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

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?

USN wanted reciprocating engines, and their explosive avgas off carriers for a long time.Why have two different fuel types?
Skyraiders lasted so long because its replacement, the Skyshark, had too many problem with it's powerplant.

While you had to have fuel for the Skyraider, why not keep the Stoof and Huskys around?
 

Zachariah

Banned
How about some hybrid fighter aircraft in the fifties, making the most of the reliability, endurance and fuel efficiency of turboprops when cruising and patrolling, while relying upon rocket boosters for that element of speed and climb ability in the fighter-interceptor role? Could that be feasible?
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Propeller would act as an air-brake while the rockets were being used, or the blades would break off.

<u>Not really an ideal design feature.</understatement>
 
What about fighters refitted with turboprop engines, sold to smaller countries to be used in their wars?
 

Zachariah

Banned
Or just have a turbojet on its own. Why complicate matters?
Hey, the remit for this challenge didn't say anything about this turboprop or mixed-propulsion fighter aircraft being any good- just about it playing a major role in a war. And if it's rubbish, then it'd arguably be far easier for it to play a bigger role in that war.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
P-51%20with%20turbo%20prop%20May%203%201968-2%20small.jpg


P-51 with Rolls Royce Dart.

Nobody wanted one.
 
Well, exactly - the poor old Royal Navy got the Wyvern, Gannet and the turboshaft Wessex helo (S-58 copy) into service while the USA still operated avgas-fueled aircraft from their carriers.

The RN used different, more extensive and restricted avgas storage than the USN. They were glad to switch to jet fuel early to drastically increase their aviation fuel capacity, for free because it could be stored in fuel oil bunkers.
 

Archibald

Banned
Here's a good one.
The Ryan Fireball was operational within a limited number of USN squadrons. Circa 1946 one pilot catched with a flight of Hellcats. He then feathered the prop, pushed the jet throttle forward, and overtook the Hellcats, to their pilots great dismay. "Look ma, no propeller".

Also, the first USN jet carrier landing was a Ryan Fireball which piston engine had died, the pilot used what's left - the jet - to land.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Here's a good one.
The Ryan Fireball was operational within a limited number of USN squadrons. Circa 1946 one pilot catched with a flight of Hellcats. He then feathered the prop, pushed the jet throttle forward, and overtook the Hellcats, to their pilots great dismay. "Look ma, no propeller".

Try doing that at transonic speeds, the speeds required to intercept nuke carrying Tu-4s.

No-one manoeuvres in combat with a feathered prop, unless they have a death wish.
 
World War IV? Something after a minor nuclear exchange and partial collapse that leaves the second tier military powers as major players.
 
Top