USAF ground looped a Skyraider II 10-5

Ed Haywood said:
Ever been shot at?
Click to expand...
Besides by a few hunters during Utah's deer season years ago no. You are right, I forgot it needs the armored tub.

I think for the intended role this plane is a great idea. But I defer to your judgment. Dad did 3 tours with the SF, brother in army aviation, and son with the infantry. I sincerely have an appreciation for where you've been, but I've never been there.
 
Kinda doubt this aircraft would work in Ukraine type battlefield. Other than drones you don’t see anything flying.
 
bonefishpete said:
Kinda doubt this aircraft would work in Ukraine type battlefield. Other than drones you don’t see anything flying.
Click to expand...
Dunno...read somewhere that F-16s make good drone killers.
 
Piperonca said:
Dunno...read somewhere that F-16s make good drone killers.
Click to expand...
Over friendly territory.

Doesn't seem like many fixed wing types are getting close to the front line other than to loft bomb, then duck and run.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Taildraggers in general are not bad on landings, once you get the hang of it.

But when you are still learning ... different story.

If you were sloppy and let some yaw develop during rollout in a crosswind, I can see the extra weight increasing the lateral rotational inertia and making it harder to correct. Probably would have to be more aggressive on the brakes. But that is just a guess, since I do not have your experience.
Click to expand...
How much rudder do you use on landing?

I bet it’s always whatever you need and perhaps some brake if you’re getting close to the rudder limit.

I’m not a chuck hoover pilot. I’m just a guy that makes a living doing the thing while trying not to **** up.

In my limited experience, in my opinion, all you need to know about tail daggers is don’t let it do anything you don’t want. As soon as it tries to diverge give it however much rudder pressure is necessary to keep it where you want it. No need to dance on the pedals like you just hit the meth pipe. No super pilot skills required. Just pay attention and keep it straight and don’t be slow giving it the required input.

You could fly the **** out of an 802. Heavy or light. Guarantee it.
 
kyleb said:
Over friendly territory.

Doesn't seem like many fixed wing types are getting close to the front line other than to loft bomb, then duck and run.
Click to expand...

Totally new battlefield nowadays. Hope we are studying it.
 
Jjackh01 said:
Besides by a few hunters during Utah's deer season years ago no. You are right, I forgot it needs the armored tub.

I think for the intended role this plane is a great idea. But I defer to your judgment. Dad did 3 tours with the SF, brother in army aviation, and son with the infantry. I sincerely have an appreciation for where you've been, but I've never been there.
Click to expand...

One of the great things about this country is the value we place on the lives of those who go forth to fight for us. Sometimes that manifests as spending that seems wasteful. But it comes from a sincere desire to make sure your Dad, brother, and son had what they needed to survive and win.

Interestingly, the anniversary of the Tongo Tongo Ambush, which caused the development of this aircraft, was 4 days ago.
 
bonefishpete said:
Kinda doubt this aircraft would work in Ukraine type battlefield. Other than drones you don’t see anything flying.
Click to expand...
Manned CAS is still being used in theater. It’s more stand-off than traditional but it’s still being done. Manned RW & FW have adapted to anti-drone ops as well. The majority of the fiber optic & FPV stuff is being countered now with basic nets, EW, lasers, ADA (sentinel), etc. That means larger, less vulnerable manned aircraft will still have a battlefield presence in the foreseeable future.

At any rate, this platform wasn’t designed for highly contested airspace anyway. Its capabilities are for more remote, austere ops. There isn’t anything in the drone community that can compete with what the OA-1 provides. Having ISR (with eyes on), CAS (with a punch), C2 and in near future the ability to launch drones (Red Wolf) is unmatched right now. You can find UAS platforms with one or two of the capabilities but not all.
 
Velocity173 said:
Manned CAS is still being used in theater. It’s more stand-off than traditional but it’s still being done. Manned RW & FW have adapted to anti-drone ops as well. The majority of the fiber optic & FPV stuff is being countered now with basic nets, EW, lasers, ADA (sentinel), etc. That means larger, less vulnerable manned aircraft will still have a battlefield presence in the foreseeable future.

At any rate, this platform wasn’t designed for highly contested airspace anyway. Its capabilities are for more remote, austere ops. There isn’t anything in the drone community that can compete with what the OA-1 provides. Having ISR (with eyes on), CAS (with a punch), C2 and in near future the ability to launch drones (Red Wolf) is unmatched right now. You can find UAS platforms with one or two of the capabilities but not all.
Click to expand...

Not what I’m seeing in Ukraine. But then again nobody is following that war anymore.
 
All this debate about the utility of the aircraft is missing the point. America didn't adopt the M1 Carbine because we wanted a replacement for the Garand, but the 1911. In much the same way that the carbine was intended to go to people that would not have a shoulder-fired rife at all, the skyraider is meant to go to units that would otherwise have NO air assets at all.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
All this debate about the utility of the aircraft is missing the point. America didn't adopt the M1 Carbine because we wanted a replacement for the Garand, but the 1911. In much the same way that the carbine was intended to go to people that would not have a shoulder-fired rife at all, the skyraider is meant to go to units that would otherwise have NO air assets at all.
Click to expand...
Fine and dandy but we can’t field every weapon that some person fancies.
We have a budget to remember.

40 Trillion deficit means something.

Now if we were going after Mexican Cartels in Mexico I could understand but we won’t be doing that.
 
bonefishpete said:
OK what will our next battlefield look like?
Click to expand...

If the last cold war between superpowers was a guide, it will be a long series of low intensity proxy wars between states and non-state movements in remote areas, punctuated by occasional mid intensity regional conflicts. Most of the bajillion dollar weaponry will never get used, except for deterrence. Americans will fight and advise in small groups in jungles, deserts, mountains, and slums, and die to things like booby traps, ambushes, and raids. When they get in a gunfight, there may not be an air wing or carrier battle group within hours. If the operation is well planned, there may be a ****ed off air commando in an armed crop duster with a couple thousand pounds of hurt and the ability to loiter for hours and actually see the little guys on the ground.
 
As a civilian, it looks like it’s a good deal, and will be successful. Longer loiter time than any jet or helo, no need for air-to-air capability, force multiplier for the guys on the ground in a single aircraft that doesn’t need to be based hundreds of miles away and doesn’t require a squadron or more to support it, adequate protection against the threats it’s likely to face, far less maintenance than a helicopter. It’s a niche role, but something has to fill it.
 
bonefishpete said:
OK what will our next battlefield look like?
Don’t we always prepare to fight the last war?
Click to expand...
Sometimes the next war is a lot like the previous war though. What I did in OIF & OEF was very similar to what guys like @Piperonca did 30+ years prior. Only difference was, he was in far greater danger than me and I couldn’t drink alcohol.

Look at the current conflict in Iran. That CSAR package (F-15E shot down) sent in was right out of the Vietnam playbook. Mostly manned aircraft with slow HH-60s working with A-10s and overhead fighter cover. That’s a pretty contested airspace for those types of aircraft to be operating in. Obviously the CIA used some pretty high tech methods to determine the Ltcol’s position but it was still tried and tested procedures on the aviation side. It’s gonna be a long time before you can have an unmanned CSAR / TRAP package that can be as flexible as a manned “eyes on” operation.

I’ve been reading a lot of posts on social media recently of our losses in Iran. Basically insinuating the op is a failure and some questioning the role of manned aircraft. Politics aside, roughly 81 aircraft lost and just over 20 KIA isn’t exactly a disaster. That would be a good month in Vietnam. Heck, just the Army alone lost over 5,000 helicopters in Vietnam, yet no one claimed the helicopter is dead. No way Vietnam could be fought without helicopters.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that there will be future wars that will definitely be drone centric. At some point you’ll be able to do the same mission with the same probability of success with drones. We’re just not at that point yet and I’m not sure when we’ll get there. The war in Ukraine and even in Iran has shown the vulnerabilities of drones. Our highest loses in Iran are in the drone segment. Yes, no loss of life with that but I also question their impact (flexibility) vs manned. Currently, they’re a good supplement to manned but not a replacement by any means.
 
Velocity173 said:
Sometimes the next war is a lot like the previous war though. What I did in OIF & OEF was very similar to what guys like @Piperonca did 30+ years prior. Only difference was, he was in far greater danger than me and I couldn’t drink alcohol.

Look at the current conflict in Iran. That CSAR package (F-15E shot down) sent in was right out of the Vietnam playbook. Mostly manned aircraft with slow HH-60s working with A-10s and overhead fighter cover. That’s a pretty contested airspace for those types of aircraft to be operating in. Obviously the CIA used some pretty high tech methods to determine the Ltcol’s position but it was still tried and tested procedures on the aviation side. It’s gonna be a long time before you can have an unmanned CSAR / TRAP package that can be as flexible as a manned “eyes on” operation.

I’ve been reading a lot of posts on social media recently of our losses in Iran. Basically insinuating the op is a failure and some questioning the role of manned aircraft. Politics aside, roughly 81 aircraft lost and just over 20 KIA isn’t exactly a disaster. That would be a good month in Vietnam. Heck, just the Army alone lost over 5,000 helicopters in Vietnam, yet no one claimed the helicopter is dead. No way Vietnam could be fought without helicopters.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that there will be future wars that will definitely be drone centric. At some point you’ll be able to do the same mission with the same probability of success with drones. We’re just not at that point yet and I’m not sure when we’ll get there. The war in Ukraine and even in Iran has shown the vulnerabilities of drones. Our highest loses in Iran are in the drone segment. Yes, no loss of life with that but I also question their impact (flexibility) vs manned. Currently, they’re a good supplement to manned but not a replacement by any means.
Click to expand...
Well, "the op is a failure" may apply given all of the ramifications for our country. We're insolvent, are down 81 birds, and incalculable would be the value of lost lives in a meaningless vanity war.
 
When you get into evaluating Iran, you have to make distinctions between tactical, operational, and strategic levels of warfare.

Tactically, we were dominant. There were some technical vulnerabilities exposed, but war is always that way.

Operationally, mostly successful, again with a few glaring weaknesses, particularly the exposure of our Gulf bases.

Strategically, the book is still out, but mostly a failure so far.
 
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips said:
Well, "the op is a failure" may apply given all of the ramifications for our country. We're insolvent, are down 81 birds, and incalculable would be the value of lost lives in a meaningless vanity war.
Click to expand...
Well as I said, “ politics aside.” I’m simply highlighting the effectiveness of the op and not why we’re there. “Ours is not to reason why…”
 
BTW,

8a203a700708e873661f3666139f63557a2c584f.jpeg
 
Perfect example of use of manned aircraft adapting to drone warfare. The rebuttals to this would be a cost reward benefit of using an expensive helicopter just to shoot down drones. Same argument that’s used with the F-15Es last year in Israel shooting down drones / incoming missiles. Yes, if that was their singular mission, that would be a waste of resources. But after this MI-8 eliminates this drone threat, they could go on to do an air assault. They could have follow on CAS or CCA (helicopter). Sling load, resupply, C2, PSYOP, fast rope, mine laying, CASEVAC / MEDEVAC all could be done with this one aircraft. I get it, we’ve got helicopters (UH-60) on the way unmanned that could fill those roles but it’s still not with the flexibility of manned. There canned scenarios that aren’t easily adapted to multi roles at a moments notice. They’re also going to be vulnerable to the same anti-drone countermeasures that are being used in Ukraine.

 
ateamer said:
As a civilian, it looks like it’s a good deal, and will be successful. Longer loiter time than any jet or helo, no need for air-to-air capability, force multiplier for the guys on the ground in a single aircraft that doesn’t need to be based hundreds of miles away and doesn’t require a squadron or more to support it, adequate protection against the threats it’s likely to face, far less maintenance than a helicopter. It’s a niche role, but something has to fill it.
Click to expand...
Does the logistics tail that comes with it begin to limit the flexibility of the very special ops folks it is designed to help? 'Cause now you've got a fuel depot, a weapons depot, bomb loading equipment, some sort of field maintenance, etc. either close to or in Indian country? Probably need to erect a perimeter fence and bring in some artillery and a hundred infantrymen to secure the perimeter. While you're at it, you need latrine, mess, and laundry facilites. And bunkers. It just goes on and on...
 
kyleb said:
Does the logistics tail that comes with it begin to limit the flexibility of the very special ops folks it is designed to help? 'Cause now you've got a fuel depot, a weapons depot, bomb loading equipment, some sort of field maintenance, etc. either close to or in Indian country? Probably need to erect a perimeter fence and bring in some artillery and a hundred infantrymen to secure the perimeter. While you're at it, you need latrine, mess, and laundry facilites. And bunkers. It just goes on and on...
Click to expand...

Prior to this the choice was an air expeditionary wing of F-16's, A-10's, or AC-130's with a vastly larger logistics tail. Or, a massive conga line of bombers and tankers loitering from bases thousands of miles away. The new platform was expressly designed to reduce all that. It won't fit all scenarios, but there is a subset of scenarios where it will be the only viable solution.
 
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips said:
Well, "the op is a failure" may apply given all of the ramifications for our country. We're insolvent, are down 81 birds, and incalculable would be the value of lost lives in a meaningless vanity war.
Click to expand...
If you think that the military spending is the biggest reason we're insolvent...

I don't think it's a meaningless vanity war. I think it's a proxy war for major superpowers. If it wasn't Iran, it would be somewhere else. China and Russia are not behaving like they are our friends, and it's high time we got realistic about the idea that we have enemies abroad.
 
Fffflats said:
I’ve been thinking, how would you land with an asymmetric load on a combat tractor or with any tail wheel? Anyone have anything published in any other platform? How about experiences landing with a fuel block and significant split fuel? How’d you handle it? How did it handle?

Click to expand...

The bigger question is “Why are you here constantly promoting your medium site”?
 
Velocity173 said:
I’ve been reading a lot of posts on social media recently of our losses in Iran. Basically insinuating the op is a failure and some questioning the role of manned aircraft. Politics aside, roughly 81 aircraft lost and just over 20 KIA isn’t exactly a disaster. That would be a good month in Vietnam. Heck, just the Army alone lost over 5,000 helicopters in Vietnam, yet no one claimed the helicopter is dead. No way Vietnam could be fought without helicopters.
Click to expand...


Is there really anything happening over there that compares to a month in Vietnam though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top