A-10 THunderbolt Question

Minuteman said:
pl.jpg
Click to expand...

Northrop A-9 was a neat jet.
 
Just so the rest of the Geeks don't feel lonely, DCS A-10 is a pretty neat Simulator...

While it's only a sim, it gives a person a great respect for how freaking busy a combat pilot is just operating the weapons systems let alone flying the airplane under fire...

Long boring video mostly... but shows the detail level of just starting the jet in the sim... How realistic it is, I have no idea, I've never flown it! :)
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTg2MzI3MTA0.html

This is a little more "interesting" video...
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjA4NDQ5NzUy.html

All graphics are in game graphics
 
USMCmech said:
Another slow airplane that needed lots of low altitude endurance.
Click to expand...
Iirc the challengers and maybe the CRJ 200s used a variant of that engine as well, the CF34. Whether it was actually similar in anything other than general layout and name, I have no idea.
 
canadian_atc said:
Just so the rest of the Geeks don't feel lonely, DCS A-10 is a pretty neat Simulator...

While it's only a sim, it gives a person a great respect for how freaking busy a combat pilot is just operating the weapons systems let alone flying the airplane under fire...

Long boring video mostly... but shows the detail level of just starting the jet in the sim... How realistic it is, I have no idea, I've never flown it! :)
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTg2MzI3MTA0.html

This is a little more "interesting" video...
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjA4NDQ5NzUy.html
Click to expand...

Having been there, done that, there are some errors Ive already caught. Granted Im only an A-model guy, but I can speak to the A-model common specifics. 1:18 "fuel flow switches to normal", is the wrong reason given for it; in the sense of what those switches do....the don't "provide" fuel flow to the engines. No minor electric surge when the APU GEN is brought online. For engine start, while you can simply bring the throttle over the hump (at idle in the A-10, the starter engages if RPM is below a certain percentage. Its why when you have an engine fire or a failure where you don't want the engine restarting, you stand-up the throttle, NOT bring it to idle.....or the starter will automatically engage); but normally, the engine is motored first with the manual motor switches prior to bringing the throttle over the hump to idle. Makes for a far easier and cooler start. For the GEN switches, they'd already be switched to ON prior to the start, so that when the N1 passed the % where they would come online, they would already do so. Same with the Pitch/Yaw SAS switches.....they'd already be in the ON position prior to start. When he said he was going to flip on his taxi lights, he flipped the switch up, which is actually the landing lights (both lights on nose LG mount)......down being the taxi light (single straight-pointing light on nose LG mount). When shutting down the APU, the APU GEN gets switched off first, then the APU; not backwards like he did it.

Those a just a few things I caught.
 
Roger said:
Iirc the challengers and maybe the CRJ 200s used a variant of that engine as well, the CF34. Whether it was actually similar in anything other than general layout and name, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

CF-34 has couple more thousand pounds of thrust, as well as thrust reversers. Otherwise, practically the same engine.
 
MikeD said:
CF-34 has couple more thousand pounds of thrust, as well as thrust reversers. Otherwise, practically the same engine.
Click to expand...

Iirc, they're up-engining the a-10s...as well as building new thicker-skinned wings for a lot of them. Are the new engines just an uprated TF-34?
 
Roger said:
Iirc, they're up-engining the a-10s...as well as building new thicker-skinned wings for a lot of them. Are the new engines just an uprated TF-34?
Click to expand...

Lemme tell you a story. In 1999, I was sitting in a pilot meeting discussing A-10 upgrades. New engines have been a pipe dream for A-10s for a long time. The O-6 Colonel was briefing us on how the "new engines" were already paid for, and how we could expect to see them getting refitted onto the A-10s starting that summer. We asked for it as frontline crews, and by God we were going to get it! The USAF would make sure we got what we needed.

Not one A-10 anywhere has anything other than TF-34s, to this day. Again, they're not a bad engine, just underpowered for what they're installed on. But, we play the cards we're dealt and always have.

In 2002/3, Im in yet another "all hands" Wing brief by another O-6 Colonel blowhard from AFMPC as well as the Wing. Subject that day was "......by 3Q Fiscal 2007, all three A-10 squadrons at DM (1 combat, 2 training) will be fully online with F-35s. And you need to determine whether you want to stay and help turn out the lights on the A-10 program, or move on and up to the F-35......"

If thats any example of how one shouldn't believe any new aircraft, equipment, or upgrades are coming.....until its parked right there on your ramp.

The HogUp program actually went mostly through....wing centerboxes were removed from boneyard A-10s and rebuilt, then retrofitted into currently serving A-10s. Most of the fleet being converted.
 
MikeD said:
Having been there, done that, there are some errors Ive already caught. Granted Im only an A-model guy, but I can speak to the A-model common specifics. 1:18 "fuel flow switches to normal", is the wrong reason given for it; in the sense of what those switches do....the don't "provide" fuel flow to the engines. No minor electric surge when the APU GEN is brought online. For engine start, while you can simply bring the throttle over the hump (at idle in the A-10, the starter engages if RPM is below a certain percentage. Its why when you have an engine fire or a failure where you don't want the engine restarting, you stand-up the throttle, NOT bring it to idle.....or the starter will automatically engage); but normally, the engine is motored first with the manual motor switches prior to bringing the throttle over the hump to idle. Makes for a far easier and cooler start. For the GEN switches, they'd already be switched to ON prior to the start, so that when the N1 passed the % where they would come online, they would already do so. Same with the Pitch/Yaw SAS switches.....they'd already be in the ON position prior to start. When he said he was going to flip on his taxi lights, he flipped the switch up, which is actually the landing lights (both lights on nose LG mount)......down being the taxi light (single straight-pointing light on nose LG mount). When shutting down the APU, the APU GEN gets switched off first, then the APU; not backwards like he did it.

Those a just a few things I caught.
Click to expand...

Cool :)

Great to hear a real hand how it's done.

This video was made while the game was in BETA mode... I noticed myself a few things different now in the start procedure from this video, perhaps some of those errors were fixed.

They claim they had consulted with real A-10 pilots during the creation.


Question... did the A Model have this automatic Chaff/flare dispenser like the C model does?

If it did, how often would pilots enter custom "programs" for dispensing patterns?
 
HERES to the 82 TFW and some great memories, if any of you are real A-10 fans than youd know what it was .
 
canadian_atc said:
Question... did the A Model have this automatic Chaff/flare dispenser like the C model does?

If it did, how often would pilots enter custom "programs" for dispensing patterns?
Click to expand...

At the latter end of the A-model's life, the ALQ 213 (depicted) did replace the ALE-40 system. I flew a couple of PA ANG jets with them. In fact, my published combat story here on JC was in an ANG model which was converted. The patterns to set are determined by the threat at hand one is trying to defeat. The settings are pre-briefed on what the pilot will set prior to the mission or in the specific theatre.
 
F-35 to replace the A-10? That's certainly disquieting, but far from unexpected. The Air Force has never really been enamored with the close air support role, from what I heard when I was in, and pretty much developed the A-10 only to keep the Army from absorbing that function. There were rumors that the Air Force wanted to eventually scrap the A-10 for sexier, true fighters way back thirty years ago, but could never find an adequate replacement for the job (Not even the F-15E model came close in A-10 capabilities).

The F-35 and it's four-barrel, 25mm GAU-22a Gatling canon seems a really poor substitute. The Air Force ought to bite the bullet and either come out with a newer version of the A-10, just start from scratch and build a new, low-cost replacement, or turn over close air support to the Army. But the F-35? Certainly not the way to go in my opinion.
 
I just want to reiterate that I love this thread because the A-10 has been my favorite jet for a looooong time. Thanks MikeD for sharing your experiences! Stuff like this is what makes JC awesome.
 
RDoug said:
F-35 to replace the A-10? That's certainly disquieting, but far from unexpected. The Air Force has never really been enamored with the close air support role, from what I heard when I was in, and pretty much developed the A-10 only to keep the Army from absorbing that function. There were rumors that the Air Force wanted to eventually scrap the A-10 for sexier, true fighters way back thirty years ago, but could never find an adequate replacement for the job (Not even the F-15E model came close in A-10 capabilities).

The F-35 and it's four-barrel, 25mm GAU-22a Gatling canon seems a really poor substitute. The Air Force ought to bite the bullet and either come out with a newer version of the A-10, just start from scratch and build a new, low-cost replacement, or turn over close air support to the Army. But the F-35? Certainly not the way to go in my opinion.
Click to expand...

They are, they are using the T-6 Texan II and adding some weapons to it.

http://www.aviationbull.com/files/images/AT-6B.jpg
 
Mike: How did you end up in the A-10? Was it your top choice? Also, how about the F-117? Did you apply or were you recruited?
 
MikeD said:
T-6 and AT-802.......fooey.

Bring back the Piper PA-48.
Click to expand...

At least nearly everybody training in the air force now seems to have T-6 time... If I were to run the a/f like a regional airline, I'd be stoked about not having to train anybody!

Who knows, in today's theatre maybe larger quantities of smaller airplanes are what they want, my question though, is what happens when by chance small arms fire manages to put a hole in your single engine?

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top