash-speed, load capacity, or hardpoints.
And, I'm sure, will cost a lot more.
The biggest fault I had with the OV-10 I flew was its vulnerability because it was slow...we could barely hit 200 KIAS. It would
dive to 350 (which was scary!!) But we used to call it the "Slow-V-10."
I think the Enforcer would do about 250-275, and could true-out near 300-325. It would be an excellent airplane in a low-threat war like Iraq or Afghanistan: tons of loiter time, the ability to carry lots of ordnance despite the density altitude, low IR signature, and low operating cost. The plan was to hang two GAU-8s (the A-10 gun) in pods from the wings and rip 'em up.
One of the airplanes is sitting in a lot at the Edwards museum, awaiting restoration.
What I also have stumbled on is the Tupolev Tu-91 "Boot" of which there was only one. humbly submitted.. bulldog-butt UGLY.
Now I know where Toyota got the inspiration for the Scion-series.
