Douglas A2D Skyshark

[TheWeakender 29]

Hey guys, I found a "new plane" which didnt apear at Warthunder Suggestions. So I wont talk too much about this plane but i can say it is a ulgy plane, omg

 

Douglas A2D Skyshark 

 

On 25 June 1945, Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) asked Douglas Aircraft for a turbine-powered, propeller-driven aircraft.^[1]Three proposals were put forth in the next year and a half: the D-557A, to use two General Electric TG-100s in wing nacelles; the D-557B, the same engine, with counter-rotating propellers; and the D-557C, to use the Westinghouse 25D.^[1] These were cancelled, due to engine development difficulties, but BuAer continued to seek an answer to thirsty jets.^[1]

On 11 June 1947,^[1] Douglas got the Navy's letter of intent for a carrier-based turboprop. The need to operate from Casablanca-class escort carriers dictated the use of a turboprop instead of jet power.^[2] The advantages of turboprop engines over pistons was in power-to-weight ratio and the maximum power that could be generated practically. The advantage over jets was that a turboprop ran at near full RPM all the time, and thrust could be quickly generated by simply changing the propeller pitch.

Test pilot Hugh Wood was killed attempting to land a Skyshark in December 1950. He was unable to check the rate of descent, resulting in a high-impact crash on the runway. (Heinemann, p. 180.)While resembling the AD Skyraider, the A2D was an entirely different airplane, as it had to be, the Allison XT-40-A2 at 5,100 hp (3,800 kW)^[3] having more than double the horsepower of the Skyraider's R3350,^[3] with the XT40 installation on the Skyshark usingcontra-rotating propellers to harness all the available power. Wing root thickness decreased, from 17% to 12%, while both the height of the tail and its area grew.^[3] Engine development problems delayed the first flight until 26 May 1950, made at Muroc Air Force Base(renamed Edwards Air Force Base in 1949) by George Jansen.^[3]

Allison failed to deliver a "production" engine until 1953, and while testing an XA2D with that engine, test pilot C. G. "Doc" Livingston pulled out of a dive and was surprised by a loud noise and pitch up. His windscreen was covered with oil and the chase pilot told Livingston that the propellers were gone. The gearbox had failed. Livingston successfully landed the airplane.^{[citation needed]} By the summer of 1954, the A4D was ready to fly. The escort carriers were being mothballed, and time had run out for the troubled A2D program.^[4]

Due largely to the failure of the T40 program to produce a reliable engine, the Skyshark never entered operational service. Twelve Skysharks were built, two prototypes and 10 pre-production aircraft. Most were scrapped or destroyed in accidents, and only one has survived.^{[citation needed]}

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A2D_Skyshark

 

 

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 41 ft 3 in (12.58 m)
• Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
• Height: 17 ft 1 in (3.68 m)
• Wing area: 400 ft² (37 m²)
• Empty weight: 12,900 lb (5,864 kg)
• Loaded weight: 18,700 lb (8,500 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 22,960 lb (10,436 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Allison XT40-A-2 turboprop, 5,100 shp (3,800 kW)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 435 kn (501 mph, 813 km/h)
• Range: 1,900 nmi (2,200 mi, 3,520 km)
• Service ceiling: 48,100 ft (14,664 m)
• Rate of climb: 7,290 ft/min (37 m/s)
• Wing loading: 47 lb/ft² (230 kg/m²)
• Power/mass: 0.27 hp/lb (440 W/kg)

Armament

• Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) T31 cannon
• Other: 5,500 lb (2,500 kg) on 11 external hardpoints

 

 

 

 

Front view

 

 

Back view

 

 

More camo

 

 

 

 

When it carries weapon

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2015 by CaptTung

[CokeSpray 7,274]

Open for discussion.  :salute:

[DavidXD 1,355]

Impressive plane, I want it !

+1

[Querulous1 3,276]

Weird planes are good. Not OP either.

[TheWeakender 29]

I have just added a poll for this plane, vote it to see it's in Warthunder now, guys

[GuiRitter 694]

I have just added a poll for this plane, vote it to see it's in Warthunder now, guys

Please edit it, it's missing a "I voted 'No' in the first question" in the second question. Right now, it's impossible to vote 'No'.

 

I voted 'Yes', by the way, but I don't know if it fits War Thunder.

[TheWeakender 29]

Please edit it, it's missing a "I voted 'No' in the first question" in the second question. Right now, it's impossible to vote 'No'.

 

I voted 'Yes', by the way, but I don't know if it fits War Thunder.

 

Thank for your reported, i edited the poll and now you can vote "No" in 2nd question.

[SubRyan 5,556]

I too can copy-paste from Wikipedia without doing research

[ustinodj 5,952]

I want it after the AD-2, why would it be before it? Make an option for it to be after it.

[TheWeakender 29]

I want it after the AD-2, why would it be before it? Make an option for it to be after it.

 

*edited*

 

I too can copy-paste from Wikipedia without doing research

 

so you can find a "new" plane and write on this forum, dont mad

[Tuskegee_Soul 1,090]

I've never even heard of this thing but my god I want it.

[ustinodj 5,952]

I've never even heard of this thing but my god I want it.

It is the best propeller ground attack aircraft within the timeframe. (Of course controversial with its bomb load being 3000lbs less than its skyraider counterparts, it has extemely better guns and can go twice as fast practically.)

[Danneskjold 3,092]

I too can copy-paste from Wikipedia without doing research

 

Ha! 

 

 

Dear future people looking to recommend American airplanes,

 

Look here for the best information first:  http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm

 

Love, Danneskjold.

 

 

Basically with the equivalent of 3x1000# bombs, and 8 Rockets, it can hit 415 MPH on the deck.  ~450 MPH at 27k feet as well with the bombs and rockets.  ~5000 FPM climb rate on the deck.  That's pretty damn good, and puts it as a low tier 5 plane by itself.  7.0 battle rating material. 

 

450 MPH on the deck without ordnance, 494 MPH at 30k. 

 

 

But that's if it worked.  We all know that the Skyshark was a failure of a plane, mostly because of the engines.

[Kehre 21]

I have never seen this plane before, but it would make a great attacker. 

+1

[_Katyusha_ 1,829]

I have never seen this plane before, but it would make a great attacker. 

+1

I've seen it a couple times, always thought it was kinda intriguing, if only for the fact that it had the contra rotating propellers.

[_____Kaiser_____ 49]

I actually learned about this plane today, not in the forum, i was looking for planes with cotra-rotating propellers on google, so i found out about this plane, then i looked in the forum to see if there was a suggestion for this plane , and here it is, posted yesterday  :Ps

 

+1 from me  :salute:

Edited April 29, 2015 by VikingNinja

[Borotovas 4,500]

I support it.

[ImperialAdmiral@psn 801]

I support this plane. Very unique looking one.

[Vianochka 368]

Please edit it, it's missing a "I voted 'No' in the first question" in the second question. Right now, it's impossible to vote 'No'.

 

I voted 'Yes', by the way, but I don't know if it fits War Thunder.

 

lol if you want to vote "no" and there is only "yes" option, dont vote. Easy as that

[GuiRitter 694]

lol if you want to vote "no" and there is only "yes" option, dont vote. Easy as that

How are you going to know how many players don't want it then?

[droppopWT 931]

I can't see it in the game, tbh.

[Vianochka 368]

How are you going to know how many players don't want it then?

More players who dont want it = less players who want it (which voted yes)

[GuiRitter 694]

More players who dont want it = less players who want it (which voted yes)

But you don't know the ratio between players that want it and players that don't. You can't compare to the total number of players, because not all players visit the forum.

[ItsCalledSoccer 96]

Good looking plane, +1

[EwEs2 171]

That thing looks absolutely ridiculous. I want it!