It's interesting to note the fact that "old technology" can sometimes become the solution to a modern problem. This has been the case in many fields, from the military to HVAC. A good reminder that we should never throw away something just because the idea isn't modern.
If we'd drop secular humanist, man worship we'd not look at things chronologically but logically by FUNCTION as if humans can't do NEW stupid things: tilt-rotor aircraft, wheeled trucks in combat etc.
In the mid 1980s I went through a military acquisition program with an officer who had been assigned to the PA-48 evaluation program. He considered the airplane to be something of a cruel joke. The Mustang was very long in the tooth by then and Piper was having great difficultly keeping them in a serviceable state. I think your analysis of the problem and the ultimate "low cost" solution is correct.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters That's about the size of it. Romantic as the notion was, such thinking will only get you killed that much faster in the modern world. There is no such thing as a civilized age where war is concerned.
I mean the plans for that model of aircraft should still exist and the major issues would revolve around the manufacturing of completely new parts and integration of modern equipment if there was an attempt to revive that design for presumably an in-between role where a light- attack aircraft isn't enough but calling in an A-10 or AC-130 would be completely overkill...
@@26th_Primarch If such a mission requirement exits, I suspect better designs would be forthcoming. Few aircraft in history were so perfectly designed that they remain relevant today. The DC-3 (C-47), B-52, and C-130 certainly come to mind, but each of these planes has either been upgraded into virtually new aircraft (DC-3 and B-52) or been superseded by improved variants (C-130). The Army has very capable attack helicopters and the USAF has little need for a light attack aircraft. The A-10 has proven unbeatable so far. The reality is the Air Force cannot afford to field large cadres of small planes with limited capabilities. It must rely on smaller numbers of very mission flexible high performance aircraft. Drones of various sizes will likely prove to be the most affordable and safest solution.
It was never thought if as a first line combat aircraft, but as a second line CAS platform that would be useful in low threat environments or for sale to developing nation's. Basically a replacement for the A-37 which was widely used in Vietnam, both by us and the RVN. Interestingly, it was found that 2 PA-48s could execute essentially the same mission as one A-10 for about 20% of the cost. The Air Force and it's contractor pipeline panicked at the thought Congress might consider moving in the direction of high numbers of low cost platforms and the Air Force made sure the PA-48 never flew again. By the way, the airframe would have been newly built, not made from old P-51s .
The prototype that was "Lost during testing": My father owned a security agency in Vero Beach at that time. One day he was at one of his contracts (Holiday Inn) when we saw a plane fly at great speed out to sea and crash into the ocean... it was that prototype.
I was walking through the annex for the NMUSAF in Dayton, OH some years back, and stumbled upon the PA-48. I immediately recognized the lines of a P-51, but...WTH? A turboprop? I had never heard of this plane before. Fantastic!
I was going to mention flares. E.N. got there before me. (I have tracked down and destroyed all the evidence of me wearing them. [And then we went on to Oxford Bags and platform boots! We thought we looked cool!])...
@@billdyke9745 As you have just confessed to wearing flares on RUclips I think your task of destroying the evidence may not be as successful as you believe 🤔
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Wrangler flares and a Ben Sherman shirt. Those were the days. They had Sweet playing Ballroom Blitz on the film Suicide Squad, the only good thing in the film, so maybe time for flare to return.
The OV-10 Bronco is the plane they should have brought back. It has so much more potential than the new lot of light attack aircraft. More range, more payload , more armor, more survivability due to having 2 engines and STOL capability. Plus it can actually evacuate personnel or land with supplies.
Actually a few Broncos were bought back into service In 2015, two OV-10Gs were assigned for light attack operations in Iraq under the "Combat Dragon II" program and completed 120 missions.
@@BigDaddy-fx4nx Money has ALWAYS been a limiting factor for militaries since the beginning of time. Politics had nothing to do with this experiment. Get some research and thought instead of spouting cliches. OV-10's are half century old airframes. No spares. No production line. No support. Limited capability. They are not a viable choice.
@@KB4QAA I was in the military and know about all that. Were you? Did I say use old airframes? I know there was no machinery to make them left. But the plans are there and all the testing had already been done, ya just got to make them. The aircraft they decided on do not have any protection for the crews against small arms and do not carry a huge weapons load. A pair of 50 cals are less than a WWII aircraft as well as the bomb load. How much time on target and loiter time do they have? Not nearly as much as an OV-10. The basic design of the OV-10 has way more capability including STOL and has growth as well due to the design. Also having 2 engines gives it a better survival ability especially against MANPADS. I suggest you learn to have a conversation instead of acting like a know it all troll and insulting people.
I still have the Air Classics magazine with the article about the PA-48 Inforcer, it did fairly well in war games with multi branch military exercises. The stated reason for the rejection of the aircraft was that the military lacked any infrastructure for training in conventional gear aircraft anymore, i.e. Tail Wheel and thats still the case today. Also if you look at the losses in Korea between the F4U Corsair, which has an air cooled engine and the P-51 with its liquid cooled engine both used for the ground attack role, the losses were almost identical
Popular Science had an article about the Cavalier Mustang in the 1960's. The cockpit was fitted with upholstered panels and the military look was completely gone. I remember dreaming about owning one. They were being sold as a sporty replacement for business travelers. I think the selling price was $50,000 which seemed like a lot at the time but far lower than small business jets.
The original Mustang was vulnerable to ground fire, but the Piper PA-48 Enforcer looks and sounds like it's better suited for close air ground support. In Vietnam they used the Bronco OV-10, it always looked pretty good too.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 Yeah I mean the skyraider is everything this doctrine needs - heavy payload, tough as old boots, survivable engine, low cost. Basically a ground-attack optimized Thunderbolt.
@@nunyabidniz2868 overall the losses were the same also with the P-47 and P-51 in WW2 that were used in the ground attack role, the losses were almost identical.
@@Agwings1960 Eeeeh, you should do a bit more research. For instance, Shorty Rankin flew his thunderbolt home from Germany & didn't realize there were 2 cylinders blown off his engine until he taxied up to park. His Crew Chief showed him. ANY liquid-cooled plane is Not a logical type for Ground attack role. A .22 slug in any part of the cooling system will put an end to a Mustang, or a Spitfire, or a Me 109, etc. Think about it.
Didn't know that either the original Mustang served that long (1957) for the USAF, nor that it's development into new variants carried on til 1984. Very good series about obscure aircraft, subbed!
After WW2 the F-51 was sent to the National Guard. During the Korean War the USAF sent them to Korea for CAS. After Korea the F-51 lingered in the National Guard till the late 1950’s.
One of these came through Carswell AFB near Fort Worth, Texas once in the Early 80s. It arrived on day shift and was put in a hangar right next to base ops. A friend said to go look in that hangar. A bunch of us had never been in that hangar before....it was always unused as far as we knew. So we drove over there in our bread vans and went inside. What's THAT??? One of our sergeants recognized it as a Piper Enforcer.
I can honestly say that I DO remember this aircraft back in the 80's ..🤔I was reading a random Magazine at my university and never heard of it again 😳👏👏👏
I've informally been studying military aircraft for decades, and yet again you've brought to my attention something of which I was completely unaware. Hmm...
wouldnt blame you. its a known thing small US companies would buy up old dead airframes that should be scrapped, strip it of everything, bolt on a more modern engine it really shouldnt be using and call it a new aircraft for military use, which generally fails because fun fact reusing a piece of equipment far outside of its design purpose generally means its gonna do badly or just poorly in this role. like the upgraded m48s and m60 tanks that someone thought it would be a good idea to give the m60 an upgrade package that literally just slaps comp armour to the front and a new engine. and cost as much as a new mbt anyways but using a hull from the fucking 70s and is extremely outdated for modern frontline usage. and as such failed badly.
There was also (North American) Rockwell's YAT-28E which had Mustang wings and tail surfaces. Only two built, then offered for sale in Trade-A-Plane for $10,000 each in the mid 1970s.
I grew up in VRB /Piper Aircraft. Saw MANY Aircraft Developed by Piper Engineering. My Dad was a Piper Electrical Engineer 1969-1999 and did some work on the PA 48 Enforcer. It was amazing to see it fly over my school. You usually didn't hear it until it was on top of you. They used a P 80 Shooting Star as a Chase plane. Those were some exciting times 1970/71 at Piper Aircraft VRB.
Lol little Steve, your ex Wife had the attributes of the back end of a double decker London Bus and with your current incontinence you were never an attractive couple
I believe they've already made their decision on an armed version of the T-6 Texan II. Can't recall the designation for it at the moment. Essentially a US License Built Super Tucano
It doesn't surprise me. The later variants of Supermarine Spitfire like the Mk XXII/XXIII were still in service as interceptors with some countries in the late 1960's. The Russians still sell a lot of refurbished MiG 21's and were still using them themselves in the mid to late 1990's. A good design is a good design, and the biggest thing going for the Mustang to have survived that long as a viable light attack aircraft option is the fact it was heavily battle tested in World War Two, and they knew all it's capabilities and weaknesses. It was designed as a high altitude air superiority and escort fighter for B-17 and B-24 bomber squadrons and it was the first allied fighter that could escort the bomber formations all the way to Berlin and back in mid 1943. Before that the late model Messerschmitt Bf-109-G and Focke-Wulf Fw 190-D interceptors would just hang back and wait for the Supermarine Spitfire IX's or the P-47-D Thunderbolt escorts to turn back for home then it would be a "Turkey Shoot" as they would call it. Rats in a barrel, suicide missions. Tail gunners life expectancy average was 2 missions apparently.
Turbo Mustang 3. That brings back memories. As a teenager I wrote the intro to a "The Final Countdown"" type story about one of these getting transported through time to WW2 to wreak havoc among the Germans. Just as with the original I however ran out of steam right after introducing that interesting premise. The imitative things we do when we are young!
Hi Ed. I can see you're starting to get noticed , about time too ! I think you'll crack 10k this week ! The one l didn't know about was the civilianized Mustang . Slightly more expensive running costs than a Piper Cub !! Thanks Ed.
You knew the Air Force brass wouldn’t have it. Look at how many times they have tried to get rid of the beloved A10 so you know this bird had no hope of success.
Thanks! I remember reading about the Enforcer in aviation magazines, but didn't realize it lingered until the '80s. Still it took the Mighty A-10 to finally kill the Mustang.
Secretly I wish that propeller driven fighters will some day succeed the jet fighters... They have some charm to them. As a child I already was a huge fan of the Spitfire and the Dutch Fokker G1
I picked up an airplane from Piper for delivery back in the ‘70’s and saw this aircraft in the Piper factory. It was to compete as a Tank Buster. The A10 won out in the contract. I always thought that the Q400 engine would be awesome in the Mustang.
An early Mustang variant was the A-36A aircraft fitted with bomb racks, dive brakes, and heavier-duty wing. This was fitted with the Allison engine and was effective at ground attack & dive bombing.
You're absolutely incorrect, the prop aircraft give you a long loiter time in the low intensity conflict. Airtractors have performed very well in Libya.
The Piper was marginal in its handling according to one its pilots I talked to. Yes it could get airborne and dispense the loads but just barely and Piper was betting they could fix the instabilities once they had a contract and could do the full development needed. Nice idea on paper but the wing was optimized for its original role, not heavy hauling/low altitude close in maneuvering. Every time this bird gets discussed there’s always an omission of the Sky Raider. That was a proven COIN truck, rugged and reliable as an airframe. On paper, a turboprop version would be more viable than the Mustang. Back to point, the Enforcer was a stillborn boondoggle looking for a taxpayer lifeline. Pedigree and romance have nothing to do with bombs/rounds on target and PK.
There was a turboprop follow-on to the "Skyraider": it was the A2D "Skyshark" but it didn't work out possibly because of an unreliable propulsion unit that delayed development until there was no longer a 'niche' for the aircraft type.
It does bear a resemblance to modern planes like the A-29, but the internal differences are pretty stark. First, the Enforcer was actually over-engined, and one serious problem not mentioned here is that the engine torque twisted the P-51 airframe. It would’ve been fine with 2/3 that engine. The Enforcer was basically a dumb bomb truck. Modern versions like the A-29 are appealing because they can serve so many roles, including surveillance and training in addition to smart munition delivery. The A-29 is basically a modern fighter cockpit in a light turboprop. Sure, you could retrofit a P-51 with modern tech, but why? Better to start with a clean sheet.
The biggest issue you'd face with these type of planes is their tail-wheel landing gear configuration. Planes in that config have a lot of drawbacks to their operations and maintenance. Mainly, their engines are more difficult to service and inspect due to being so high up in the air, and their weapon pylons are more difficult to load/reload due to being at an angle from the ground. These can be worked around, but it costs time and additional equipment to effectively do so.
Having recovered from seeing a Mustang with a Dart more or less on the front, I'm suddenly curious about the engineering it would take to synchronize something like a .50 calibre minigun to fire through the prop arc.
Im wondering what the effect of firing that 30mm rotary cannon from a gun pod would have lol. Such a light plane and with the pob being off center, doesnt sound like a very good idea.
Not quite. It was ordered as a fighter, but the original Allison engine performed so poorly at altitude that it was judged unsuitable and used for army co-operation. It was only the decision to fit a Merlin that turned it from a mediocre fighter to a great one.
The Tempest, perhaps. I personally think that the Tempest 2 was the best variant. With the Bristol Centaurus radial engine. Which transformed into the Sea Fury. Possibly the best piston engined strike and interceptor aircraft ever.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I was wondering if you’d be interested in a collab? You can find my email address on my “about” section if you are. I’ve got an upcoming build video and I’d be interested in whether you’d want to add a small, historical segment about the specific vehicle?
He's upgraded Mustangs, where these upgrades of existing airframes or new build aircraft? I'm just wondering about frame fatigue on a forty-year-old aircraft frame by the 1980s... plus would you really want to be flying a forty-year-old combat aircraft.
I have seen this machine in person. I think I drooled some. A good system for a good price. Not an A10, but there is a close air support gap now in my opinion
For excellent air support in a slick little package at a great price, you really can't beat these kind of aircraft. Especially if you're a cash-strapped nation that needs local air-superiority fighters and lots of them with little upkeep or replacement costs.
As someone who was born and raised in Lycoming County, whose father worked in the Lycoming Factory and the Piper Factory back and forth at different times when this program was underway, and who had other ancestors working in the Lycoming Factory, I was just ecstatic to hear the narrator pronounce the county and engine name CORRECTLY!!! Almost nobody gets that right.
Another problem would have crept up had this plane gone into production. When they put the turbo prop into it, they found the original Hamilton Standard prop would be insufficient to handle the torque and power . In fact they set the exhaust to help counter the engine torque stress on the airframe. They wound up taking an Aeroproducts solid steel prop from a Skyraider and cutting it down. This gave them exactly what they needed but these props were no longer in production with no plans of starting the line back up even if they could find all the tooling.
They made a dive bomber version of the mustang. A-36 i think. Strange they said it was fragile and not suited for the role although liquid cooled engines are more susceptible to ground fire.
No, there is absolutely no relationship to Mustang, other than the WWII fighter design. The Super Tucano model, light attack aircraft, is a development of the Tucano, an advanced training aircraft, whose pilot characteristics simulate those of a jet, with a much lower operating cost, which is why it was a worldwide commercial success. Both projects are 100% Brazilian, proof that my country has much more to offer the world than beautiful women, or quality coffee and meat!
The P51 had a ground attack twin. The A36. (Attacer, I think it was called.)It was very effective but the long range escort version was more desirable. So the P51 prevailed. The A36 had divebrakes not required in an escort aircraft. A myth formed around the divebrakes claiming that they were ineffective and wired clised. This was untrue.
The story is they remembered how effective prop aircraft were in Vietnam. The reason for them instead of drones is there is no need for a real time computer link and all the computing, communications and electronics that go with them. A that's essential is a human brain there and not at some disrant control panel.
Yikes and no programed roll rates etc, there would be no smooth transitioning for sure but I would love to be Piper if they made them, imagine the parts the military would eat up ground-looping the hell out of them
I know what you mean but seriously............ You don't get half way through pilot selection these days if you couldn't pick those skills up in half a day.
@@Farweasel I get you, but I am talking about people who accidentally walk in front of aircraft. Taildraggers, which I have been around a lot of, that's not a good idea, at all.
@@gilvietor1918 It saves on hats but props are costly so, yes. Mind you, some people walk in front of *anything*. I'm not certain I'd want a ringside seat.
P51 was not a good ground attack aircraft due to the location of the air intake on the belly of the aircraft. It was easily subject to damage from ground fire and debris.
Maybe a stupid question but is it known how the 30mm gun pot would have been positioned? If its would be mounted central and firing through the prop, i would be curious how well a gattling type cannon can be prop syncronised. And if they move sideways out of the prop area i would be curious about the weight balance, if they are not going for two gunpots. Anyway thanks for the video :)
It's interesting to note the fact that "old technology" can sometimes become the solution to a modern problem. This has been the case in many fields, from the military to HVAC. A good reminder that we should never throw away something just because the idea isn't modern.
Don’t forget about detecting stealthy craft, older radar using obsolete bands has had some success.
like the Gooney Bird of World War II? and became "Spooky" the AC-47 minigun ships
If we'd drop secular humanist, man worship we'd not look at things chronologically but logically by FUNCTION as if humans can't do NEW stupid things: tilt-rotor aircraft, wheeled trucks in combat etc.
In the mid 1980s I went through a military acquisition program with an officer who had been assigned to the PA-48 evaluation program. He considered the airplane to be something of a cruel joke. The Mustang was very long in the tooth by then and Piper was having great difficultly keeping them in a serviceable state. I think your analysis of the problem and the ultimate "low cost" solution is correct.
Reading between the USAFs lines, they were really not interested and got it shoved on them by Congress.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters That's about the size of it. Romantic as the notion was, such thinking will only get you killed that much faster in the modern world. There is no such thing as a civilized age where war is concerned.
I mean the plans for that model of aircraft should still exist and the major issues would revolve around the manufacturing of completely new parts and integration of modern equipment if there was an attempt to revive that design for presumably an in-between role where a light- attack aircraft isn't enough but calling in an A-10 or AC-130 would be completely overkill...
@@26th_Primarch If such a mission requirement exits, I suspect better designs would be forthcoming. Few aircraft in history were so perfectly designed that they remain relevant today. The DC-3 (C-47), B-52, and C-130 certainly come to mind, but each of these planes has either been upgraded into virtually new aircraft (DC-3 and B-52) or been superseded by improved variants (C-130). The Army has very capable attack helicopters and the USAF has little need for a light attack aircraft. The A-10 has proven unbeatable so far. The reality is the Air Force cannot afford to field large cadres of small planes with limited capabilities. It must rely on smaller numbers of very mission flexible high performance aircraft. Drones of various sizes will likely prove to be the most affordable and safest solution.
It was never thought if as a first line combat aircraft, but as a second line CAS platform that would be useful in low threat environments or for sale to developing nation's. Basically a replacement for the A-37 which was widely used in Vietnam, both by us and the RVN. Interestingly, it was found that 2 PA-48s could execute essentially the same mission as one A-10 for about 20% of the cost. The Air Force and it's contractor pipeline panicked at the thought Congress might consider moving in the direction of high numbers of low cost platforms and the Air Force made sure the PA-48 never flew again. By the way, the airframe would have been newly built, not made from old P-51s .
The prototype that was "Lost during testing": My father owned a security agency in Vero Beach at that time. One day he was at one of his contracts (Holiday Inn) when we saw a plane fly at great speed out to sea and crash into the ocean... it was that prototype.
I was walking through the annex for the NMUSAF in Dayton, OH some years back, and stumbled upon the PA-48. I immediately recognized the lines of a P-51, but...WTH? A turboprop? I had never heard of this plane before. Fantastic!
Propeller driven aircraft. It's a bit like fashion. If you wait long enough it will come back into vogue.
The flares of the military aviation world 😁
I was going to mention flares. E.N. got there before me. (I have tracked down and destroyed all the evidence of me wearing them. [And then we went on to Oxford Bags and platform boots! We thought we looked cool!])...
@@billdyke9745 As you have just confessed to wearing flares on RUclips I think your task of destroying the evidence may not be as successful as you believe 🤔
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Wrangler flares and a Ben Sherman shirt. Those were the days. They had Sweet playing Ballroom Blitz on the film Suicide Squad, the only good thing in the film, so maybe time for flare to return.
@@bigblue6917 Bugger!
The OV-10 Bronco is the plane they should have brought back. It has so much more potential than the new lot of light attack aircraft. More range, more payload , more armor, more survivability due to having 2 engines and STOL capability. Plus it can actually evacuate personnel or land with supplies.
Actually a few Broncos were bought back into service In 2015, two OV-10Gs were assigned for light attack operations in Iraq under the "Combat Dragon II" program and completed 120 missions.
@@edl617 Didn't know that. They know it's the better aircraft it's all about money and politics as usual.
@@BigDaddy-fx4nx Money has ALWAYS been a limiting factor for militaries since the beginning of time. Politics had nothing to do with this experiment. Get some research and thought instead of spouting cliches. OV-10's are half century old airframes. No spares. No production line. No support. Limited capability. They are not a viable choice.
@@KB4QAA I was in the military and know about all that. Were you? Did I say use old airframes? I know there was no machinery to make them left. But the plans are there and all the testing had already been done, ya just got to make them. The aircraft they decided on do not have any protection for the crews against small arms and do not carry a huge weapons load. A pair of 50 cals are less than a WWII aircraft as well as the bomb load. How much time on target and loiter time do they have? Not nearly as much as an OV-10. The basic design of the OV-10 has way more capability including STOL and has growth as well due to the design. Also having 2 engines gives it a better survival ability especially against MANPADS. I suggest you learn to have a conversation instead of acting like a know it all troll and insulting people.
I live them. I think they still use them in the phillipines.
It was so bizarre hearing the turboprop sound coming out the mustang when you expected to hear the Merlin.
Yeah, I’m still trying to recover from the shock. May have to have therapy.
I still have the Air Classics magazine with the article about the PA-48 Inforcer, it did fairly well in war games with multi branch military exercises. The stated reason for the rejection of the aircraft was that the military lacked any infrastructure for training in conventional gear aircraft anymore, i.e. Tail Wheel and thats still the case today. Also if you look at the losses in Korea between the F4U Corsair, which has an air cooled engine and the P-51 with its liquid cooled engine both used for the ground attack role, the losses were almost identical
0:57 The *most macho personal transport* of all time! I like how they integrated the landing-lights into the wing-tip tanks.
when you absolutely gotta waste as much avgas as possible getting somewhere
Popular Science had an article about the Cavalier Mustang in the 1960's. The cockpit was fitted with upholstered panels and the military look was completely gone. I remember dreaming about owning one. They were being sold as a sporty replacement for business travelers. I think the selling price was $50,000 which seemed like a lot at the time but far lower than small business jets.
The original Mustang was vulnerable to ground fire, but the Piper PA-48 Enforcer looks and sounds like it's better suited for close air ground support.
In Vietnam they used the Bronco OV-10, it always looked pretty good too.
or A36 in 1942
A-1 Skyraider. Viet Nam. Prop Driven. R3350 I believe. "Flight of the Intruder"
@@patrickgriffitt6551 Yeah I mean the skyraider is everything this doctrine needs - heavy payload, tough as old boots, survivable engine, low cost. Basically a ground-attack optimized Thunderbolt.
The old Corsairs and Thunderbolts with their big double wasps would've been a better choice for COIN for the time...
The losses between the Corsair and P-51 in Korea, both used for the ground attack role, were virtually identical
@@Agwings1960 Not on a per sortie basis...
@@just_one_opinion BINGO!!
@@nunyabidniz2868 overall the losses were the same also with the P-47 and P-51 in WW2 that were used in the ground attack role, the losses were almost identical.
@@Agwings1960 Eeeeh, you should do a bit more research. For instance, Shorty Rankin flew his thunderbolt home from Germany & didn't realize there were 2 cylinders blown off his engine until he taxied up to park. His Crew Chief showed him. ANY liquid-cooled plane is Not a logical type for Ground attack role. A .22 slug in any part of the cooling system will put an end to a Mustang, or a Spitfire, or a Me 109, etc. Think about it.
I was an inspector in experimental . I worked on the PA- 48 Enforcer at The Piper Aircraft Corporation in Lakeland Florida ..❤️🔥
As always, content worth watching. And as usual I learned something.
Didn't know that either the original Mustang served that long (1957) for the USAF, nor that it's development into new variants carried on til 1984.
Very good series about obscure aircraft, subbed!
Thanks. Though I should clarify, 1957 was with the National Guard, forgot to say that.
They also flew with the RCAF up to about 1957 in the reserve role.
I have read somewhere that the Dominican Republig used the Mustang up to the 80ies, in the patrol role?
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters except the New Jersey ANG which swapped it's P/F-51 Mustangs for F-16 Vipers in 1988.
After WW2 the F-51 was sent to the National Guard. During the Korean War the USAF sent them to Korea for CAS. After Korea the F-51 lingered in the National Guard till the late 1950’s.
Really enjoyed this one. One of your best so far.
Going from strength to strength with these vids. 👍🏻
It’s a great channel. No filler just really interesting facts👍
@@PeteCourtier Can’t argue with that !
0:41 is that Einstein's personal aircraft?
(Great story, thanks for making it)
😂
Good one 😂
Nice
Good catch.
One of these came through Carswell AFB near Fort Worth, Texas once in the Early 80s. It arrived on day shift and was put in a hangar right next to base ops. A friend said to go look in that hangar. A bunch of us had never been in that hangar before....it was always unused as far as we knew. So we drove over there in our bread vans and went inside. What's THAT??? One of our sergeants recognized it as a Piper Enforcer.
I can honestly say that I DO remember this aircraft back in the 80's ..🤔I was reading a random Magazine at my university and never heard of it again 😳👏👏👏
I remember reading the same article
Wow! how did I not know about this variant? Thanks!
Another fantastic video👍 Great stuff🍺
I do like your channel so I have subscribed. Keep them coming!
I've informally been studying military aircraft for decades, and yet again you've brought to my attention something of which I was completely unaware. Hmm...
I take that as a great compliment.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters A compliment well deserved. A great channel. Many thanks for it, sir.
wouldnt blame you. its a known thing small US companies would buy up old dead airframes that should be scrapped, strip it of everything, bolt on a more modern engine it really shouldnt be using and call it a new aircraft for military use, which generally fails because fun fact reusing a piece of equipment far outside of its design purpose generally means its gonna do badly or just poorly in this role. like the upgraded m48s and m60 tanks that someone thought it would be a good idea to give the m60 an upgrade package that literally just slaps comp armour to the front and a new engine. and cost as much as a new mbt anyways but using a hull from the fucking 70s and is extremely outdated for modern frontline usage. and as such failed badly.
There was also (North American) Rockwell's YAT-28E which had Mustang wings and tail surfaces. Only two built, then offered for sale in Trade-A-Plane for $10,000 each in the mid 1970s.
I grew up in VRB /Piper Aircraft. Saw MANY Aircraft Developed by Piper Engineering. My Dad was a Piper Electrical Engineer 1969-1999 and did some work on the PA 48 Enforcer. It was amazing to see it fly over my school. You usually didn't hear it until it was on top of you. They used a P 80 Shooting Star as a Chase plane. Those were some exciting times 1970/71 at Piper Aircraft VRB.
Haven't heard of that one.
Thanks Mang
How can something so beautiful be so deadly?
Well, there's my ex wife so...
R.I.P. , glad that you can at least watch youtube from beyond the grave.
I know what you mean. A guy can't resist riding just one time.
Lol little Steve, your ex Wife had the attributes of the back end of a double decker London Bus and with your current incontinence you were never an attractive couple
@@alanwayte432 Haha... it gets worse Alan... we're both redheads! Not exactly the red carpet types.
Cheers from Ireland Fella.
;)
That's quite a nice compliment of your ex.
I'm really interested to see where these new turboprop close air support aircraft go there seems to be alot in testing right now
I believe they've already made their decision on an armed version of the T-6 Texan II. Can't recall the designation for it at the moment. Essentially a US License Built Super Tucano
@@toadman506 really? That's awesome I'm interested to see where that goes
@@brendonbewersdorf986 available. To Iraqi and afghani air forces to fight extremist groups.
@@brendonbewersdorf986 agree. Would be awesome to have spec comparison with the enforcer
@@WALTERBROADDUS You're right, the T-6 is a License-Built Pilatus, not Super Tucano
The Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona has one of the two existing PA-48’s. It is a beautifully preserved example.
Really enjoyed this video. I've often thought a British equivalent would have been the Martin Baker MB-5 with a Rolls Royce Dart turboprop.
It doesn't surprise me. The later variants of Supermarine Spitfire like the Mk XXII/XXIII were still in service as interceptors with some countries in the late 1960's. The Russians still sell a lot of refurbished MiG 21's and were still using them themselves in the mid to late 1990's. A good design is a good design, and the biggest thing going for the Mustang to have survived that long as a viable light attack aircraft option is the fact it was heavily battle tested in World War Two, and they knew all it's capabilities and weaknesses. It was designed as a high altitude air superiority and escort fighter for B-17 and B-24 bomber squadrons and it was the first allied fighter that could escort the bomber formations all the way to Berlin and back in mid 1943. Before that the late model Messerschmitt Bf-109-G and Focke-Wulf Fw 190-D interceptors would just hang back and wait for the Supermarine Spitfire IX's or the P-47-D Thunderbolt escorts to turn back for home then it would be a "Turkey Shoot" as they would call it. Rats in a barrel, suicide missions. Tail gunners life expectancy average was 2 missions apparently.
Turbo Mustang 3. That brings back memories. As a teenager I wrote the intro to a "The Final Countdown"" type story about one of these getting transported through time to WW2 to wreak havoc among the Germans. Just as with the original I however ran out of steam right after introducing that interesting premise. The imitative things we do when we are young!
You should have given the germans a Tornado.
That will show the allies who's boss.
You are doing some great videos, thanks.
They have one at Pima Air & Space, right down the road.
Hi Ed. I can see you're starting to get noticed , about time too ! I think you'll crack 10k this week ! The one l didn't know about was the civilianized Mustang . Slightly more expensive running costs than a Piper Cub !! Thanks Ed.
I'm a bit surprised the civvie mustang's never took off! One of those would be so cool!
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters l shudder to think what it takes to keep a Merlin running !
Super Vid 👍, knew of the Cavalier but was shocked to see the PA 48! Many thanx.
Be safe 🦊
You knew the Air Force brass wouldn’t have it. Look at how many times they have tried to get rid of the beloved A10 so you know this bird had no hope of success.
Cavalier was sited on the Sarasota/Bradenton airport in the '60s. I got a few hours of Cessna 150 basic training at that airport.
Thanks! I remember reading about the Enforcer in aviation magazines, but didn't realize it lingered until the '80s. Still it took the Mighty A-10 to finally kill the Mustang.
Secretly I wish that propeller driven fighters will some day succeed the jet fighters... They have some charm to them. As a child I already was a huge fan of the Spitfire and the Dutch Fokker G1
Ditto the Short Tucano used by the UK RAF.... which is a licensed built Brazilian Embraer 312 Tucano
Garrett turboprop power... 🙂
I picked up an airplane from Piper for delivery back in the ‘70’s and saw this aircraft in the Piper factory. It was to compete as a Tank Buster. The A10 won out in the contract. I always thought that the Q400 engine would be awesome in the Mustang.
An early Mustang variant was the A-36A aircraft fitted with bomb racks, dive brakes, and heavier-duty wing. This was fitted with the Allison engine and was effective at ground attack & dive bombing.
I Didn't know any of this story, very interesting and thanks for posting
I like the OV-10; but the OV-1 Mohawk was something 👍
Nicely researched and very informative. A story well told. The PA-48 seems to have been indeed an aircraft that missed its window.
I remember a friend calling this the 85% Mustang.
I think he meant 10%🤣🤣🤣
@@Cosigner22 It's a comment on the scale. Go ask Willow about that. LOL
A prop driven plane is like having a Sherman, it's completely outdated, but invaluable if the opposing forces have little to counter it.
@GbbJunkie yeah untill they bring MANPAD's/AA guns, wich proves my point.
You're absolutely incorrect, the prop aircraft give you a long loiter time in the low intensity conflict. Airtractors have performed very well in Libya.
Great video. Great channel.
☀️😎🇺🇸☀️
The Piper was marginal in its handling according to one its pilots I talked to. Yes it could get airborne and dispense the loads but just barely and Piper was betting they could fix the instabilities once they had a contract and could do the full development needed. Nice idea on paper but the wing was optimized for its original role, not heavy hauling/low altitude close in maneuvering. Every time this bird gets discussed there’s always an omission of the Sky Raider. That was a proven COIN truck, rugged and reliable as an airframe. On paper, a turboprop version would be more viable than the Mustang. Back to point, the Enforcer was a stillborn boondoggle looking for a taxpayer lifeline. Pedigree and romance have nothing to do with bombs/rounds on target and PK.
There was a turboprop follow-on to the "Skyraider": it was the A2D "Skyshark" but it didn't work out possibly because of an unreliable propulsion unit that delayed development until there was no longer a 'niche' for the aircraft type.
It does bear a resemblance to modern planes like the A-29, but the internal differences are pretty stark. First, the Enforcer was actually over-engined, and one serious problem not mentioned here is that the engine torque twisted the P-51 airframe. It would’ve been fine with 2/3 that engine. The Enforcer was basically a dumb bomb truck. Modern versions like the A-29 are appealing because they can serve so many roles, including surveillance and training in addition to smart munition delivery. The A-29 is basically a modern fighter cockpit in a light turboprop. Sure, you could retrofit a P-51 with modern tech, but why? Better to start with a clean sheet.
The biggest issue you'd face with these type of planes is their tail-wheel landing gear configuration. Planes in that config have a lot of drawbacks to their operations and maintenance.
Mainly, their engines are more difficult to service and inspect due to being so high up in the air, and their weapon pylons are more difficult to load/reload due to being at an angle from the ground. These can be worked around, but it costs time and additional equipment to effectively do so.
Just reading about the pa 48 in the latest Aeroplane mag, I wonder if Ed's done a vid on it? 👍👍
Lol one of my first!
Having recovered from seeing a Mustang with a Dart more or less on the front, I'm suddenly curious about the engineering it would take to synchronize something like a .50 calibre minigun to fire through the prop arc.
Another great one Ed
Im wondering what the effect of firing that 30mm rotary cannon from a gun pod would have lol. Such a light plane and with the pob being off center, doesnt sound like a very good idea.
Mustang was actually originally built for the RAF army-co-operation squadrons in WWII
Not quite. It was ordered as a fighter, but the original Allison engine performed so poorly at altitude that it was judged unsuitable and used for army co-operation. It was only the decision to fit a Merlin that turned it from a mediocre fighter to a great one.
Looks like the Miles u did a vid on , stop gap fighter never used.
Funny now they're building crop dusters up like this.
It was really beautiful bird! I like it. Thanks
The 30mm in a weapon pod 😮 they build a plane around for a good reason.
I would rather slim down the A10 Armor than fly that old Bird. But on Air Shows IT would BE a banger!
An upgraded version of the Hawker Typhoon would have been an interesting alternative in this role
@Mike Goldsberry P-47 was great but the airframe wasn't as suited to low-level stuff as the Typhoon
@Mike Goldsberry 😂
The Tempest, perhaps. I personally think that the Tempest 2 was the best variant. With the Bristol Centaurus radial engine. Which transformed into the Sea Fury. Possibly the best piston engined strike and interceptor aircraft ever.
I wonder if there is a model of this . . another informative video :)
I suspect one could be kit bashed! Do what they did - take a P51 and tweak it 😁
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters probably slightly past my skills . . for now :P
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I was wondering if you’d be interested in a collab? You can find my email address on my “about” section if you are. I’ve got an upcoming build video and I’d be interested in whether you’d want to add a small, historical segment about the specific vehicle?
Ive emailed you, keep an eye on the spam filter :)
Great video. You are the next Mark Felton :)
Super video! thank you
He's upgraded Mustangs, where these upgrades of existing airframes or new build aircraft? I'm just wondering about frame fatigue on a forty-year-old aircraft frame by the 1980s... plus would you really want to be flying a forty-year-old combat aircraft.
Good production. New sub !
Wow, I’d buy it just based on the 3:53 shot. Dangerous looking.
Why would it be a "heavyweight" compared to new Tucanos? Explain please
I have seen this machine in person. I think I drooled some. A good system for a good price. Not an A10, but there is a close air support gap now in my opinion
I flew these aircraft and they are fantastic.
And all that without saying the word Tucano once.
Exactly the super tucano is an amazing aircraft
...Or Pilatus
You got in Tucano. But you didn't get in Pucara. Hahahaha cheers
Pucara 2 seats.
For excellent air support in a slick little package at a great price, you really can't beat these kind of aircraft.
Especially if you're a cash-strapped nation that needs local air-superiority fighters and lots of them with little upkeep or replacement costs.
As someone who was born and raised in Lycoming County, whose father worked in the Lycoming Factory and the Piper Factory back and forth at different times when this program was underway, and who had other ancestors working in the Lycoming Factory, I was just ecstatic to hear the narrator pronounce the county and engine name CORRECTLY!!!
Almost nobody gets that right.
Then proceeds to pronounce "Chinook" incorrectly.😁 Don't worry, nobody is perfect!
@@geoffblanchard939
🤣
Another problem would have crept up had this plane gone into production. When they put the turbo prop into it, they found the original Hamilton Standard prop would be insufficient to handle the torque and power . In fact they set the exhaust to help counter the engine torque stress on the airframe. They wound up taking an Aeroproducts solid steel prop from a Skyraider and cutting it down. This gave them exactly what they needed but these props were no longer in production with no plans of starting the line back up even if they could find all the tooling.
They made a dive bomber version of the mustang. A-36 i think. Strange they said it was fragile and not suited for the role although liquid cooled engines are more susceptible to ground fire.
The Stuka was liquid cooled too...
Very interesting video thank you for sharing.
Thank You!
so... how could this handle recoil of 30mm rotary cannon? one on each wing?
What about the Embraier Tucano. Quite clearly a Mustang updated.
No, there is absolutely no relationship to Mustang, other than the WWII fighter design.
The Super Tucano model, light attack aircraft, is a development of the Tucano, an advanced training aircraft, whose pilot characteristics simulate those of a jet, with a much lower operating cost, which is why it was a worldwide commercial success.
Both projects are 100% Brazilian, proof that my country has much more to offer the world than beautiful women, or quality coffee and meat!
The P51 had a ground attack twin. The A36. (Attacer, I think it was called.)It was very effective but the long range escort version was more desirable. So the P51 prevailed. The A36 had divebrakes not required in an escort aircraft. A myth formed around the divebrakes claiming that they were ineffective and wired clised. This was untrue.
They could bring back the A-1 Skyraider, perhaps with a turboprop engine for COIN work. It had long endurance and a huge payload.
Both too late and too early. A beautiful bird.
The story is they remembered how effective prop aircraft were in Vietnam. The reason for them instead of drones is there is no need for a real time computer link and all the computing, communications and electronics that go with them. A that's essential is a human brain there and not at some disrant control panel.
I am trying to imagine training a generation of pilots that know very little about the use of their feet, to fly a 2,400hp taildragger...
Yikes and no programed roll rates etc, there would be no smooth transitioning for sure but I would love to be Piper if they made them, imagine the parts the military would eat up ground-looping the hell out of them
Imagine the accidents on the ground taxiing.
I know what you mean but seriously............
You don't get half way through pilot selection these days if you couldn't pick those skills up in half a day.
@@Farweasel I get you, but I am talking about people who accidentally walk in front of aircraft. Taildraggers, which I have been around a lot of, that's not a good idea, at all.
@@gilvietor1918 It saves on hats but props are costly so, yes.
Mind you, some people walk in front of *anything*.
I'm not certain I'd want a ringside seat.
OK, I might get a couple.
I don't know much about aircraft or if it is even a good comparison but I wonder how this plane compares to the super Tucano?
Missing here is the A1 skyraider A naval aircraft that proved an able CAS bird in several conflicts
So did the PA-48 pre-date the PT6 family of Turboprops?
P51 was not a good ground attack aircraft due to the location of the air intake on the belly of the aircraft. It was easily subject to damage from ground fire and debris.
With cannon pods it would be a pretty effective ground pounder.
The Mustang was already adapted to the ground attack role, as in the A36 Apache
Maybe a stupid question but is it known how the 30mm gun pot would have been positioned? If its would be mounted central and firing through the prop, i would be curious how well a gattling type cannon can be prop syncronised. And if they move sideways out of the prop area i would be curious about the weight balance, if they are not going for two gunpots. Anyway thanks for the video :)
I was still in shock that the Mustang wasn't mustered out of reserve units until 1957!!
Oh yeah, that little known plane, barely a blip in history, A-10 Thunderbolt II...
4:43 look at that huge exhaust can.
What happened to the Scorpion?
*TWO GAU-8S ON A TURBOPROP?? OH MY GOD...*
Cavalier was owned by David Lindsey, a Sarasota, FL newspaper publisher.
beautiful plane!
Wow this aircraft was bonkers. I wonder how the RR Dart engine version faired?
I'm not sure where it ended up, but suspect for CAS it would have been awkward. That nose is huge!
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters yep it looked a beast 3245 hp about 2 and a half times more power that a merlin powered P-51.