Posted on 01/08/2017 3:25:48 PM PST by huldah1776
One structural failure was because of a manufacturing error, not a design flaw that would lead to a failure.
“Revise the charter for the Army and allow them to use armed fixed wing aircraft. . .”
Where would the Army park those fixed wing aircraft, and where would they position depots, supplies,parts and such?
Frog,
Great article link. Found lots of neat birds to read up on. The included history of service is great.
In fact the P-51 was a severely flawed bird that should never have been accepted for production. It had a class 1 flaw that would turn a moments inattention in combat into what is euphemistically referred to as a ‘complete departure. That the pilots in Europe were able to achieve success with it speaks more the quality of the pilots than to the quality of the aircraft.
Would that be a departure type stall because of the "Laminar Wing"? I hear the B-24's also were not fond of ice because of it's "Davis Airfoil" which was the 1st Laminar to fly.
Interesting is the ME-109's and many ME's used a NACA 2r112 which is a reflexed brother or sister to the Naca 2412's you see on Cessna's. The Russian Yak's 3's and many of them, a used a Clark Y cousin that has a Reflex as well ( Reflex ='s less trim drag ) They might not have been as fast as the Mustang but they seemed more tame, especially in landing ( other than the ME's landing gear )
That’s what I was told. Essentially the laminar flow airfoil doesn’t stall so much as it ceases to be an airfoil. Not much of a problem when both wings lose it at the same time, but a severe problem if one stalls before the other.
The Caribou is a pretty cool aircraft. I got to see one do a really short take off an landing once at Ft. Stewart, GA. Man, did they wind-up those engines for the take off! Loud!
The Navy version (F-111B) was a dog. It weighed more than the A3D “Whale” did and didn’t live up to expectations (mostly due to the Navy changing the requirements).
The Air force version on the other hand, was very successful and served for 31 years.
“Where would the Army park those fixed wing aircraft, and where would they position depots, supplies,parts and such?”
Many Army forts already have airfields for unarmed aircraft. Wouldn’t take much to expand the field.
The Army already has plenty of logistical depots. They could easily support the A-10.
With improvements in jamming, there’s a strong possibility that that radar guided missiles won’t work very well in the next war.
Yes, when deployed and in the field?
Same logistical supply line as a M-1A Abrams has.
The A-10 is a tough plane. It can fly out of makeshift airfields.
Doesn’t need the runway length of say, a F-15.
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-10-warthog-landing-on-a-dirt-runway-2015-8
IF you decide to change the demands/roles/requirements of an airplane after its left the drawing board, like what has happened here you wind up with a fustercluck, which is what happened here.
If you want a general all purpose plane, you have to decide that up front... not Oh we want a next gen fighter.... then after you have it designed go... well... you know what? We want it to do close combat ground support as well... on and while you’re at lets add this, or that to it too...
It can fly onto and off unimproved roads, but only if no other airfields are available. Unimproved sufaces take a havy toll on the jet. Not sustainable.
It is a tough jet but not designed for continious off-runway operations. From damage to tires to FOD damage due to kicking up dust and debris, risks are many. It is capable of short-field ops, for sure, but the risks from operating off runway is great and causes much damage.
I’ve flown roughly 1,500hrs in the jet and we all knew we had options other jets did not. We also appreciated operating off an unimproved surface would be last resort because of the risk of damage. And the damge of such operations would require significantly more logistics support than runway ops. . .meaning the jet would be “down” much more often.
Final observation: Jets have theater-wide capabilities. . .they can fly to anywhere in the theater to be employed. Limiting jets to a signel brigade, division or corps would shackle the jet to support only that assigned unit and not be part of a theater-wide air campaign.
Cheers.
I really liked the Caribou. My class was the last one to include it in the training before handing them over to the Air Farce. It had a cool cockpit layout.
In the central highlands where I was stationed Caribous were coming and going all day long. We had a fairly short runway so most everything came in by CV-2 (C-7 for you AF folks) or C-123. Pilots used to wind the radials up and pull the stick all the way back (or so it seemed) and with all their linens hanging out they could be airborne in less that a thousand feet.
My thanks to you for your years in flying the A-10.
I’ve heard the USAF pilots absolutely love flying them.
However, at the Command level, too many USAF senior staff have been vocal in their desire to rid their service of the A-10.
Rather then see it put to pasture, I’d much prefer it to be transferred to the Army.
At this point in time it looks like the A-10 will stay, at least for a few more years in USAF service due to Congressional action rather than the desires of the USAF Generals.
Used to totally true, the Air Force having nothing to do with the A-10. . .but Gulf War I happened and even Gen Horner conceded the A-10 was a spectacular jet.
The issue now is reduced force levels and that means multi-mission jets, not single mission jets. It is the non-flying pogues in the Pentagon that are pushing A-10 retirement, not the flying staff.
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.