homage to the A-10

beasly

beasly

Well-Known Member
http://www.daveweinbaum.com/A10.html

Cool read.

Here are a couple of pics from the article

811.jpg




231.jpg
 
beasly said:
So, tell us about the titanium bathtub.

QUOTE]

Effective, but has its limitations. The tub itself surrounds the cockpit sides and bottom. The forward windscreen is bullet resistant glass up to about 23mm, though 12.7mm is more realistic. The problem comes in the low-level flying that was once the only place we operated. Whereas the front windscreen is bullet resistant, the actual canopy itself is simple plexiglass. So a hit to the sides of bottom of the cockpit would be resisted by the bathtub. However in a low-level turn with a large bank, such as a ridge crossing, if a round came through the canopy, the titanium bathtub now became a titanium catchers-mitt, with my pink fleshy body in the middle of it.

So while the bathtub was a good design, it did have its limitations, just like anything does.
Click to expand...
 
MikeD said:
beasly said:
So, tell us about the titanium bathtub.

QUOTE]

Effective, but has its limitations. The tub itself surrounds the cockpit sides and bottom. The forward windscreen is bullet resistant glass up to about 23mm, though 12.7mm is more realistic. The problem comes in the low-level flying that was once the only place we operated. Whereas the front windscreen is bullet resistant, the actual canopy itself is simple plexiglass. So a hit to the sides of bottom of the cockpit would be resisted by the bathtub. However in a low-level turn with a large bank, such as a ridge crossing, if a round came through the canopy, the titanium bathtub now became a titanium catchers-mitt, with my pink fleshy body in the middle of it.

So while the bathtub was a good design, it did have its limitations, just like anything does.
Click to expand...

How slow does the A-10 go?

Before you answer, let me tell you a story*.

Back in college, I had a room-mate move out during the summer and instead of summer classes, I had to mow lawns at MacDill in Tampa to pay the rent. One day on a riding mower, I got a bad feeling and turned around and there was an A-10 with little ole Beasly in his sites on his super-charged Toro 3 blade riding lawn mower.

I never heard the thing until I saw it.

The pilot lined me up but he obviously thought better of it, (because I am a bad ass on a Toro) and did a climbing turn out of there before I could take him out.

Besides the blow to my ego, what struck me was how slow and quiet the A-10 was.


So, How Slow Does The A-10 Go?



*(I also got a serious sense of "woulda coulda shoulda" as the guy in flying that was probably 10 years younger than me and he is driving an A-10 and I am driving a lawn-mower)
Click to expand...
 
Configured dirty, and light in weight, hanging out at 100-105 knots was comfortably doable.
 
Such an awesome airplane. I really wish they kept them for the 104th instead of replacing them with F15s. I miss seeing and hearing the A10s flying around.
 
Mark815 said:
Such an awesome airplane. I really wish they kept them for the 104th instead of replacing them with F15s. I miss seeing and hearing the A10s flying around.
Click to expand...

That was an interesting one in and of itself. Barnes was the premier ANG A-10 unit. BRAC made the decision to close the 102nd FW at Otis on Cape Cod, and move their F-15s to Barnes, getting rid of the 104th's A-10s. New alert facilities were built at Barnes as well as other infrastructure, even though it might have been more economical (if a shutdown was required) to have done it the other way around......closing the 104th itself. Thought is that with two ANG A-10 units located not far from each other (Barnes, MA and East Granby, CT), but shuttering the two, while opening/transferring to former F-16 units in Selfridge, MI and Fort Smith, AR; is hard to understand the fiscal savings.
 
MikeD said:
That was an interesting one in and of itself. Barnes was the premier ANG A-10 unit. BRAC made the decision to close the 102nd FW at Otis on Cape Cod, and move their F-15s to Barnes, getting rid of the 104th's A-10s. New alert facilities were built at Barnes as well as other infrastructure, even though it might have been more economical (if a shutdown was required) to have done it the other way around......closing the 104th itself. Thought is that with two ANG A-10 units located not far from each other (Barnes, MA and East Granby, CT), but shuttering the two, while opening/transferring to former F-16 units in Selfridge, MI and Fort Smith, AR; is hard to understand the fiscal savings.
Click to expand...


yep.
 
MikeD said:
That was an interesting one in and of itself. Barnes was the premier ANG A-10 unit. BRAC made the decision to close the 102nd FW at Otis on Cape Cod, and move their F-15s to Barnes, getting rid of the 104th's A-10s. New alert facilities were built at Barnes as well as other infrastructure, even though it might have been more economical (if a shutdown was required) to have done it the other way around......closing the 104th itself. Thought is that with two ANG A-10 units located not far from each other (Barnes, MA and East Granby, CT), but shuttering the two, while opening/transferring to former F-16 units in Selfridge, MI and Fort Smith, AR; is hard to understand the fiscal savings.
Click to expand...


Is that where they ended up? MI and AR? The F15s are kinda cool in a way, but they're so demanding it seems. They HAVE to have the long runways with arresting cables operating. Plus it seems whenever a flight of 3 or 4 taxi out, 1 always ends up coming back due to mx issues.

I remember when the airport used to do mx on the long runway, the A10s would just use the shorter 15/33 without issue right infront of our ramp. It was great! Such a unique sound. The current airport manager at BAF is a retired A10 driver also. He has some awesome stories, he was always great to chat with!

btw, do you happen to know why the unit at BDL wasn't ever just combined with the unit at BAF? Or vice versa? I never fully understood why there were two separate A10 units so close to each other.
 
Mark815 said:
Is that where they ended up? MI and AR? The F15s are kinda cool in a way, but they're so demanding it seems. They HAVE to have the long runways with arresting cables operating. Plus it seems whenever a flight of 3 or 4 taxi out, 1 always ends up coming back due to mx issues.
Click to expand...

In a roundabout way, yes. Most of Selfridge's birds came from the closed unit at Battle Creek. The Selfridge/Battle Creek units in MI, did somewhat the same arrangement that Barnes/Otis did in MA. Again, not making much sense. The F-15s are old birds.

I remember when the airport used to do mx on the long runway, the A10s would just use the shorter 15/33 without issue right infront of our ramp. It was great! Such a unique sound. The current airport manager at BAF is a retired A10 driver also. He has some awesome stories, he was always great to chat with!
Click to expand...

Yup, shorter runways not a problem for A-10s.

btw, do you happen to know why the unit at BDL wasn't ever just combined with the unit at BAF? Or vice versa? I never fully understood why there were two separate A10 units so close to each other.
Click to expand...

There was talk of that, but they were ANG units of two different states, so there was some wonder of which one would get the "preferential treatment". In that regard, it would've been a mess. And their geographic location was simply a function of the small size of CT and where it's ANG base was located, versus where Barnes was located, them both coincidentially having A-10s. Prior to that, they were both F-100 units located in their same places, so it wasn't unprecedented.
 
beasly said:
Besides the blow to my ego, what struck me was how slow and quiet the A-10 was.
Click to expand...

I remember when the A-10s from the 111th at Willow Grove used to fly over my house. A few times throughout the Summer they'd come barreling over along the ridge. You'd never hear them until you were looking up their tailpipes. I was always excited to see them.
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
I enjoyed that article and the photo's. Thanks for the post!
Click to expand...

This part of the article is actually incorrect:

"Oh, by the way, it doesn't eject the empty shells but runs them back into the storage drum. There's just so
dang many flying out, they felt it might damage the aircraft."

The reason for retention of the empty casings is purely a CG issue. If we flew with anything but a full gun, we had to install steel plates in the left side of the nose landing gear bay, from one to four depending on how little ammo we were flying with.
 
MikeD said:
This part of the article is actually incorrect:

"Oh, by the way, it doesn't eject the empty shells but runs them back into the storage drum. There's just so
dang many flying out, they felt it might damage the aircraft."

The reason for retention of the empty casings is purely a CG issue. If we flew with anything but a full gun, we had to install steel plates in the left side of the nose landing gear bay, from one to four depending on how little ammo we were flying with.
Click to expand...

Now that, is a great insight. Now that you have said it, its obvious.

Thanks!

So now, you got me thinking about CG on bombers and tankers.
 
MikeD said:
This part of the article is actually incorrect:

"Oh, by the way, it doesn't eject the empty shells but runs them back into the storage drum. There's just so
dang many flying out, they felt it might damage the aircraft."

The reason for retention of the empty casings is purely a CG issue. If we flew with anything but a full gun, we had to install steel plates in the left side of the nose landing gear bay, from one to four depending on how little ammo we were flying with.
Click to expand...


Wow I never thought of that! Really cool info!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top