Posted on 05/27/2017 6:25:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Those who worked with/flew them loved them for the incredibly capable machines they are.
I always hear the popular wisdom that the USAF hates the A-10. I never sensed that in my 28 years. Heading into pilot training, 1/2 the class wanted to get A-10s.
>>>Just when I think I can’t like DJT anymore, he surprises me again. Warthogs-go ugly, early.<<<
Did you mean?:
Just when I think I can’t like DJT any more than I already do, he surprises me again. Warthogs-go ugly, early.
PS, you’d also have to change all of the maintenance TOs into comic books. ;)
It’s engines are high as you noted, but the jet was designed for temporary unimproved operations, specifically on roadways. Operations on a dirt surface would only result in a sortie or two before the engines are FOD’d out.
The placement of the engines in the back has to do with weight and balance, not “shielding.” (The jet would sit on its tail of there were no 30mm in the drum, and if there is no 30mm in the drum, titanium plates are attached in the front wheel-well.
Hah. . .good one.
The typo is funny! A-10 doesn’t stand up well against air superiority fighters, because that was never part of its mission.
But it is a beautiful sight from its troops on the ground.
Absolutely.
Would you agree that if the engines were suspended from the wings that they would even more subject to FOD ?
Yes, of course. Earlier designs (not the A-10) had the engines low and inside the fuselage (Northrop A-9). Not too survivable.
Yes, of course. Earlier designs (not the A-10) had the engines low and inside the fuselage (Northrop A-9). Not too survivable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.