WT Forums

Hey guys... I saw this while surfing the net and I thought..... this plane came along about seven years after the A-10. Never heard of it...Thought it was interesting and you might want to see it. Proud Papa of an A-10 pilot.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an2.htm

found this......
John S Lane
beetle_sport@hotmail.com
Sarasota, FL I worked for Piper on the PA-42 line at the time the Enforcer was being built off in the corner. As I recall, the reason for the Piper Enforcer was simple. When the USAF was developing their ground attack aircraft concept they put out for bid and design for an aircraft to fit that role. The Enforcer was actually a design by Cavalier Aircraft in Sarasota. The USAF neglected to consider the design even though it met the design criteria. The Republic A10 was selected. A lawsuit ensued by Cavalier as the aircaft was never considered by the USAF. After 10 years of legal wrangling the courts found in Cavaliers favor. The USAF had illegally conducted their selection. The key component was the USAF had failed to exclude a propellor driven aircraft from the competition. Enter Piper who had purchased the design and rights to the Cavalier aircraft. The USAF authorised Piper to build the aircraft and deliver it to Edwards for testing. Of course the aircraft never made it into production, but it did prove several points. The aircraft's cost was roughly 1/3d that of the A10. It performed to the same degree the A10 did. She could carry 2 30 mm cannons, plus other wing mounted ordinance. The one area where the Enforcer really shined was her invisibility to infrared, meaning in low altitude operations, it would be virtually impossible for hand held heat seekers to lock on. This information came to me from someone who was at Edwards during the testing.

She truly was a pretty bird.
02/12/2004 @ 14:38
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/piper/ppr-48.htm

This is new for me. All that information about the Enforcer. Since when is it on display in the museum?
It looks as an good old warbird with a modification.
Proud papa after reading this I am curious for more.

Proud papa, where is you son stationed? Greetings from me to him.

Salute
Dutchy





Termites do it in the dark!
(47FS Barksdale afb)

_________________
73-1664

I found something more Proud Papa.
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/piper/ppr-48.htm
http://hsfeatures.com/features04/enforcerpd_1.htm (plastic 1/72scale model)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Enforcer
It is an intresting plane. However it never flew in combat or was in service.

Salute
Dutchy



Termites do it in the dark!
(47FS Barksdale afb)

_________________
73-1664

That's a pretty sweet little plane, and it did deserve greater consideration than it got. I'm wondering if it was also entered into the Small, Agile, Battlefield Aircraft (SABA) requirement proposed in the mid-1980's. They had a number of interesting propeller-driven designs for that, but I can only assume that the military branches considered OV-10's, A-37's, and helicopters were enough.

Dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight?.. I'm his MC, not his bitch.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> That's a pretty sweet little plane<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agreed...

And kinda cute.

You can imagine some insurgent in a ditch saying "Mohammed, look at the silly little toy plane the infidels are sending against us"

Just as it blows a steaming great hole where they were standing <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>...

You're born, you keep your head down and you die. If you're lucky...

Edited by - 44hollowpoint on Sep 29 2005 06:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The USAF neglected to consider the design even though it met the design criteria.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Utterly ridiculous. Piper could never show it compliant to the AX spec. It was basically a Lycoming T-55 turboprop powered P-51 that they built with extortion money (other DOD projects were held hostage so this could be funded). They (Piper and Florida conresspeople)demanded it to be considered as an AX contender after all the legitimate competitions were over and the A-10 was in production for 5-10 years. They argued that the performance items that it could not meet were not important anyway...not the thing to tell the customer. It was only 14000 lbs gross weight and had no hope of carrying a serious anti armor gun like the GAU-8.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>After 10 years of legal wrangling the courts found in Cavaliers favor. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Don't you mean Piper? Although I remember the Enforcer, I do not recall this court ruling. I would like to see a reference. Perhaps there is confusion because a few prototypes were built with govenment money eventually, but it was a political deal not a court ruling.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The key component was the USAF had failed to exclude a propellor driven aircraft from the competition.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think they did exclude props (and single engine designs) either explicitly, or by virtue of other items in the specification the would have excluded them (especially maintainability & survivability). Study contracts let before the prototype AX designs were built (i.e. before the YA-10 and YA-9 circa 1970) had prop configurations in them and were rejected for procurement by the USAF, in part because they did not want propellor hassels. The advent of high bypass turbofans (e.g. the TF-34 and the ALF-502) made it possible for the USAF to get what they wanted, a slow,survivable jet with useful armament, range and payload. Anyway, I ask you, is it reasonable for the USAF to be required to by an aircraft they don't want because of a technicality in the specification? (Ha, ha...We got you.. you forgot to say no props..pay us).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The aircraft's cost was roughly 1/3d that of the A10. It performed to the same degree the A10 did. She could carry 2 30 mm cannons...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The weight was also 1/3, so what's your point? Less capable aircraft cost less? As I said, the PA-48 had completely different performance to the A-10. Their argument was that they could do the same job anyway. The USAF disagreed. What kind of 30mm cannons were planned? Were they ever tested to see if they could hit anything, or if they were effective against armor? All 30mm guns are not created equal. Lockheed could have argued that the AC-130 did the job better too. Does that sound right?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The one area where the Enforcer really shined was her invisibility to infrared, meaning in low altitude operations, it would be virtually impossible for hand held heat seekers to lock on.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
<img src=newicons/anim_bs.gif border=0 align=middle> If you really believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This information came to me from someone who was at Edwards during the testing. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I could be mistaken, but I believe the testing for this mongrel was done at Eglin not Edwards. Anyone?

It ain't the heat it's the humility.

_________________
????

You are correct A-10 Stress. It was tested in Eglin. One of mine links give the answer.
"I say the PA-48s when they were being tested at Eglin AFB, Fla. in the first half of 1984. It seemed strange to see an aircraft which resembled the P-51 so much, but with a turboprop and an ejection seat. I saw two of them take off in formation once, and it was a sight to behold. It is a shame to find out that the Air Force never bought them. Great airplane"
Here again the link, scroll down to the comments: http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/piper/ppr-48.htm

Salute
Dutchy

Termites do it in the dark!
(47FS Barksdale afb)

_________________
73-1664

an aircraft like this might have merit as a border patrol aircraft or search and rescue plane.

I did see if I remember right a story in the AirforceTimes in the 80's of a new "SUPER MUSTANG" with the counter prop 2 props that run on the same shaft counter rotating,with a pretty good size pay-load, and was going to be a CAS/ SAR plane to work with the A-10.
Had a TOT of 4hrs etc.......just a concept idea

Before I'd want that PIPER thing I 'd want to see an updated
AE-1 "SANDY" now you'd have an Plane! it might not take on ArmOUR but would screw-up light stuff and "rats" in Iraq.

Goose

LIVE FREE OR DIE

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It seemed strange to see an aircraft which resembled the P-51 so much, but with a turboprop and an ejection seat. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Ooops! I should have looked at the links. I know it is irrational, but I have a bug up my a** to this day because the Enforcer was another threat to A-10 production, and a poor one at that. One item says it did not have an ejection seat, per se. It had a "Yankee" escape system. This system was actually a rocket that was attached to the pilot with lanyards and, when fired, "yanked" him out of the aircraft. (M&M, are you familiar with this system? Is it any good?). We looked at using the yankee system on subscale demonstrators in the 1980's, but I was not aware of any real applications.

It ain't the heat it's the humility.

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> but I have a bug up my a** <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

LOL...

I don't think anybody noticed <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>...

You're born, you keep your head down and you die. If you're lucky...

"M&M, are you familiar with this system?"

I know it was used on the A-1 skyraider, but havent heard of anything else that used it operationally. The theroy behind it is sound but I would guess it was only a good idea for slower moving aircraft. UPCO has the rights to the design now and they call it the "ranger" instead of the yankee.

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.

Ill be darned, the Yankee system was used on the "Spad" (A-1 Skyraider)
http://users.bestweb.net/~kcoyne/yankee.htm

<img src="http://users.bestweb.net/~kcoyne/safe2002/yankee_2.gif" border=0>

One of the oddest egress systems ever designed, the Stanley YANKEE system was utilized in the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. This system functions by means of a extraction rocket similar in principle to the drogue gun systems on normal ejection seats. Once the catapult charge fires, the spin stabilized rocket is fired when the pendant lines reach full stretch.

Actuation of the system is effected after jettison of the canopy. The rocket then is erected by means of a pyrotechnic piston and lever under the erector/launcher. The rocket is then launched from the rear wall of the cockpit and by means of a pair of Perlon pendants (rope-like straps) pulls the pilot up and out of the cockpit. The parachute is rigged with an automatic opening system which is activated after the rocket pendants separate from the parachute risers. The system includes a set of rails to allow the seat back to rise up and the seat pan is articulated to assist in the positioning of the pilot to the vertical as the rocket extracts him.

The A-1H system shown is the cockpit section of a crashed Skyraider. The aircraft was belly-landed on a runway and was determined to be not worth the cost of repair so the fuselage was cut up and the cockpit retained as a trainer.

The system was effective from 30kts at ground level (wings level). I have heard that it was effective for crewmen over the normal weight limits.

The system was considered for use in the NASA Space Shuttle and testing was done to prove that the rocket could extract an astronaut via the side crew entry hatch. It was rejected for various weight and space reasons. The Shuttle now is configured with a boom system that extends out of the crew hatch to provide a sliding exit for the astronauts. The astronauts would slide out along the boom and manually activate their parachutes.

Currently the system is owned by Universal Propulsion Co. which purchased some of Stanley Aviation's designs a few years ago. The system is now known as the RANGER system.



It ain't the heat it's the humility.

_________________
????

quote:
<b>Proud papa, where is you son stationed? Greetings from me to him.
Salute
Dutchy</b>......
Dutchy he's stationed at Eielson AFB in Alaska, before that he was in Germany.

quote: by a10stress
One item says it did not have an ejection seat, per se. It had a "Yankee" escape system. This system was actually a rocket that was attached to the pilot with lanyards and, when fired, "yanked" him out of the aircraft. (M&M, are you familiar with this system? Is it any good?). We looked at using the yankee system on subscale demonstrators in the 1980's, but I was not aware of any real applications.

a10stress I Found this, does it tell you anything about the seat....

<img src="http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1/101-200/walk170_Piper%20Enforcer/images_Gary%20Ferris/ECanopy1.JPG" border=0>

Yesterday was to learn
and tomorrow will be the consequence of what I can do today.

I have always loved the P-51, once around 1963 or so at an air show they were giving rides in a P-51. They had put a jump seat behind the pilot. The cost was I believe $25.00......Do you know how many times I have kicked myself for not doing it.....
More Pics and a link.....
<img src="http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1/101-200/walk170_Piper%20Enforcer/images_Gary%20Ferris/EnfCockpitR.JPG" border=0>
<img src="http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1/101-200/walk170_Piper%20Enforcer/images_Gary%20Ferris/EnfCanopy.JPG" border=0>

http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1/101-200/walk170_Piper%20Enforcer/walk170.htm

Yesterday was to learn
and tomorrow will be the consequence of what I can do today.

I remember reading about that eons ago it seems. But I have nothing to add so I will just shut up.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !