Saw one of these on Barnstormers tonight and had to look it up. It's an Italian-built military observation plane, primarily used by the South African Air Force in the 70's and 80's. How long til M6RV6 has one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi_AM.3

Cool! Bush Buck is a cool name!

Damn Good Lookin Bird!!!
I saw it last night to Zzz.
Maybe they want to trade for a Skybolt??

GT

O-540? O-720? Needs a PT6! Looks heavy.

8GCBC wrote:O-540? O-720? Needs a PT6! Looks heavy.

Just like the Helio, Geared 480!

8GCBC wrote:O-540? O-720? Needs a PT6! Looks heavy.

Ckeck out the SIAI-Marcheti SM1019, like the Bosbok a Cessna bird-dog follow-on but with an Allison turboprop.

Thanks! I fly in the high western desert in the summer! Always worried about weight.

Saaaweeet!

I asked my husband about the bosbok, and he got a rather sour expression. It was, he said, woefully underpowered for South Africa's border war - the operational area in the summer was from 1000-6000 feet, and with temperatures of 120 degrees F, "130+ on the bad days." The Lycoming engines were hard-run, and he never saw all 360 hp advertised. "The kudu was the utility version of the same plane - a lot boxier fuselage. The short take off and landing capabilities, especially with a few ammo boxes in the back, or a casualty stuffed in, or several fully loaded troops, were.... not so short in taking off or landing. It was not pleasant to see the ample undercarriage collecting bits of twigs and leaves, until you couldn't see the tire for the branches in the way. Rather a high pucker factor. We all wanted more Cessna 185's, but with the arms embargo, we were forced to use what we could."

They lost a bosbok in '87 when it was doing artillery observation - "They fired seven SA-8 SAM missiles at it and missed, every time, until an East German officer lost his temper, took control of the fire radar, and put an eighth up the spout. Very sad, but what a way to crack a nut with a sledgehammer!"

There's a company now outfitting the kudu version with Walter M601D turboprop engines for hauling skydivers - that'd make it more fun!

Hay there Girl, How ya makin out in the Southland?
GT

Did you know, in the southland, that mold grows on living plants? And your clevis pins, tailwires, and every unsuspecting exposed metal plane part will rust, no matter how much or how little you fly the plane? (some will rust right under the paint, too.) Even a coat of LP4 isn't enough!

I'm doin' well. My poor plane will be coming out of annual with a fair bit of new hardware, though. With all this humidity, if I stay down here too long, though, I fear I'll start growing gills. On the other hand, I really don't miss winter yet!

My husband's been telling me more bosbok tales - seems it was tricky enough to fly in the African interior that the SAAF felt training in a Harvard (T-6) wasn't enough, and made the pilots learn bush flying in a 185 before they could advance to the bosbok. I asked, given it was underpowered and a tricky bear, if that wasn't seen as a demotion. He got a very toothy grin. "Oh, the 185's weren't on the front lines. If you wanted to get away from the brass and the bullsh--, and see some action, the bosbok was where it was at. So there were always those who wanted the slots."

Seems militaries have a lot in common, the world over, eh?

Dot_AK wrote:The Lycoming engines were hard-run, and he never saw all 360 hp advertised.

FYI: AFAIK no Lycoming 480 CID engine was ever rated at 360 hp. The GO-480-B series was rate at only 270 hp and the -F series at only 275 hp. I believe the GO-480-C and G series engines were rated up to 295 hp. With the addition of an integral supercharger, GSO-480 series engines were rated up to a maximum of 340 hp limited to 5 minutes for take-off only. On the other hand, Lycoming's GSO-540 and IGSO-540 series engines produced up to 380 hp.

According to some of my reference books, the Aermacchi AM.3 Bosbok was equipped with a 340 hp Lycoming GSO-480-B1B6 (geared, supercharged, opposed 480 CID) engine.

Furthermore, all of those geared Lycomings could be temperamental and they were (still are for that matter) easy to damage the planetary gear reduction system if the throttle was "chopped" too quickly and the prop was allowed to "overrun" the engine. For that reason alone, I would think that it would not have been suitable for installation on a "combat" aircraft. They were much better and more common on the "cruisers" of the day such as Aero Commanders and Beech Queen Aires.

150Mike wrote:

Dot_AK wrote:The Lycoming engines were hard-run, and he never saw all 360 hp advertised.

FYI: AFAIK no Lycoming 480 CID engine was ever rated at 360 hp. The GO-480-B series was rate at only 270 hp and the -F series at only 275 hp. I believe the GO-480-C and G series engines were rated up to 295 hp. With the addition of an integral supercharger, GSO-480 series engines were rated up to a maximum of 340 hp limited to 5 minutes for take-off only. On the other hand, Lycoming's GSO-540 and IGSO-540 series engines produced up to 380 hp.

According to some of my reference books, the Aermacchi AM.3 Bosbok was equipped with a 340 hp Lycoming GSO-480-B1B6 (geared, supercharged, opposed 480 CID) engine.

Furthermore, all of those geared Lycomings could be temperamental and they were (still are for that matter) easy to damage the planetary gear reduction system if the throttle was "chopped" too quickly and the prop was allowed to "overrun" the engine. For that reason alone, I would think that it would not have been suitable for installation on a "combat" aircraft. They were much better and more common on the "cruisers" of the day such as Aero Commanders and Beech Queen Aires.

Lots of geared engines around that time in history were installed in a lot of combat airplanes. Was the only way to make that much power! Queen air started life as (U-8F combat) aircraft.
Lyc TIO-541 makes 380 hp with out gear

GT

M6RV6 wrote:Lots of geared engines around that time in history were installed in a lot of combat airplanes. Was the only way to make that much power! Queen air started life as (U-8F combat) aircraft.
Lyc TIO-541 makes 380 hp with out gear

GT

A Beech U-8F Queen Air was still just an otherwise basic, off-the-shelf "General Aviation" aircraft and the simple fact that it was operated by the military hardly made it an actual "combat" aircraft. A better example might have been the slightly earlier Beech RU-8D version of the E50 Twin Bonanza. At least it was actually used for ELINT missions in Vietnam, but it still wasn't "dogfighting" or strafing ground targets or any other "combat" missions that would have required the kinds of abrupt power setting changes that I mentioned could cause problems for the engines planetary gear reduction unit.

The TIO-541 engine was "up-side-down" compared to most other Lycoming engines (the starter mounts on the top right of the engine case instead of the bottom left side, the intake pipes are on top instead of the usual bottom, and the pushrods and shroud tubes are on the bottom side of the cylinders instead of the more common top arrangement for Lycomings.) I believe that it was used only on the Beech 60 Duke and the very limited production model 56TC Baron (a "short" 55 series/T-42 Baron fuselage with Duke wings or at least the 380 hp TIO-541 engines mounted on it.) The TIO-541 had about the biggest turbocharger I've ever seen on a "flat" (i.e. horizontally opposed) air-cooled aircraft engine and it (the whole engine not just the turbo) red-lined at 2,900 rpm! That's high for a direct-drive engine. At full power, the turbo whine drowns out the sound of the core piston engine and it sounds like you're running up a jet.

Even bigger still was the TIGO-541 which was used on the Piper P-Navajo (pressurized) for one example. That engine was rated up to 450 hp at 3,200 rpm, but the -E series used on the P-Navajo was rated at only 425 hp. I'm not sure what other aircraft types it was used on. Unlike other "geared" Lycomings, it used a spur-type gear setup like a Continental GTSIO-520 (with a comparable "humped" case) instead of a planetary gear setup. And speaking of GTSIO-520's, the somewhat "common" Cessna 421 used non-intercooled 340 hp (421A) or intercooled 375 hp versions on the 421B and C, but some Aero Commanders like the model 685 used a 435 hp version of the TCM GTSIO-520. It's no wonder they eventually went over to turbines on that 680 series airframe - and the 421 airframe too (which essentially became the model 425 with PT6A turbines and the model 441 with TPE331's.)

I believe that it was used only on the Beech 60 Duke and the very limited production model 56TC Baron (a "short" 55 series/T-42 Baron fuselage with Duke wings or at least the 380 hp TIO-541 engines mounted on it.) The TIO-541 had about the biggest turbocharger I've ever seen on a "flat" (i.e. horizontally opposed) air-cooled aircraft engine and it (the whole engine not just the turbo) red-lined at 2,900 rpm! That's high for a direct-drive engine. At full power, the turbo whine drowns out the sound of the core piston engine and it sounds like you're running up a jet.

I had a 56 Thunder Chicken, just a Baron that was used for the test bed of the engine. It and the Aerostar were about the only deiced twins that would out run my Machen S35 BO. (Had a TIO540)
Same fuel consumption as my Beech 18 just a 100 kts faster!! Loved everything about it but rebuild cost (45K 15 years ago) and buying gas! Sure was fun to get some altitude and find a big tailwind tho!! Helluva ground speed at times

GT

Kinda the twin-engine equivalent of a Commanche 400 at least in terms of being an unequalled "muscle car", wasn't it?

It may have been 100 knots faster than a Beech 18, but the payloads can't even begin to compare!

I did find one other aircraft that supposedly used a Lycoming TIGO-541- and it's a homebuilt made in Canada:



An Aerocruiser 450 Turbo

All this talk just confirms, a Skywagon is one hell of a plane!
Dust off those checkbooks, and start the bidding....