Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > U.S. Air Force Special Operations > AFSOC Aviation

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 17 August 2016, 15:01
FlyingPen2 FlyingPen2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4
Not for every mission

Even the IOMAX pilots, who are former F-16 and A-10 pilots say you shouldn't take this aircraft down in the weeds. Too big, too slow. And most importantly, no need. They discourage folks for even ASKING for a gun. They want this aircraft operating at 12k AGL or better. With every ordinance they carry being laser guided, they can be plenty accurate from up there. I saw a video from an unnamed country where one of the 2.75 missiles (not a rocket) took out a technical with a near 90 degree turn in the terminal phase.

And the 802U is not the Archangel.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 17 August 2016, 15:15
FlyingPen2 FlyingPen2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4
AF no fan

About two weeks ago I was talking with an AF colonel who works at Pentagon for the Chief of Staff. He was ardently opposed to the aircraft and the lack of an ejection seat was just one of its failures. From what I've been told, the reason the Archangel doesn't have one is because 'customers' haven't requested it. And if you've seen the aircraft without panels, you'll see what a robust cage they've built around the aircraft. Still, I am told a seat could be added but the cost would be in terms or fuel or ordinance due to the weight of the seats. Even with a seat, this Colonel didn't like the aircraft. He cited the aircraft's lack of a gun, its long nose, speed and one issue I didn't quite understand: center of gravity issues with fuel in the old hopper. If someone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

I too see the Archangel as a mini bomb truck with a great capability for FAC due to its persistence over the battlefield even when it goes Wenchester.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkdrver View Post
Having worked with 802s in a "semi-permissive" environment, my problem with them for this role has always been how easy they are to shoot. I've mentioned before that they would routinely get the shit shot out of them, as in double digits of holes, and that was from guys that generally only had up to about .50 cal for armament. Big and slow, not a good combo against dudes with SA-7s or even RPGs down low. They carry a lot of shit though. If they had any kind of escape system, I would be more supportive.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 21 August 2016, 16:53
swamppirate's Avatar
swamppirate swamppirate is offline
In From The East
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Capital Of The Confederacy
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingPen2 View Post
About two weeks ago I was talking with an AF colonel who works at Pentagon for the Chief of Staff. He was ardently opposed to the aircraft and the lack of an ejection seat was just one of its failures. From what I've been told, the reason the Archangel doesn't have one is because 'customers' haven't requested it. And if you've seen the aircraft without panels, you'll see what a robust cage they've built around the aircraft. Still, I am told a seat could be added but the cost would be in terms or fuel or ordinance due to the weight of the seats. Even with a seat, this Colonel didn't like the aircraft. He cited the aircraft's lack of a gun, its long nose, speed and one issue I didn't quite understand: center of gravity issues with fuel in the old hopper. If someone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

I too see the Archangel as a mini bomb truck with a great capability for FAC due to its persistence over the battlefield even when it goes Wenchester.
He probably didn't like it because it didn't have a jet strapped to it. Personally, if it can loiter over the battlefield and come when I call it, I like it.
__________________
"But we smiled at the Yankee Slicker with a big ol' Southern grin"
Lynyrd Skynyrd
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 21 August 2016, 20:20
KW Driver's Avatar
KW Driver KW Driver is online now
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CONUS
Posts: 556
it's a wonder I didn't get shot up on the daily while working at 10-2000' AGL, 60-95 KIAS I guess.
__________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical and radical minority, rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 21 August 2016, 21:01
MountainBum's Avatar
MountainBum MountainBum is offline
Vivat Fraternitatis
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimja View Post
Why are they flying low?
Other supporting capabilities.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 24 August 2016, 14:58
Group9's Avatar
Group9 Group9 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by BKK View Post
UAE military has 12-16 of them, or on order.

A very crash survivable aircraft since it has a big roll cage inside. However, the guys I know who fly it say it is a POS "Like a Yugo with a Covette Engine".
The people who lived across the street from us had a Cessna Agriculture aircraft dealership. All of them flew (four sons) and all had been in crashes and survived (you rarely meet an ag pilot with any years on who hasn't crashed a couple of times). I remember being told that those planes are rated for cockpit integrity and pilot survival to seven g's in a crash. I've seen a few crashed planes where the only thing left was the cockpit.
__________________
"Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."
- last words of Pancho Villa (1877-1923)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10 September 2016, 19:18
WS-G WS-G is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Same universe
Posts: 3,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamppirate View Post
He probably didn't like it because it didn't have a jet strapped to it. Personally, if it can loiter over the battlefield and come when I call it, I like it.
The USAF would be compelled to create an additional pipeline in the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) program. Taking a guy off the T-38/AT-38 who has only minimal light aircraft experience and has most likely never piloted a taildragger before isn't the ideal way to train for a machine such as this one. Some air forces in other parts of the globe (e.g.: South Africa) actually do have a separate track in their own training system for guys destined for light aircraft assignments. Back in the Big One, the US Army Air Forces maintained a separate rating for those who were to fly such missions: Liaison Pilot. Reviving that rating today would just make too much sense.


Yet they can create an all-new "aeronautical rating" for drone operators ("Oh! Sorry! 'RPA Pilots'!! )


Quote:
Originally Posted by Group9 View Post
The people who lived across the street from us had a Cessna Agriculture aircraft dealership....
The A188 AgWagon is built like a rock and is one fun machine to fly. Spray kits are also available to adapt the 185 for aerial application. One doesn't see many of these used for commercial spraying these days, with the exception of smaller but well-heeled farmers who choose to treat their own crop.

Last edited by WS-G; 10 September 2016 at 19:35.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 3 December 2016, 13:22
stearmann4 stearmann4 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Point, NY
Posts: 341
Having just left 27 years in Naval Special Warfare, and Army special operations aviation, the 802U was the concept initiator of the ag-plane turned COIN aircraft, but IOMAX refined the product with the Archangel/Thrush 660.

The 802U is largely un-modified from ag configuration except wiring and wing hard points. Thrush was willing to entertain any and most all requests to modify an existing design to make it more capable. It resulted in some drastic airframe design changes. While the Archangel still resembles an ag-plane, it's a single purpose design. The cockpit has been moved forward to eliminate the visibility and stability issues the 802 has, different propeller, and modified wing design.

I also fly ag in turbine Air Tractors, and I had my hands full transitioning into them with a couple thousand hours of tail wheel experience. I can only imagine the resources required to transition an inexperienced pilot with no tail wheel time. Much less a foreign pilot.

That said, the design as whole, regardless of manufacturer, was almost obsolete at the onset, and I give it 5 years before it disappears from the market completely.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:09.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET