Rather cool that the military is going back to a tail dragger.

Until this came along would the Bird Dog be the last tail dragger to enter military service?

The U-2 came along after the O-1, so I think the Dragon Lady gets that distinction.

I was honestly really surprised that that they didn't go with the weaponized T-6 II. Every pilot in the Air Force knows how to fly it already, so they'd just have to learn the systems, and there's already a support chain in place.

The U-2 came along after the O-1, so I think the Dragon Lady gets that distinction.

I was honestly really surprised that that they didn't go with the weaponized T-6 II. Every pilot in the Air Force knows how to fly it already, so they'd just have to learn the systems, and there's already a support chain in place.

The 802’s were designed with a significantly higher take off weight than landing weight as they were expected to drop their loads that is true in the ag role and fire fighting role. There is a company in Canada that modifies the 802 to tanker fuels to remote communities with shorter runways. I’m not aware of all the structural mods they make but I’ve heard there is a more rigid structural inspection requirement. Using it as a military aircraft I’m not to sure they would always want to drop the load each time.

D

The podcast "10 Percent True" has a whole series on the history of the USAF trying to procure a small, cheap aircraft for close air support in lightly contested airspace. It's worth the listen, lots of good information. Naturally there was a lot of wasted money and gov't hi jinks.

This is also a good read: https://www.10percenttrue.com/post/skyraiderii

Model designation seems to imply some relationship to the A-1 Skyraider, but obviously there is none.

When I was at Bien Hoa in the summer of 1972, the VNAF there had single seat A-1's. Sort of strange to see a small stature Viet Namese pilot climb into a hulking A-1.

The 802’s were designed with a significantly higher take off weight than landing weight as they were expected to drop their loads that is true in the ag role and fire fighting role. There is a company in Canada that modifies the 802 to tanker fuels to remote communities with shorter runways. I’m not aware of all the structural mods they make but I’ve heard there is a more rigid structural inspection requirement. Using it as a military aircraft I’m not to sure they would always want to drop the load each time.

D

There is a reason why the MIL got out of the tail dragger business. It's just a matter of time before they do a safety stand down for ground loops.

I agree there will be ground loops, but if you’ve kept track of AFSOC’s safety record in Africa you’ll realize that ground loops are not a serious concern.

Follow the money. And the jobs after military retirement. NO GRIN

This is true.

Heck, the USAF doesn't teach formation landings in UPT any longer because they were managing to screw them up.

Our EAA chapter was given a tour of the Air Tractor factory in Olney , Texas a few years ago.

Very impressive…. Basically Tubing, sheet aluminum, engine, prop, and small supplies in….and a flying aircraft out.

They showed us a couple 802’s in their “skunk works” about to go to some third world country’s for their military.
I forget the exact details of the armor plating to protect the pilot but it was significant…. And was heavy. It would take more for the two crew cockpit.

Leldon

This is true.

Heck, the USAF does teach formation landings in UPT any longer because they were managing to screw them up.

That’s good to know I was just recalling a conversation I was having with a DOM of a charter outfit in NW Ontario that subcontracts work out to an operator of a Fuel Boss.


D

Glad you weighed in Trey