• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Quite OT: Combat Turboprops

K

Kiwikat

Motorcycling Kat
I was talking about turboprops with my father this evening and we were trying to figure out why so few of them are in the military. I know they are common among transports and even some bombers.

They were a bit late for WWII, but why weren't they more common in combat aircraft in Korea and Vietnam? I would have thought that something like the skyraider would benefit from the lighter, more powerful engine.
 
Kiwikat said:
I was talking about turboprops with my father this evening and we were trying to figure out why so few of them are in the military. I know they are common among transports and even some bombers.

They were a bit late for WWII, but why weren't they more common in combat aircraft in Korea and Vietnam? I would have thought that something like the skyraider would benefit from the lighter, more powerful engine.
Click to expand...

I saw a documentary on the skyraider somewhere that said it was actually a late WWII design, hence the radial. When you think about it, the anachronistic engine didn't really hold it back.
 
Seems the Skyraider beat out the turbopropped Skyshark due to an unreliable powerplant.

There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of info on the subject online, but there is some.
 
As far as I can tell, the only turboprop strike aircraft that saw combat was the Westland Wyvern, in the 1956 Suez Crisis.
 
Turboprop combat aircraft are a bit more common in South American & the Middle East than they are in Europe & the U.S.
 
In S.America turbo props are the #1 go to fighters. Check with the Vietnam War history and Vets, they can offer a wealth of knowledge on pro's and con's of Jets versus Turbo props.
 
Hi, my Argentinian neighboors designed the FMA ( Military Argentinina Fabrics) IA-58 Puacara. It is a twin turboprop tandem monoplane powered by two Garret TPE 331 904HP turboprops. They beated the bristish aircrafts in the Falklands War. It is a great low attack and figher aircraft.
It is used by the Fuerza Aerea Argentina and Fuerza Aerea Uruguaya. Those airplanes have an incredible combat resistance, they landed perfectly even destroyed and looking like a colander!

http://www.choiquehobbies.com.ar/revista/notas/pucara/Pucara.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDSGxp_D8ck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZbL75c3so4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffHNFpZEguc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffHNFpZEguc&feature=related
 
Would love to have IA-58 Puacara in FSX to pair up with piglet's Super Tucano. I have the Fs9 model. Another advantage of turbo prop fighters are they can be manufactured very quick and cost less in upkeep over Jets.
 
Thanks for the information guys! That Pucara looks really neat.

Any more information on any of these types of planes is appreciated. I've never even heard of some of these, so it is really cool to be able to watch videos of them. The internet is great :typing:
 
Pucara is on my "list" Maybe this year?
In Nam, the OV-1 Mohawk and OV-10 were used in combat roles, as were AC-130's for that matter.
Don't forget most helos are turbine powered...
The Skyshark's engines were good enough, it was the gearboxes that tended to rip themselves out during flight.
 
Piglet said:
Pucara is on my "list" Maybe this year?
In Nam, the OV-1 Mohawk and OV-10 were used in combat roles, as were AC-130's for that matter.
Don't forget most helos are turbine powered...
The Skyshark's engines were good enough, it was the gearboxes that tended to rip themselves out during flight.
Click to expand...

:woot:

That Skyshark looks really stupid... in fact most of the single turboprop planes look a bit odd. Why couldn't they be cool looking like a P-51. It'd be cool to see a WWII turbo conversion. :engel016:
 
At least partially the reason that turboprops have never made much of an impact in combat aircraft is that they're superb Counter Insurgency aircraft (Tucano, Pucara, etc.) where you have total control of the skies, but simply don't have the ability to defend themselves effectively against guided missiles. With the 1950s and 60s dominated by improved jet designs and the introductions of guided missiles, this rendered turboprops as "fighters" obsolete very quickly.

In reality, the Pucaras in 1982 showed this perfectly - the British troops had a healthy respect for the aircraft, the amount of damage it could take, the amount of payload it carried and the skill of the pilots. The Harrier pilots saw them as cannon fodder, because every combat between the two types resulted in the Harriers shooting down the Pucaras. Indeed without referring to the unbiased sources I have spent years hunting down, I believe there was only one British aircraft type shot down by Pucaras - Westland Scout helicopters (unarmed, overloaded and antiquated).
 
Re the Scout... (and other aircraft lost during the Falklands war)

http://www.naval-history.net/F63braircraftlost.htm

As far as "unarmed, overloaded and antiquated" goes - please add "As tough as a brick sh..house" and you will get a better picture. I saw the state of the Scout helicopters after a year of "active service" operations on the Falklands. They were in pretty good shape considering. A friend of mine was in charge of the maintenance there - he had more than enough good words to say about the combat maintanability of that chopper.

You wouldn't believe how poorly the Lynx and Gazelle fared in comparison - and they were under peacetime maintenance. I had six of each to play with - I'd rather have had the Scouts - tough as old boots. I looked after Scouts for 17 years and it was a very technician friendly aircraft for me.

The Pucara simply didn't stand a chance against the Harriers though. Apart from just stopping dead in mid air and waiting for the Pucara to pass, the Harrier had that incredible vectored thrust turn technique...

But without any Harriers around, the Pucara was a right royal pain to the ground troops.

Incidentally - of all the "losses" in that link above, the one that really raised an eyebrow was:

...Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible ready for take-off, slid off the deck as the carrier turned into wind...
Click to expand...

...ooops!
 
Afaik...most of the Pucara force (along with some examples of the MB-339A and T-34) were destroyed by an SAS raid on Pebble Island. They were definitely no fighter....mainly being used (with great effect) in the light attack role. A couple of examples survived the war and were shipped back to the UK for testing before they were donated to air museums.
 
No light helicopter is a match for a well flown fixed wing aircraft, though Chris - let alone one with defensive armament consisting of "a bloke with a Sterling SMG sticking out the door". Nunn was a superb helo pilot, he'd already flown two CASEVACs that day, both carrying far more load than the Scout was rated for. A Gazelle or a Lynx flown by him might have had the maneoverability and speed to escape - the Scout was slow and stable, an excellent helo, but also a sitting duck for the Pucaras.

That's not the point I was trying to make, though. The point was that if you put a (modern, exceptionally good at its job) Super Tucano up against a (totally antiquated) F-5A, my money would be on the Tiger to win, unless the Tucano was carrying Sidewinders, which some can - heck, a late model Skyraider can, technically, although I've no idea if one ever actually fired at another aircraft. A non-missile equipped turboprop against a Vampire, MiG-15 or Sabre? My money would still be on the jet, not the turboprop. And those fighters are 1950s designs.
 
Yup. Still can't help loving my dear old Scouts though.

We did have skid-mounted machine guns, rockets (SS11) and pintle-mounted LMG as Army service options. "Cuddly toy and sliding door" too, i.e. there were some interesting weapons options that we didn't take up, such as a multiple rocket pod and a larger machine gun. But yes, when it came down to the final analysis - it was primarily a "people mover" on the Falklands. I don't recall if we even added the standard armour option either - Flak jackets, seat armour and floor armour for shrapnel. Wasn't much use against airborne threats anyway.

As for the combat role of turbo-props - agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top