Skip to comments.
Boeing wins $2bn contract to rewing A-10s
Flight Global ^
| 7/5/2007
| Graham Warwick
Posted on 07/05/2007 2:40:09 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-103 next last
To: TangoLimaSierra
All the info I am finding online for the A-10 shows an introduction year of 1972, and a first production year of 1975.
Sure you don’t have your years crossed? It HAS been a long time...
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Gotta love Warthogs! Here's a couple of pics I took back at the Edwards AFB show this year...
![Image Hosted by ImageShack.us](http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/6049/4planehistorysrx2.jpg)
Maybe the coolest formation of the day, right over our heads. Clockwise, from the top, the P-51 Mustang, F-15 Eagle, A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog), and the F-22 Raptor.
Notice something interesting about the Warthog. It has a fake cockpit painted on its underbelly to help disguise its orientation.
![Image Hosted by ImageShack.us](http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4298/theonlytwoseatera10everly0.jpg)
The only two seater A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) ever made.
62
posted on
07/05/2007 4:11:20 PM PDT
by
MarineBrat
(My wife and I took an AIDS vaccination that the Church offers.)
To: Cuttnhorse
63
posted on
07/05/2007 4:14:18 PM PDT
by
null and void
(A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
To: MarineBrat
Notice something interesting about the Warthog. It has a fake cockpit painted on its underbelly to help disguise its orientation.The Canadians do that on their fighters as well.
64
posted on
07/05/2007 4:16:23 PM PDT
by
null and void
(A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
To: null and void
Yep, I've seen it on Canadian F-18s.
To: jaydubya2
After 30 or so years in service it’s probably stress cracks & pitting. You either re-wing them or you G-limit them.
66
posted on
07/05/2007 4:32:53 PM PDT
by
Tallguy
(Climate is what you plan for, weather is what you get.)
To: cripplecreek
Re:
My grandfather got a ride in a B-17 a few months before he died. He was one of 4 WWII vets that took the place of men from the original crew who had already passed away. Here's to your Grandfather... ![](http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/lastofthebenders/B-17-PB-1G/patton.gif)
![](http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/lastofthebenders/B-17-PB-1G/B-17-1-AAF-Pilot-Wings-400.gif)
67
posted on
07/05/2007 4:35:39 PM PDT
by
Bender2
(A 'Good Yankee' comes down to Texas, then goes back north. A 'Damn Yankee' stays... Damn it!)
To: BearCub
If I’m not mistaken, air foil shapes were developed by the NACA, forerunner to NASA. That would make the crossectional shape kinda like ‘Public Domain’ stuff. As to the actual wing design — yeah that probably would be proprietary. Who purchased Fairchild Aircraft’s assets?
68
posted on
07/05/2007 4:36:28 PM PDT
by
Tallguy
(Climate is what you plan for, weather is what you get.)
To: thackney
“-I remember seeing A-10s returning from runs in Laos when I was stationed in Thailand in 69.-
The first production A-10A was delivered to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., in October 1975.
Date Deployed: March 1976”
Perhaps saw A1E Sky Raiders. They were used for close ground support in both Laos and Vietnam back in the early days of the war. As the A-10, it was slow, ugly, difficult to knock out of the sky, and a fying dump truck....
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
70
posted on
07/05/2007 4:57:06 PM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist)
To: traumer
That pic in the midddle shows the A-10 deploying its reverse thruster.
71
posted on
07/05/2007 5:50:40 PM PDT
by
Erasmus
(My simplifying explanation had the disconcerting side effect of making the subject incomprehensible.)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
>>Boeing has yet to select its fabrication contractors for the rewinging project, which will begin with an 18-month engineering phase and is scheduled for completion by September 2018.<<
Probably, China will get the contract. They’ll need this technology for their military aircraft.
72
posted on
07/05/2007 6:00:36 PM PDT
by
B4Ranch
(Check out this website for the National Veterans Coalition http://www.nvets.org/)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Good. We were going to lose the whole plane.
73
posted on
07/05/2007 6:03:15 PM PDT
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Erasmus
Some of their ground crews tend to get upset when A-10 pilots deploy their reverse thruster to slow down near the end of the runway.
74
posted on
07/05/2007 6:19:15 PM PDT
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
LOL.
I was thinking the same thing.
If you’re driving your Hog onto the runway hot ‘n high, and going long, not to worry. You have your ace in the hole with your solid impulse reverse thruster.
75
posted on
07/05/2007 6:25:34 PM PDT
by
Erasmus
(My simplifying explanation had the disconcerting side effect of making the subject incomprehensible.)
To: TangoLimaSierra
I remember seeing A-10s returning from runs in Laos when I was stationed in Thailand in 69.BS. You must have been, or still are, high on Thai Stick if you remember seeing A-10s in '69.
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
I certainly hope Boeing does a much better job than they did rewinging the A-6.
To: BearCub
You can't just go out and copy someone else's design of a plane, boat, wing, whatever.
Many of these sort of things are done but the contractor reverse engineering the part. Copyrights work a little different with military contracts. The government does not quite 'own' the design but it is close. The government owns the functional requirements and if there is only really one way to satisfy those design requirements then it is not like the other company can cry foul. The new wing is sure to not be a carbon copy design anyway. So basically the function of the wing as far as the outside shape, the hard-points, landing gear provisions, attachment to the rest of the airframe, etc. are all fair game for anyone the military gives the contract to. Just like the way you can buy aftermarket parts for your Ford Mustang and Ford can't sue for copyright infringement. And even if they debatably could they would not because that would damage their relations with the rest of the industry.
78
posted on
07/06/2007 9:08:07 AM PDT
by
TalonDJ
To: Publius6961
Wouldn't it be easier to tool up and build new entire planes?
No, because as long as you are building a new plane you would update things for the times. Which requires a lot of design effort. Even just copying takes a lot of time because Fairchild is not going to just hand you the blueprints. The task of designing a whole new airframe and testing it, even if it is suppose to be the same, is almost as hard as doing it from scratch. It does not seem like it should be, but it is.
79
posted on
07/06/2007 9:12:49 AM PDT
by
TalonDJ
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity; CholeraJoe; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; ...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-103 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson