US Army fixed wing aviation

[GTX_Admin]

NASA markings would look good.  It could be plausible too.

[Daryl J.]

Putting an AV-8A in USAr service in 'Nam has been on the bucket list for a while.

An acquaintance of mine flew Mohawks over there and was pretty clear the opposition knew serious retribution was going to soon arrive if a Mohawk flew over, not from the Mowhawk but from other airborne sources such as the B-52.   Dan loved that aircraft.   He also does not like the Roden kit btw.

[GTX_Admin]

.   He also does not like the Roden kit btw.

Why?

[elmayerle]

NASA markings would look good.  It could be plausible too.

There's a 1/72 decal set out there for a NASA Cobra, two of those would likely give you enough material to do a NASA Cheyenne.  The chase planes could make for a cool scheme, too; an updated version of the schemes NACA flew P-51's in.

[GTX_Admin]

Unfortunately for me there is no Cheyenne kit in 1/48...

[elmayerle]

Grumman studied a tandem-seat more purposeful attack version of the Mohawk.  That could gbe interesting to do using the cockpit section of an IAe-58 Pucara and placing in US Army markings.

Another thought, a V-22 in markigns similar to those used by the Chinook.

[GTX_Admin]

Hmmm...Chinook with V-22 wings/engines added.

[Cliffy B]

Some of these designs might interest you guys.  They're smaller, prop powered designs for the competition that led to the A-10.  Think US Pucaras 

Concept Art:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2615.msg152792.html#msg152792

3 Views:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2615.135.html

Personal fav is the Grumman design 

[elmayerle]

Unfortunately for me there is no Cheyenne kit in 1/48...

But there is a classic 1/72 one available:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AURORA-LOCKHEED-AH-56A-CHEYENNE-HELICOPTER-502-100-/330893381451?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item4d0ac84f4b

Or if you're looking for something more challenging:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LOCKHEED-AH-56-CHEYENNE-HELICOPTER-DESK-MODEL-FUSELAGE-/271174986142?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f2349e99e

[elmayerle]

Hmmm...Chinook with V-22 wings/engines added.

Chinook fuselage with pylons removed and V-22 wings, engines, and tail.  You might need some tweaking for clearance purposes.

[Daryl J.]

Why?   Shape and detail areas.

But the F-15 guys I know don't like any Eagle kit for the same reasons, same with the Tomcat back seater regarding his former mount.   I think, and it's just my opinion, that once past a certain point of familiarity with a type, what are minor errors and omissions to even a skilled/experienced modeller become major errors to those very familiar with a type.     

[upnorth]

I'd say the T-28 Trojan would be a shoe-in for Army fixed wing service.

It was used extensively by the French in Algeria, albeit in the Fennec variant, and the VNAF during the Vietnam conflict.

A T-34C based variant would be a logical turbo-prop follow on.

For something a bit more exotic, the Lockheed-Aermacchi MB-339 T-Bird II might have looked good in Army colours had it won the JPATS competition.

Mind you, the T-6 Texan II that did win the JPATS wouldn't look bad in Army colours either.

[elmayerle]

For something a bit more exotic, the Lockheed-Aermacchi MB-339 T-Bird II might have looked good in Army colours had it won the JPATS competition.

MB-339K, but use guns & ammo common to other Army platforms.  A developed version might have a turbofan engine instead of the turbojet.

[Weaver]

Why?   Shape and detail areas.

But the F-15 guys I know don't like any Eagle kit for the same reasons, same with the Tomcat back seater regarding his former mount.   I think, and it's just my opinion, that once past a certain point of familiarity with a type, what are minor errors and omissions to even a skilled/experienced modeller become major errors to those very familiar with a type.   

Think you're right there: when I built a motorbike kit for a freind, every tiny 1mm detail that was wrong or just ill-defined lept out at me as if it was square wheels or something.

[M.A.D]

Here's one I did a while back.

Now how cool is this!!!!!

M.A.D

[Daryl J.]

Could someone point me in the directions of the CAS arguments of the 1960's please?

[elmayerle]

Could someone point me in the directions of the CAS arguments of the 1960's please?

If memory serves me correctly, try googling "Key West Agreement".  That's where it was all hashed out.

[Daryl J.]

Fast FAC.   Would an aircraft such as the F-5E, mentioned in another thread by Elmayerle, retained some air to air and/or air to ground capability?   Time frame: 1967-1999ish.   

TIA

[elmayerle]

As I described it, it would still retain one gun and full stores capability, just not the gun aiming radar.  It should still be fully capable of using its hardpoints to carry anything a regular F-5E could carry; same criteria would apply to a Fast-FAC version of the F-5F.

[Geoff]

I was wondering about having a simple ranging radar with the laser scabbed on underneath. It would give it a clear weather air -to-air role. OK I looked at a Mirage F-1A and thought it looked good.

[Daryl J.]

Given the current Sandbox Deployment Events, the Hawker P.1216 could serve similar to the F/A-18 role but with a faster turn around time.

[finsrin]

Question:  Whatz first kitbash idea you think of when "US Army  fixed wing aviation" is mentioned ?
Answer:  T56 powered OV-1 Mohawk.

[Daryl J.]

Getting back to the Northrop F-5 series, I've been unable to google out information on the US Army interest in the type.   So....F-5A or F-5E?   Soft field requirements?   Cockpit armor? 

Current paint scheme of interest:  OD semi gloss with white wings and under surfaces.

[jcf]

Technically neither. 

The aircraft tested was the N-156F #1 prototype:

[Daryl J.]

Thanks.   And I've looked at the Musem of Flight's YF-5A with only a glance how many times? 


So, in theory, if making an Army fast FAC out of the F-20, it could be designated a  dash 156G with the requisite prefix? Or 156M if one wishes to go out seven letters after 156F....