BeechTalk - BT - OA-1K Skyraider

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 15:20

Username Protected wrote:

Does NOT... ? I didn't know this.

Yeah, they had a T38 crash on a section landing a few years back and I believe took the section landing out of the curriculum then. (I'm not AF, but just what I've heard)

That being said, I've never seen the benefit of the section landing except as an emergency maneuver (pilot on wing loses attitude indicator or ability to fly instrument approach for example). Even then, lead could go around and let wing land, or get some separation once they break out visually.

[caveat, I'm not a military pilot so I'm talking out of my a$$, but I do fly a lot of formation]

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 16:35

Username Protected wrote:

I’m hearing rumors it’s under powered even with 1600 SHP.

A-1 Skyraider: 18k lbs, 2700 hp, 6.7 lbs/hp
OA-1K Skyraider II: 16k lbs, 1600 hp, 10 lbs.hp

The PT-6 line caps out under 2,000 hp, so they'd have to move to the PW100 line - but those are 10 inches longer and 300-400 lbs heavier. That's not a trivial amount of cg shift.

For a prop to absorb the extra 1,000 hp and maintain prop clearance they'd have to go to at least seven blades and possibly nine.

It started as a radial, moved to a large turboprop, and now might need to shift to a huge turboprop. I'm not sure they started with the right airframe.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 19:48

Username Protected wrote:

This is true.

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

Does NOT... ? I didn't know this.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 19:49

Username Protected wrote:

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

There goes a lot of the payload capability.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 19:49

Username Protected wrote:

This is true.

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

Does NOT... ? I didn't know this.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 19:54

Username Protected wrote:

That being said, I've never seen the benefit of the section landing except as an emergency maneuver (pilot on wing loses attitude indicator or ability to fly instrument approach for example). Even then, lead could go around and let wing land, or get some separation once they break out visually.

Three reasons.

1) Great fun
2) Looks cool
3) Chicks dig it

The three reasons fighter pilots do just about everything they do.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 20:01

Username Protected wrote:

I’m hearing rumors it’s under powered even with 1600 SHP.

A-1 Skyraider: 18k lbs, 2700 hp, 6.7 lbs/hp
OA-1K Skyraider II: 16k lbs, 1600 hp, 10 lbs.hp

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 20:12

Username Protected wrote:

Instead of maintaining fingertip, maybe a couple extra feet, they changed to each aircraft landing centered on their half of the runway. Which means they are trying to fly formation and a single ship landing at the same time.

It has been a long time now since I taught or flew section landings, but IIRC that is how we taught them/did them and don't remember it ever being a problem.

Also - I thought the section landing crash that prompted such a change was from Vance AFB a few years ago. :scratch:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 May 2025, 20:26

Username Protected wrote:

Also - I thought the section landing crash that prompted such a change was from Vance AFB a few years ago. :scratch:

Me too…not that it really matters.

No time to google it.

I guess the bonanzas/barons are the only ones doing a significant number of section landings.

Since FFI has removed that requirement …..we’re doing less.

Leldon

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 May 2025, 07:26

Username Protected wrote:

Instead of maintaining fingertip, maybe a couple extra feet, they changed to each aircraft landing centered on their half of the runway. Which means they are trying to fly formation and a single ship landing at the same time.

It has been a long time now since I taught or flew section landings, but IIRC that is how we taught them/did them and don't remember it ever being a problem.

Also - I thought the section landing crash that prompted such a change was from Vance AFB a few years ago. :scratch:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 May 2025, 08:35

Google

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 May 2025, 10:10

The drone war in Ukraine has devices becoming obsolete in a month, and the air war is so hostile that Russian jets are lobbing long range missiles rather than fly in.

Is this a $40M white elephant?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 May 2025, 10:34

It’s not intended for that type of operation. The use case is providing top cover to a small spec ops team in some third world country where there is likely no declared war or special military operation.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 May 2025, 12:04

I was in Waco 2017/2018 a lot to support L-3 on a 747-8 project. They were flying these continuously at TSTC

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 May 2025, 17:29

Username Protected wrote:

When was that?

I was USAF UPT Class 82-1, so 1981 for training.

We flew normal finger tip until gear and flaps came down, and then stacked level and moved out a few feet. Check once to make sure lead did not pick the wrong side and put you in the grass, and then flew your position.

With each aircraft landing on centered on their half of the runway, you can end up 75 feet between aircraft.

That makes it harder to fly your position to the precision needed to land together.

I did training in the early 90's, IP the first time in late 90s/early 2000s and second time 2006-2010.