AHC: make turboprop or mixed propulsion fighter aircraft b a major part of a war.

Maybe extended ww2 would work? Turboprops could operate of some carriers, which jet could not.
 
I think they would be more suited for secondary, rear something line combat roles like defeating insurgencies by enemy special forces and anti-ship attacks; otherwise I just can't think of a good use for them past OTL 1950. Unless maybe by some coincidence the other side uses some weird particles to disable jet fighters forcing the combatants to use propeller fighters.
 
Bregeut Atlantique, Alize, Fairey Gannet, Lockheed P-3, Tupolev Bear, etc. turboprops all played major roles during the Cold War. Most of them hunted submarines.
EP-3s still carry weird and wonderful electronic sensors as they hunt for Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIL, etc. Poorer air forces use EC-21 turboprops - festooned with antenni when they eavesdrop on various insurgent cells and all those naughty groups fear visits by AC-130 gunships.

..... and what about those turboprop Predator drones delivering Hellfire missiles to Al Queda, Houthi rebels, etc.?

During the Falklands War (early 1980s) Argentina flew turboprop Mentors and Pucaras to the islands in hopes that they would strafe the be.......s out of the British Army. Too bad SAS and SBS sabotaged most of those planes before they could fire shots in anger.
 
Bregeut Atlantique, Alize, Fairey Gannet, Lockheed P-3, Tupolev Bear, etc. turboprops all played major roles during the Cold War. Most of them hunted submarines.
EP-3s still carry weird and wonderful electronic sensors as they hunt for Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIL, etc. Poorer air forces use EC-21 turboprops - festooned with antenni when they eavesdrop on various insurgent cells and all those naughty groups fear visits by AC-130 gunships.

..... and what about those turboprop Predator drones delivering Hellfire missiles to Al Queda, Houthi rebels, etc.?

During the Falklands War (early 1980s) Argentina flew turboprop Mentors and Pucaras to the islands in hopes that they would strafe the be.......s out of the British Army. Too bad SAS and SBS sabotaged most of those planes before they could fire shots in anger.

Turboprop fighters. Not a pucara with a AIM-9 for self defense, but one of the early-fifties designs.
 

Nick P

Donor
Are we counting the War on Drugs?
At 3'10 we see a Colombian Tucano shoot down a drug smugglers plane. There are plenty of countries with armed trainers.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Maybe extended ww2 would work? Turboprops could operate of some carriers, which jet could not.

You'd have to extend WW2 into the late 1940s to get the XP-81, or the XF2R Dark Shark into service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_XF2R_Dark_Shark

The Hercules was a major participant in the Vietnam War, both as a combat aircraft, and a transport - but I can't see what advantages a turboprop Skyraider, like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A2D_Skyshark

or a F-82 Twin Mustang for example, would offer over the OTL piston-engined aircraft.

I think something going catastrophically wrong with the P-80, P-84 program would be your best bet, with P-81s being used in Korea.
 
Last edited:
- but I can't see what advantages a turboprop Skyraider, like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A2D_Skyshark.

Piston engines had basically max'ed out in terms of performance. Turbo-jets offered much greater performance but were notoriously fuel-thirsty; hence a short-range.
The turbo-prop was seen as the best of both worlds; better performance than a piston engine but nowhere as fuel-thirst as a turbo-jet.

Look at the spec's of a Skyraider versus the Skyshark. Skyshark had a higher maximum speed and rate of climb; range is also greater but that's not solely a function of the engine.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Yes, but piston-engined Skyraiders were a) more reliable b) cheaper

So the big Pentagon 'NO SALE' went up.

The fact that the A2D was ugly as sin didn't help it either.
 
I'm not arguing that piston engines were more reliable than turbo-props or cheaper. The turbo-prop offered certain advantages that were originally thought desirable.
How often does the issue of cost arise during a war? With the war ending, then price became a consideration.

I agree that the Skyshark was butt-ugly.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
By the time the problems with Skyshark's engine had been worked out, the prototype had crashed fatally, and the A4D Skyhawk prototype had flown.

Turboprop engines have their uses - 1950s combat aircraft was not one of them.
 
Turboprop a/c might be more easily deployed on conventional straight deck carriers than pure jets (see: Westland Wyvern), and the fuel is less hazardous than avgas if the carrier gets hit. Still needs WW2 to go on a bit longer though.
 
I think the best bet would be the Westland Wyvern without the, typical of the British at the time, extended development period. If they had entered service on time they could have been the British contribution to the Korean War flying from the light fleet carriers instead of the Sea Fury and Firefly, with small numbers flying for years in that conflict. In such an environment they might still have been in widespread service during the Suez Crisis in 1956. Instead only a single Wyvern Sqn saw active war service, flying 98 sorties in Suez in 1956.

99187_big.jpg
 
As for the why of it all, I think carriers are the most suitable place for turboprop 'fighters' like the Wyvern. Space is at a premium on carriers so simply making a jet aircraft big enough to carry the fuel so the ship isn't turning into the wind every hour isn't an option. By the 50s carriers were already carrying jet fuel as well as vastly more volatile avgas which required vastly more care. So given the availability and ease of jet fuel and the desirability if having strike fighters with an endurance of 3 hours but small enough to fit in a carrier the likes of the Wyvern makes sense in 1949.
 

Pangur

Donor
Here is one way, transport aircraft. A war somewhere where the entire supply chain is based on say C130s
 
Last edited:

Wimble Toot

Banned
cheaper fuel that's harder to ignite when tanks are holed by API ammo.

Turboprops are great for AEW planes, ASW planes, COD/Transport planes, COIN aircraft.

Not enough acceleration for fleet defence or intercepting nuclear bombers because of the drag/ braking effect of the prop/contraprop. Basic aerodynamics.

If the USN were worried about the fuel ignition issue, why did they operate the Douglas Skyraider and Grumman Tracker from carriers for so long?

Why did they, and other navies operate reciprocating engine helicopters from carriers for so long?
 
Top