Why no CAS turboprops?

A question-- why haven't any CAS aircrarft been designed with
turboprops or the pusher varient (I foreget what you call it)? Given
their slow operating speed, it would seem to be a natural match up. Is
it a case the they are obsolete, or more of a case that people (read--
budget officials) have come to expect *jets*, on military aircraft.
Also, after a brief flurry of interest in USB (Upper surface
blowing) combat aircraft in the 1980's, nothing seems to have come of
it. The predicted STOL and payload advantages were rather
impressive-- did engineering problems come to the fore?

In article ,
says...
A question-- why haven't any CAS aircrarft been designed with
turboprops or the pusher varient (I foreget what you call it)?

The Argentinian Pucara is/was a CAS aircraft with turboprops.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/pucara.htm

Have participated in CAS with an AC130.
ole nav

"Abe" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
A question-- why haven't any CAS aircrarft been designed with
turboprops or the pusher varient (I foreget what you call it)?

The Argentinian Pucara is/was a CAS aircraft with turboprops.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/pucara.htm

"Abe" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
A question-- why haven't any CAS aircrarft been designed with
turboprops or the pusher varient (I foreget what you call it)?

The Argentinian Pucara is/was a CAS aircraft with turboprops.

As is the dual-role Super Tucano from Embraer; there is even a single seat
model (ALX).
http://www.embraer.com/english/

Brooks


http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/pucara.htm

Don't the brazilians(?) use the (Super) Tucano over the Amazon Basin

I Found the following link, which has quite a bit of info...

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p.../super_tucano/

"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
A question-- why haven't any CAS aircrarft been designed with
turboprops or the pusher varient (I foreget what you call it)? Given
their slow operating speed, it would seem to be a natural match up. Is
it a case the they are obsolete, or more of a case that people (read--
budget officials) have come to expect *jets*, on military aircraft.

As others noted, many turboprops have and are being used in CAS duties
generally in Third World countries, where probable opposition is unlikely to
shoot back with too much stuff. Since there are plenty of suitable planes
(advanced trainers, for example) which can perform in the role, it's usually
waste to design purpose-built aircraft.

Major countries, who expect to meet first-rate opposition, don't build prop
CAS planes because it's a really bad idea. Some view even A-10 as too slow
and vulnerable against modern (truly deadly) low-altitude defences. There
have been some projects in the past (Piper Enforcer, a turboprop P-51(!)
comes to mind) but they haven't led to anything. If you want to fly low and
slow, get a helicopter.

And in the MC-130E. BLU-82 forever. Now the MOAB, with more bang for your
buck.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Bob Liberty" wrote in message
. com...
Have participated in CAS with an AC130.
ole nav

"Abe" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
A question-- why haven't any CAS aircrarft been designed with
turboprops or the pusher varient (I foreget what you call it)?

The Argentinian Pucara is/was a CAS aircraft with turboprops.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/pucara.htm

The Air Force (or any other country with a few million burning a hole in
their pocket) coulda had the Piper Enforcer...


"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
A question-- why haven't any CAS aircrarft been designed with
turboprops or the pusher varient (I foreget what you call it)? Given
their slow operating speed, it would seem to be a natural match up. Is
it a case the they are obsolete, or more of a case that people (read--
budget officials) have come to expect *jets*, on military aircraft.
Also, after a brief flurry of interest in USB (Upper surface
blowing) combat aircraft in the 1980's, nothing seems to have come of
it. The predicted STOL and payload advantages were rather
impressive-- did engineering problems come to the fore?

"Les Matheson" wrote in message
news:JdmKb.52565$Fg.49542@lakeread01...
And in the MC-130E. BLU-82 forever. Now the MOAB, with more bang for
your
buck.

Not sure I'd call either one exactly a "CAS" (emphasis on the "close" part)
asset--God only knows what the danger close margin is for either of those
puppies.

Brooks

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


"Bob Liberty" wrote in message
. com...
Have participated in CAS with an AC130.
ole nav

"Abe" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...
A question-- why haven't any CAS aircrarft been designed with
turboprops or the pusher varient (I foreget what you call it)?

The Argentinian Pucara is/was a CAS aircraft with turboprops.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/pucara.htm

I'm sorry-- let me be a little more specific.
Is there any reason why a turboprop or pusher turboprop would be
less suitable for the low and slow CAS mission than say an aircraft
with a-10 style jet engines? I.E., is there some technological hurdle
that makes them innately less effective than jets at the speeds and
altitudes that CAS operates at?