My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

MAD-4A wrote:

Relax wrote: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.

Proving you don't know your ass from your elbow concerning aerodynamics

Sweet. Newton's laws of motion do not apply for your aircraft eh?

Guess everyone who designed harrier, F35B, Osprey V-22, and Tilt wing aircraft for STOL and where their thrust lines can be in comparison to the CG of the aircraft are all stupid! BRAVO! Brilliant deduction in basic physics!

We bow down before your brilliance.

Troll on!

Center of gravity is usually somewhere enclosed by the wings, V-22 has the engines just there at the wingtips, Harrier and F-35 have (lift) engines front and rear.

The A-10's engines are located about halfway between wings and tail, this looks far behind the center of gravity. Thrust vectoring there can increase maneuverability but shortening takeoff has a little problem similar to a tailless delta wing configuration without canards: Angling the exhaust jet down gives lift but pushes down the nose, angling up raises the nose but creates downforce.

Also the horizontal stabilizers might not react too well to the exhaust jet which currently flows above them.

aairfccha wrote:Center of gravity is usually somewhere enclosed by the wings, V-22 has the engines just there at the wingtips, Harrier and F-35 have (lift) engines front and rear.

The A-10's engines are located about halfway between wings and tail, this looks far behind the center of gravity. Thrust vectoring there can increase maneuverability but shortening takeoff has a little problem similar to a tailless delta wing configuration without canards: Angling the exhaust jet down gives lift but pushes down the nose, angling up raises the nose but creates downforce.

Also the horizontal stabilizers might not react too well to the exhaust jet which currently flows above them.

Bravo, you can do basic force diagrams! You figured out the canard comment!

And what happens when the angle of incidence on a wing decreases... Pitch down

The tail feathers are already in the jet wash from the engines. They are turbofans.

You will note I specifically mentioned supersonic aircraft as able to use a little vectored thrust on take-off(not much). I wonder if there is anyone on this forum who can deduce why besides myself.

HB of CJ wrote: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

Replace B-52 with a B1-B or F-15 Strike Eagle loaded with glide bombs and drones with "Predator" or SoF teams you are pretty much describing the situation today. I would want to have the weapons carriers dispersed to maximize battlefield coverage, so future bomb/missile "trucks" should tend more towards Strike Eagle size. This also means mechanical issues, accidents or successful enemy action does not take out your entire offensive load at once.

Relax wrote:

aairfccha wrote:Center of gravity is usually somewhere enclosed by the wings, V-22 has the engines just there at the wingtips, Harrier and F-35 have (lift) engines front and rear.

The A-10's engines are located about halfway between wings and tail, this looks far behind the center of gravity. Thrust vectoring there can increase maneuverability but shortening takeoff has a little problem similar to a tailless delta wing configuration without canards: Angling the exhaust jet down gives lift but pushes down the nose, angling up raises the nose but creates downforce.

Also the horizontal stabilizers might not react too well to the exhaust jet which currently flows above them.

Bravo, you can do basic force diagrams! You figured out the canard comment!

And what happens when the angle of incidence on a wing decreases... Pitch down

The tail feathers are already in the jet wash from the engines. They are turbofans.

You will note I specifically mentioned supersonic aircraft as able to use a little vectored thrust on take-off(not much). I wonder if there is anyone on this forum who can deduce why besides myself.

Gentlemen - a little civility would be appreciated. Thank you. It is possible to disagree with each other without the ad hominem attacks.

fallsfromtrees wrote:Gentlemen - a little civility would be appreciated. Thank you. It is possible to disagree with each other without the ad hominem attacks.

1) You do not even know when I was praising him due to your ignorance of the subject matter.

2) Might want to look up ad hominem. It is certainly not what you implied.

I agree that some civility from several here would help. Use facts & polite discussion to make the point.

From my understanding of ad hominem he did use it correctly. Basically argue the facts without personal insults, as in "We bow down before your brilliance".

Relax wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:Gentlemen - a little civility would be appreciated. Thank you. It is possible to disagree with each other without the ad hominem attacks.

1) You do not even know when I was praising him due to your ignorance of the subject matter.

2) Might want to look up ad hominem. It is certainly not what you implied.

In a subject requiring basic physics/aerodynamics knowledge: Anyone who cannot be bothered(civility) to do the simplest basic physics and yet still takes the time to post out of sheer unadulterated ignorance deserves no civility in response.

Civility is something earned.

Oh boy...

I consider the "adversary" in this debate to the the Air Force "Brass" who don't support the A-10 and/or the Civilian Leadership who are to ignorant or complacent to take action and revise the Key West Agreement.

(See up-list people!)

Instead, we (the participating debaters) seem to be engaged in the classic infighting that happens so very often.

Let's TRY to be nice to each other, can we please?




.

Ensign Re-read wrote:Oh boy...

I consider the "adversary" in this debate to the the Air Force "Brass" who don't support the A-10 and/or the Civilian Leadership who are to ignorant or complacent to take action and revise the Key West Agreement.

(See up-list people!)

Instead, we (the participating debaters) seem to be engaged in the classic infighting that happens so very often.

Let's TRY to be nice to each other, can we please?

I respectfully non-concur. A little grumpiness and snarkery should be allowed in heated discussions, as long as they don't become the focus of the replies or lead to Godwinning of the thread (if you don't get the reference, google Godwin's law).

What I would like to see is some evidence, since right now we have Relax and MAD-4A basically saying "You don't know aerodynamics!!" "Oh yeah, well YOU don't know aerodynamics!!" A little evidence on one of their parts would be rather apprecaited (and in terms somebody the same age as the Lockheed constellation can understand, please).