Hacker15e

There were many issues with the PA-48s:

1. The USAF, for one, didn't want them in the first place. They were forced to test the two aircraft by Congressional mandate, and the USAF never had any intention whatsoever of actually buying them.

2. They were powered by Lycoming T-55-L9s. The engines were fine, but the gearboxes were custom made in the 1960s for the YAT-28 program, and had some serious problems. They had to be rebuilt every 20 or so flight hours! Any production airplane would have needed some re-engineering in that department.

3. The over-the-nose sight line was unacceptable for an aircraft delivering ordnance. Most fighters have about a 15 degree sight line down the nose from the cockpit, which allows the pilot to see the target at the point of release for freefall ordnance from any attitude, even a level delivery. The PA-48s had something like 5 or 6 degrees of sight depression capability over the nose. The test pilots couldn't see the target at the point of release...which is a bit of a problem for pilots who might have to deliver ordnance "danger close".

There were lots of (asinine) side issues that the USAF brought up in their foot-dragging to prove to Congress that the Enforcers weren't suitable for the USAF (but ultimately had nothing to do with the aircraft's potential combat effectiveness); no reverse thrust on the prop, no tested/certified ejection seat, no taildragger-trained pilots in the USAF, tail-low attitude was incompatible with USAF munitions loading equipment, USAF didn't want a prop plane in the jet era, the airplane would take budget money from the A-10, etc. Ultimately it was just that the USAF didn't want the airplane.

Bottom line, there was never any real danger of the USAF buying the Enforcer in the early 80s.

How ironic that 25 years later the USAF has been thinking of buying a turboprop COIN airplane (and the USN has all ready bought some!).