Crop Duster With an Attitude!

[Birdog8585]

Looks like there's another contender for the light attack role. Nothing like a ol' crop duster with an uppercut.


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090606.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/photos-new-gunship-flies-to-pa.html

 

[CWJones411]

Cary Grant has nothing on this one.

 

[eddie]

Oh the NAMES!

 

[Gatordev]

For a plane that weighs 14K+ pounds, that has to be the most efficient engine ever.

I kind of wonder if some units of measure weren't messed up in that. A single-engine aircraft that can lift 21K pounds seems a bit suspect to me. I'm not saying it can't be done, but...

 

[Gatordev]

Okay, after further review, maybe... I hate to quote Wikipedia, but according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-802 the civilian version is a 16K pound aircraft, so maybe that's 14K pounds total w/ ordnance, which would make more sense.

 

[scoolbubba]

Yea it seemed really heavy to me, too. Not exactly swift, either.

 

[Bevo16]

The 21K total weight is probably right. Remember, these things are designed for heavy lifting and getting a large amount of liquid (not exactly light) to crops.

 

[HornyU2]

The Afghans need a sturdy trainer and attack fighter. The ability to spray the Taliban's poppy fields might also come in handy.

Best line in the both articles.

Unfortunately, they would probably spray it with fertilizer - or is that what you meant

 

[Gatordev]

The 21K total weight is probably right. Remember, these things are designed for heavy lifting and getting a large amount of liquid (not exactly light) to crops.

Right, but the original design weight is 16K. The plane itself only weighs ~7K. I know it's got a suped-up PT6, but I doubt it can provide an additional 5K of juice at 180 knots (which is the civilian cruising speed, as well).

Regardless, I want an airplane that burns 10 pounds/hour and can do 150+ knots.

 

[Bevo16]

Regardless, I want an airplane that burns 10 pounds/hour and can do 150+ knots.

No kidding. If some engineer can crack that efficiency code, they are going to be a really wealthy man. My lawnmower uses fuel at a faster rate than that.

 

[armada1651]

For a plane that weighs 14K+ pounds, that has to be the most efficient engine ever.

It says 10lbs/min, not 10lbs/hr.

 

[HeyJoe]

Looks like there's another contender for the light attack role. Nothing like a ol' crop duster with an uppercut.


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090606.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/photos-new-gunship-flies-to-pa.html

It's wing is slightly larger than the venerable Skyraider. It certainly has potential for Irregular Warfare in semi-permissive environments. It will get a serious look once it's available on the flightline.

 

[Gatordev]

It says 10lbs/min, not 10lbs/hr.

Bah, HeyJoe deleted the evidence. But I swear the post said 10#/hour even if the article didn't (which I only skimmed).

EDIT: Forgot I can look at edit histories...

(normally it takes ten pounds of fuel an hour)

I knew I wasn't crazy.

 

[Bevo16]

You are not crazy. The same error jumped out at me when I read it the first time.

 

[armada1651]

I knew I wasn't crazy.

Fair enough, I never saw the original version. Didn't mean to impugn your mental state, sir