Seaplanes or Amphibious Aircraft for Caribbean Adventuring and Logistics

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

A WW II training aircraft would probably be vintage enough and defintely faster than a Cub. Actual warbirds with multi-seat capacity are rare as hen's teeth. anything but P-51Ds is rare. The Mustangs are just expensive without being quite "rare".

I have no idea if you can still get OV-10 "Broncos" (which are statted up in Gurps Seals in Vietnam).

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/airc...-ov-10-bronco/

Okay, maybe.

The "similar aircraft" links on the page shouldn't encourage you though. No one is going to sell you an XB-70 "Valkyrie". :)

Those are good points. LeBlanc would probably enjoy flying a Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star, North American T-6 Texan or a Douglas A-1 Skyraider, but those are probably not useful for shuttling passengers. Well, the trainers might be useable for it, but the limit of one passenger makes them probably marginal in that role compared to a more typical civilian light aircraft.

Still, doesn't prevent LeBlanc from belonging to the Commemorative Air Force and spending some of his leisure time learning to fly old fighter aircraft, especially those with a proud Marine Corps history.

That still leaves a 'need' for a light airplane that is easier to take up on a short notice than the Renegade and expends less fuel when dropping off a guy or two in Beaumont or Houston.

[Daigoro]

Not knowing much about the subject, my inclination would be to go for something used by various aerobatic teams, such as the Red Arrows, the Thunderbirds or the Roulettes. These all seem to be 2-seater trainers with good handling, and the T-38 Talon is supposedly extra economical.

If you need more than 1 passenger though, you could browse this list of light transports by passenger capacity.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Not knowing much about the subject, my inclination would be to go for something used by various aerobatic teams, such as the Red Arrows, the Thunderbirds or the Roulettes. These all seem to be 2-seater trainers with good handling, and the T-38 Talon is supposedly extra economical.

LeBlanc would absolutely love a T-38 Talon. It is, however, about twenty times the price of a Cessna 172, the typical light aircraft that would be used for this sort of job.

I'm willing for him to convince his bosses to buy something significantly nicer than the basic Cessna. I think that a supersonic jet that costs twenty times more, however, is just the tiniest bit overkill for the job he'd be using as the justification for why he needs it.

Originally Posted by Daigoro

If you need more than 1 passenger though, you could browse this list of light transports by passenger capacity.

Thanks.

It might be enough to get a trainer aircraft with space for one person aside from Mike LeBlanc, as long as there was a Cessna 172 in New Orleans as well. Certainly, a T-6 Texan and a Cessna 172 combined are a lot cheaper than a T-38.

[Daigoro]

Ahh, well if price is an object, then this comparison site seems quite nifty:
https://www.aircraftcompare.com/airc...ce=0.19%2C1.19

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Ahh, well if price is an object, then this comparison site seems quite nifty:
https://www.aircraftcompare.com/airc...ce=0.19%2C1.19

Price is always an object, no matter how much money you have.

If only because there's always something else you can buy that is also awesome.

Thanks, that's a good list. Does anyone have opinions on what kind of light aircraft are fun to fly? They can cost anywhere up to five times a Cessna 172 (so, up to $1 million or so), but can't cost more to operate than a LA-250 Renegade.

[Kale]

Vietnam era Mini gunship/light cargo aircraft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helio_AU-24_Stallion
It packs a 20mm tribarrel on the door and five external hardpoints, but can also be used as a light transport aircraft and is optimized for STOL. It also mostly looks like a typical civilian monoplane so wouldn't raise any eyebrows at first glance.

Similar plane with the same style door gun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch...-23_Peacemaker

[Celjabba]

A Stearman PT-17 is a two-seater, common, cheap, and will fly in the worst magic-aspected area you can find :)

You won't go anywhere fast, that said. Or in any comfort. But for true aviation fan, it could be a fun choice.

The modern best seller would be a Pilatus PC-12 or variant. Not exactly cheap, but reliable, polyvalent cargo / passenger, and capable of very short landing, including on grass fields.

[copeab]

May I suggest the Beech Model 17 Staggerwing? Many are still flying and prices are around $300000 to $500000. Not fast, but a classic.

[Icelander]

Before better coverage of the whole world by communication satellites and the widespread use of UAVs for aerial reconaissance and artillery forward observation, trainer aircraft or any small, light civilian aircraft with good fuel economy while circling an area were often used to relay communications from shorter-ranged radios on the ground, give an 'Eye in the Sky' perspective for the ground combat teams in real-time, and observe and correct artillery, as well as conduct bomb damage assessments.

Famously, Executive Outcomes used Pilatus PC-7 aircraft for the role and jury-rigged armament hard-points for them, so they could fire rockets.

Now, during 1990-1991 shady arms dealers with some connections to Kessler's network were in a feeding frenzy during the fall of the Soviet Union, bribing base commanders, warehouse guards, Air Force ground crew and control towers, pretty much everyone and their mothers, in order to load up as much military ordnance, vehicles and other valuable equipment they could get, in order to sell elsewhere. They stole so much that they sold a lot of it for pennies on the dollar, just to get access to logistics, shipping and storage, in order to get some of it where they could sell it for, well, still-discounted prices, but most of it pure profit.

The question is, would any Soviet aircraft be adequate for what the Pilatus PC-7 did for Executive Outcomes?

Say that PCs in a prequel adventure are going to be doing not-so-safe things in a sub-Saharan country where there is currently a civil war, with UN peacekeepers that are not very successful at keeping the peace, and while about a dozen foreign countries prmised to stop supporting on of many warring factions, about half-a-dozen of those foreign powers are still covertly meddling. The PCs will have access to a couple of Mi-8 Hip helicopters to transport and rescue them, potentially one Mi-24 Hind gunship for fire support if needed, and at least mortars and rockets as integral firepower.

The question is, do they buy a Pilatus PC-7 at full price or do they use an An-2 or other USSR/Warsaw Pact plane capable of circling an area for hours?

The latter would be almost free in terms of capital outlay, but the An-2 uses about 50% more fuel while loitering than the Pilatus PC-7.

That makes An-2 vs. PC-7 a fairly simple calculation, it depends on how long they need it (enough hours and the fuel savings of the PC-7 let it pay for itself) and the risk of it getting shot down.

Are there other Soviet aircraft that might be good at what the PC-7 does, which might potentially be stolen via strategic bribing while the USSR is collapsing and lots of soldiers and even generals are no longer paid and have no idea what comes next?

[johndallman]

Since the An-2 runs on basic 87 octane avgas, you can get a lot of fuel for it for the price of a used PC-7. It's also a more versatile aircraft, with much more carrying capacity, and is easy to maintain, given a mechanic who understands high-powered piston engines.

If I wasn't expecting to be facing serious air defences, the An-2 is an easy choice. I can't find any Soviet aircraft better for the job that you might be able to source easily in 1990-91.