Turbo prop AT-6/SNJ?

[frank may]

Off & on over the years since turbo prop cropdusters (more politely,
ag-aircraft) have been being converted from radial engines to PT-6 or
Garret power, I've wondered if anyone has converted an AT-6/SNJ to a
turbo prop. Surely some well-to-do (or just eccentric) type has at
least considered it. Anyone ever hear of or see one?

[N329DF]

no, since how do you improve on perfection ?

[Kevin Brooks]

"frank may" > wrote in message
om...
> Off & on over the years since turbo prop cropdusters (more politely,
> ag-aircraft) have been being converted from radial engines to PT-6 or
> Garret power, I've wondered if anyone has converted an AT-6/SNJ to a
> turbo prop. Surely some well-to-do (or just eccentric) type has at
> least considered it. Anyone ever hear of or see one?

Hmmm. How many ag aircraft were *converted* to turbo power after aleady
being built as recip powered aircraft? I know that some of them have
undergone second production lives as turbo-powered aircraft, but has there
been any actual conversion of aircraf that were already flying?

Brooks

[MLenoch]

> I've wondered if anyone has converted an AT-6/SNJ to a
>> turbo prop.

Why would anyone do that? That snorting radial engine is half the fun of the
airplane.
VL

[frank may]

I'd imagine that about 1/2 or so turbine ag planes have been
converted, maybe more. At least the ones I know of. Most of the
turbine AgCats I see have been converted. About 1/2 of the turbine Air
Tractors I see have been converted. OTOH, most of the turbine Thrushes
that I see are factory built, but they were doing that in the late
'70s. It's a lot cheaper to do a conversion to an airframe than to go
buy a new one.



"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "frank may" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Off & on over the years since turbo prop cropdusters (more politely,
> > ag-aircraft) have been being converted from radial engines to PT-6 or
> > Garret power, I've wondered if anyone has converted an AT-6/SNJ to a
> > turbo prop. Surely some well-to-do (or just eccentric) type has at
> > least considered it. Anyone ever hear of or see one?
>
> Hmmm. How many ag aircraft were *converted* to turbo power after aleady
> being built as recip powered aircraft? I know that some of them have
> undergone second production lives as turbo-powered aircraft, but has there
> been any actual conversion of aircraf that were already flying?
>
> Brooks

[frank may]

Well, let's see. A turbine has been hung on the P-51D & someone
figured a Cessna 182 needed a non-fuel injected *******ized IO-520
hung on it. Beech 18s & DC-3s have been getting it done for years. I
didn't say anything about 'improving perfection'. I do understand the
improved reliability & other benefits of a turbine, tho. IIRC, Taiwan
had a turbo prop trainer that's essentially a T-28 with a Lycoming
T-55 turbo prop on it.


(N329DF) wrote in message >...
> no, since how do you improve on perfection ?

[MLenoch]

>Well, let's see. A turbine has been hung on the P-51D

None of these are flying today........why?
VL

[frank may]

Nope, no Turbo Mustangs, but quite a few DC-3s & Beech 18s with
turbines are, IIRC. I guess no Turbo Mustangs are around since the
military never pursued them. Which brings up another point. That
new-fangled homebuilt composite Mustang look-a-like with a Lycoming
T-55 (I think). That's almost expensive as buying a real P-51, isn't
it?





(MLenoch) wrote in message >...
> >Well, let's see. A turbine has been hung on the P-51D
>
> None of these are flying today........why?
> VL

[matheson31]

in 1968 there was a turbine powered P-51 called the Cavalier Turbo Mustang
III http://cavaliermustang.tripod.com/intro.html (scroll down the page to
read about it).

It was later marketed as the Piper Enforcer
http://cavaliermustang.tripod.com/enforcer.html

--
Les Matheson
F-4C(WW)/D/E/G(WW), AC-130A, MC-130E WSO/EWO (ret)

"frank may" > wrote in message
om...
> Nope, no Turbo Mustangs, but quite a few DC-3s & Beech 18s with
> turbines are, IIRC. I guess no Turbo Mustangs are around since the
> military never pursued them. Which brings up another point. That
> new-fangled homebuilt composite Mustang look-a-like with a Lycoming
> T-55 (I think). That's almost expensive as buying a real P-51, isn't
> it?
>
>
>
>
>
> (MLenoch) wrote in message
>...
> > >Well, let's see. A turbine has been hung on the P-51D
> >
> > None of these are flying today........why?
> > VL


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

[MLenoch]

>in 1968 there was a turbine powered P-51 called the Cavalier Turbo Mustang
>III

>It was later marketed as the Piper Enforcer

The Cavalier and Enforcer are two entirely different airframes based on the
same general layout. No Cavalier Turbo Mustangs exist today, whilst the two
prototype Enforcers are still in existance.
VL

[Howard Austin]

In article >,
(MLenoch) wrote:

>>in 1968 there was a turbine powered P-51 called the Cavalier Turbo Mustang
>>III
>
>>It was later marketed as the Piper Enforcer
>
>The Cavalier and Enforcer are two entirely different airframes based on the
>same general layout. No Cavalier Turbo Mustangs exist today, whilst the two
>prototype Enforcers are still in existance.
>VL

The Cavalier Turbo-Mustang was delivered to Piper on 4 Nov. 1970 and
the airframe was used by Piper in developing the Enforcer, so there is a
continuity.

Howard Austin

--
--
Howard Austin >
none

[sddso]

USN still uses the Beech Mentor, powered by turbine in T-34C configuration.

frank may wrote:
> Well, let's see. A turbine has been hung on the P-51D & someone
> figured a Cessna 182 needed a non-fuel injected *******ized IO-520
> hung on it. Beech 18s & DC-3s have been getting it done for years. I
> didn't say anything about 'improving perfection'. I do understand the
> improved reliability & other benefits of a turbine, tho. IIRC, Taiwan
> had a turbo prop trainer that's essentially a T-28 with a Lycoming
> T-55 turbo prop on it.
>
>
> (N329DF) wrote in message >...
>
>>no, since how do you improve on perfection ?