AT-6 Tested for Light Air Defense Missions

[Al Sayre]

Other Contenders:

AT-802U http://www.scribd.com/doc/16228033/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure

PA-48 (based on a turboprop version of the P-51  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

[coudano]

AT-802U http://www.scribd.com/doc/16228033/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure

Can't see out of it.
Carries less ord.
Wheels don't retract (blocks the sensor ball).

PA-48 (based on a turboprop version of the P-51  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

More like it but never made it out of experimental/testing


The AT6B is already operational and in production...
Just sayin.

[Pump Scout]

There was a nice article in Combat Aircraft a month or two ago about the AT-6 platform. The idea of running two aircraft on 82 scheduled sorties with zero down aircraft on less fuel than a two ship of F-15E's, delivering more payload, is pretty appealing. And with the type already in the USAF inventory, transition would be a snap. Seems a couple A-10 drivers doing some of the sorties blew out tires because they were used to landing at higher speeds, but that was the only damage/maintenance issues that came up.

[Flying Pig]

Not to mention, dont all AF pilots start off in that aircraft?  it wouldnt even be a transition.  They are already qualed in it.

[Flying Pig]

AT-802U http://www.scribd.com/doc/16228033/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure

Can't see out of it.
Carries less ord.
Wheels don't retract (blocks the sensor ball).

PA-48 (based on a turboprop version of the P-51  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

More like it but never made it out of experimental/testing


The AT6B is already operational and in production...
Just sayin.

In my post, I was talking about flying it in my retirement job as a secret mercenary ninja pilot.  What is your experience with it?

[ol'fido]

When I first say the title I went WTF? Then I realized the OP goofed on the aircraft type.

This is an AT-6



This is a T-6A:



Note there is a difference.

The T-6 was originally called the AT-6 back in WW2 because trainers were divided by the type of training they were used for. So the Stearman was the PT-17 for "Primary" Trainer. After primary training, student pilots would fly "Basic" Trainers such as the BT-13 Vultee "Vibtrator". Finally, the went to "Advanced" Training where those going into fighters or single engine types would fly the AT-6. Later, all trainers received the simple "T" for "Trainer" designation when the AF split. This was at the same time the P-51 Mustang became the F-51.

[blackrain]

AT-802U http://www.scribd.com/doc/16228033/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure

Can't see out of it.
Carries less ord.
Whesels don't retract (blocks the sensor ball).

PA-48 (based on a turboprop version of the P-51  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

More like it but never made it out of experimental/testing



The AT6B is already operational and in production...
Just sayin.

As I understand the 802 is already pretty well armored around the cockpit compared to some in that category and a fixed taildragger is simpler at (least maintenance wise) for 3rd world militaries. Not mention a better rough field performer so it does have some advantages