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!).

III Corps

I went down to Eglin when the Enforcers were flying and talked to the test pilot and ground crews. I also spoke with the Piper officials as well as some in Congress. It was a given that 1) the Enforcer was going nowhere 2) the Air Force was NOT going to buy an airplane with a tailwheel and a prop and 3) the test was to put the program to bed with a stake in its heart so the USAF could move onto other programs.

Interesting things 1) the radar return was fairly small and with a composite prop (not used on the test vehicles) it was even less 2) the Enforcer could carry just about anything in the inventory at that time and 3) it met most of the goals set out.

I never heard of heating problems on the ground with the engine but that is possible. LOTS of airplanes (including a lot of Russian airplanes) have to get off the ground quickly or face heating problems.

And FWIW, someone was floating the idea of bringing back the OV-10. Not going to happen. And the OV-1? It was a good machine for the Army and carried quite a load. And because it required a LOT of rudder quickly with an engine failure, it got tagged as a 'widow maker', possibly unfairly. The guys I knew who flew it liked it a lot.

atpcliff

Hi

"Absolutely not. As much as it pains me to admit it, the USN can't compete with the strategic air defense role that the F-15's and Raptors play. Trying to "carrierize" the platform would incur sever performance capabilities. Their ability take and maintain air superiority in theaters like Bosnia, the GW, and OIF could not have been maintained by the Navy, at least not for the same cost. There are F-15's out there still ripping around at 9G's that are 10-15 years older than the oldest F-18 still pranging into the ship. Carrier ops cost a lot in terms of service life to an air frame. It just couldn't be done without EXTREME cost. We'd be going through jets and nuke carriers like candy."

I think they should give the AF land-based assets to the Army, not the Navy. Army for land, Navy for Sea, Marines for Amphib assault...no more AF!

cliff
LFW
PS- I flew the TH-1F, HH-1H, T-37, T-38 and KC-135R

HuggyU2

??????????

Thankfully, you're not in Congress, or part of the Cabinet.

Hacker15e

Yeah, I'm sure all that U-2 experience would let you transition right into a 3,000 hp P-51 derivative.