Topic Actions
Topic Search
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
by MAD-4A
» Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:48 am
|
|
|
MAD-4A
Posts: 719
|
The only change the A-10 needs is to modify the engine nacelle pylons with pivots and rotation motors to allow limited vectored thrust. This would allow for greater take-off weight and give limited STOL capability with even slower loiter speeds possible, almost a VTOL, but not quite. Would this still qualify as a “fix wing” or could it be argued that vectored thrust is an exception?
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count. |
| Top | |
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
|
by Weird Harold
» Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:29 am
|
|
|
Weird Harold
Posts: 4478
|
... Nothing. The A-10 needs to be completely replaced with a new aircraft that has the arms, armor and loiter time, but takes advantage of advances in avionics and precision weapons. It does NOT need the added complexity of vectored thrust; a big part of the A10's survivability is lack of complexity. Vectored thrust would add complexity to mechanical systems and cockpit flight controls -- a bad thing. .
. . Answers! I got lots of answers! (Now if I could just find the right questions.) |
| Top | |
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
|
by MAD-4A
» Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:15 pm
|
|
|
MAD-4A
Posts: 719
|
Normally I would agree, but in this case, not really. A single lever to set angle from 0-45 (or 60 Deg depending on eng specifics), with a locking catch at each extreme. The servos in the nacelle pylons would be in a protected & redundant position, so they would be near impossible to damage (without losing the entire pylon anyway). The added capability the VT would give the aircraft would be invaluable compared to the minor increase in complexity (if done right). -
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count. |
| Top | |
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
|
by aairfccha
» Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:05 pm
|
|
|
aairfccha
Posts: 207
|
Du you suggest a moving nozzle or a moving engine? The latter makes the engine a moving part relative to the rest of the airframe - the V22 Osprey is the only flying example for this conficuration I can think of. Granted, its full VTOL capabilities are an additional complication but I wouldn't call this a minor increase in complexity. |
| Top | |
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
|
by Relax
» Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:11 pm
|
|
|
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
Proving you don't know your ass from your elbow concerning aerodynamics... Where are the engines again...  Where is the CG? Is it a supersonic jet? No. Uh, is it a canard? Um, no.  _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
| Top | |
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
|
by Relax
» Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:40 pm
|
|
|
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
It was already receiving these upgrades. No new airframe required. _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
| Top | |
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
|
by Weird Harold
» Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:55 pm
|
|
|
Weird Harold
Posts: 4478
|
The airframes are pushing 40 years old with a lot of hard use for most of them. There's been a lot of research into aerospace engineering and new materials in that 40 years as well. .
. . Answers! I got lots of answers! (Now if I could just find the right questions.) |
| Top | |
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
|
by Ensign Re-read
» Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:54 am
|
|
|
Ensign Re-read
Posts: 763
|
I'll leave the issue of the rotating engine nacelles to others who are more familiar with it. It SEEMS a waste of time, money, weight, effort, to me, but I'm not an expert, thus concede the debate to others.
As for what I would CHANGE to the design, there are three or four items (depending on what/how you count) for which I will try to rephrase the observations of others: (1) Build new frames, or rebuild old frames, to the "B" standard. i.e.: Check the images of the ONE example of a two-seat design. A second pair of eyes would be good for the "Observer" role, or for the sake of a translator/weapons tech/you-name-the-role. [It's now on display at the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) Museum at Edwards AFB, See URL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_ko ... 296721760/ and half-way down at: http://afftcmuseum.org/exhibits/edwardsafb_exhibits/] (2) The current engines could be replaced with more current, fuel efficient designs. One design is ready to order for purchase OR lease, but "The Brass" refuse to put money into the A-10. Quote: "Out of the all the possible Warthog upgrades, new engines are at the top of the A-10's wish-list. The jet sports the super reliable and fuel efficient General Electric TF34 turbofan, known as the CF34 in the civilian world." [See roughly 1/4 way down at URL: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-us ... 1562789528] ===== [Note that the Wikipedia entry implies that my below one {or two} points may have already been done; my knowledge is dated. See URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild ... ernization] (3) The current design's night-time fighting/observation/navigation is (as I understand it) sort of "tacked-on", in that its presence is only there because of a late addition or module that was originally added to be used with one weapon system. It would be a good idea to update the cockpit's design so that the instruments or displays used for night-time flying would be more integrated into the cockpit, and not just an appendage. [Yes, the above is stretching the limits of my direct knowledge; I can no longer look this up in my no-longer-existing source material.] (4) {or "3.5"} A full-blown "glass cockpit" may (or may NOT) be a good feature in a new design. Others have addressed this issue better than I can do justice to and recall here from memory. . =====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL: http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/. ===== http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/ ===== |
| Top | |
| Maybe A Cheap Way? ... | |
|---|---|
|
by HB of CJ
» Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:05 am
|
|
|
HB of CJ
Posts: 707
|
Just safely orbit way out range an old B52 loaded to the gills with cheap dinky cruise missiles spotted in by some cheap slow stealthy remote drones. Hundreds of tiny cruise missiles. Lots of small cheap targeting drones. I bet we could cobble together something right now if we had to. HB
|
| Top | |
| Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog. | |
|---|---|
|
by MAD-4A
» Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:32 pm
|
|
|
MAD-4A
Posts: 719
|
Proving you don't know your ass from your elbow concerning aerodynamics-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count. |
| Top | |