Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/Archive 2

message: I am certain that the A-10 has not been deployed to Iraq since the initial invasion in 2003 and maybe a few months after that.  They have been doing all of their work in Afghanistan but not Iraq in the last few years.  Does anyone have any resources that would back this up.  Deployment info is tough to get on the web.  Cheers--Looper5920 04:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deployments

message: The Trivia section is a little misleading to someone who is unfamiliar with aircraft.  Aircraft don't come to a standstill in midair ... they stall :-)  This is due to the Stall Speed of the aircraft.  An A-10 would stall at about 80-90Kts, depending on the weight and configuration of the flaps.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaps_%28aircraft%29 .  The only aircraft that can hover in mid-air are the Harrier and the V-22 Osprey :-). 
* Yea poor wording.  The main point is about the recoil offsetting the thrust. -Fnlayson 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A-10s Stall - they don't come to a halt in mid-air :-)

message: I removed the entire section (again) and will continue to do so until someone provides a credible verifiable reference. There is nothing whispering about Corsair, Beaufighter, F-111, A-10, or wherever else your fancy takes you. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whispering death redux 

message: Anyone who wants to re-add a claim along the lines of "The real reason" is politely requested to cite a reference.  Personal knowledge is not sufficient for Wikipedia.  Thanks. - Rogerborg 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: "The first production A-10 flew in October 1975, and deliveries to the Air Force commenced in March 1976. The A-10A is almost an exact counterpart to the Il-2 Stormovik. The first squadron to use the A-10 went operational in October 1977. "  
Huh? Out of place, to say the least.
* Yep, out of place.  The Il-2 is mentioned in the first paragraph in the Origins section already.  -Fnlayson 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Il-2 

message: This link may be of some interest concerning the A 10 upgrade:
*EIFELTIMES, Online-Paper at Spangdahlem Airbase (PDF; 2,89 MB) --Pm 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrade 

message: The A-10's downturned wing tips can be seen on close inspection of the first image (1975 one).  Just wondering, how long must a wing tip before it is considered a winglet? -Fnlayson 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a source which refers to the A-10's wing tips as "Hoerner wingtips", a word which is listed (but not defined) in the Wing tip article (right above the "winglets" entry). From the pictures, the Warthog's tips look to be no more that 18 inches long, if even a foot. I think most winglets are longer than that, but again that's also just a guess from the pics. Maybe someone with more direct knowledge can help us here. - BillCJ 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the A-10's upward-curling wingtips are Hoerner wingtips. They're intended to reduce induced drag by throwing the tip vortex outward and upward; droop tips are curved down, rather than up, and do mostly the same thing (as well as reduce the ground effect). They are useful  Winglets are just like the name suggests — little wings appended upwards or downwards from the wingtips. Unlike the "curled" wingtips, they aren't used to reduce drag but rather to generate a thrust component from the vortex's movement over the airfoil. They are useful on aircraft that routinely fly at high altitude and or at large angles of attack. Askari Mark | Talk 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, as I grow older my "brain farts" are becoming more common. The A-10 has drooping wingtips, not Hoerners; they curl down on the A-10, not up. Sorry for the error, I should know better. Guess I need to eat more seafood. :( Askari Mark Talk 19:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My understanding of the function of winglets is just the opposite: that they are there to prevent the formation of drag-inducing wingtip vortices.  The air is moving more rapidly over the top of the wing than the bottom, so when the air that moves out over the top of the wing meets the air moving out under the bottom it "curls" over, producing a vortex.  Wingtip vortices have the same low-pressure center found in tornadoes and the eye of hurricanes, and this low-pressure zone induces drag through suction.--Molon Labe 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a look at Wingtip device; it states that wingtip devices increase the lift generated at the wingtip, and reduce the lift-induced drag caused by wingtip vortices, improving lift-to-drag ratio.  Turning to Wingtip vortices we find the statement "air flows from below the wing and out around the tip to the top of the wing in a circular fashion. This leakage will raise the pressure on top of the wing and lower the overall lift that the wing can produce. It also produces an emergent flow pattern with low pressure in the center surrounded by fast moving air with curved streamlines."  So my description of how the drag is induced is incorrect; the drag is presumably not from any suction effect from the low-pressure zone in the center of the vortex, but rather from high-pressure air spilling over the end of the wing to the upper surface, spoiling the lift-inducing low pressure zone above the wing.  I also forgot that wingtip vortices curl upward not downward. My bad. --Molon Labe 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wing tips 

message: Last I knew, there were some A-10s being flown out of Wheeler-Sack near Fort Drum, yet I don't see any mention of it.  Is it not a current positioning?  I haven't been down that way much recently, so it's quite possible that they've moved them elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RussNelson (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheeler-Sack? 

message: Unusual feature mentioned at GAU-8_Avenger -- the front landing gear are offset to accomodate the large main gun.  Is the A-10 the only aircraft that has this feature?  And which side?
:The gun is offset to port (with the firing barrel, at the starboard-most position, being on the centre line). Presumably then the nosewheel is offset to starboard.
::It is true that the gun makes the nosewheel offset to the right , and it is also true that it makes the aircraft taxi differently, but I doubt that anyone has bothered to write it down anywhere else (Saying this as a former A-10 mechanic) Guy G Sotomayor, III 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun/landing gear

message: http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/ This site shows some A-10's that took amazing damage and made it back to base, to be repaired and returned to battle. Especially incredible is the plane with the entire leading edge of its right wing gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battlefiled repairs

message: Is on this page
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=70
in the background section near bottom of page, if anyone wants/knows how to add.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.239.2 (talk • contribs) 
* Got it.  Thanks for the help! -Fnlayson 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation for percentage of mavericks fired 

message: The article says "...destroyed its hydraulic system, disabling the plane's stabilizer and flight controls".  That's not really correct.  Hydraulic failure doesn't disable flight controls, because of the reversion modes.  It disables the hydraulic boost (servo) systems.  So the flight controls become a lot harder to operate, and as the manual says "a single engine manual reversion approach ...should be attempted only under ideal conditions".  (The press article referenced doesn't say "single engine" but it does say "damaged engine" -- same sort of thing I would think.) But the controls are still there. Paul Koning 21:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re KC's flight 

message: Hey guys, there is currently little to NO citation in the criticism's section, we need to back up these claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TehPhil (talk • contribs) 
* There's no references in the section, an unreferenced section tag is probably in order. -Fnlayson 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation in Criticisms section 

message: “Although the A-10 can carry a considerable weight of disposable stores, its primary built-in weapon is the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun.... The massive shells and high muzzle velocity allow the Thunderbolt II to destroy heavily armored main battle tanks with as few as six direct hits.” I've heard stuff like this before, but it seems suspicious. Consider therse quotes from other wikipedia articles:
“M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well, the armor thickness believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA. The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2. The M1A1/M1A2 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120 mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles.”
“Armor penetration: 
69mm at 500 meters; 
38mm at 1000 meters” (GAU-8)
“A2 (and up) version is protected against 30 mm AP and RPGs” (Bradleys)
If an M1 can survive it's own gun, how could a mere 30mm AP round have any effect? If a 30mm AP round can penetrate 69mm of armor, six rounds should only penetrate 414mm of armor if they all land in exactly the same place, which is already very unlikely. MBTs are also much more heavily armored than M2A2s. Puck01 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAU-8 Firepower 

message: To what degree Hans-Ulrich Rudel's "input was used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft", as stated in his bio? -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the book is "Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War" by William Smallwood, 1993.  It has a page on the JU-87G, Rudel, and Israeli aircraft destroying tanks with their 30mm guns in 1967.  It is obvious that the JU-87G, not the IL-2 nor the A-1, was the aircraft that led to the GAU-8 and making it the main anti-tank weapon of the A-10, and led to the A-10 becoming: "The aircraft that was built around the gun".204.80.61.110Bennett Turk
* Thanks.  I just added a reference for the Boyd book. -Fnlayson 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hans-Ulrich Rudel 

message: Does anyone have a source that the BL755 CBU was ever integrated on the A-10 other than in Hunting Engineering marketing material? Riddley 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there was anything more than a test fitting. I checked the Jane's Air-Launched Weapons listing for the A-10 and there's no mention of the BL-755. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BL755 integration

message: Hm... seems like the A-10 could get completely replaced by raptors.  Considering Raptors are pretty damn agile, not to mention they feature those vulcan guns that were actually designed to shoot through tanks.  The A-10 also features this, however it only falls under 'support' like many ppl already seemed to mention.
A-10's have also existed much longer, which explains the fact that they exist at all.  These are all only based on assumptions from what I've read, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.92.95 (talk • contribs) 
* The F-22 Raptor's Vulcan cannon is smaller caliber (20 mm) and is actually meant for air to air combat.  Currently, they intend to replace the A-10 with the F-35.  High speed jets aren't the best choice for ground attack CAS where the targets are much slower.  The USAF experimented an attack version of the F-16 called the F/A-16 and its speed was 1 drawback that ended the trial. -Fnlayson 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "Every now and then the USAF gets the idea that one aircraft can replace many different types of planes," actually, in the case of the F-35 it was Congress and the DoD deciding to roll several programs into one. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the F-111, it was Secretary Robert McNamara and the DOD that pushed it. Fnnny thing is, the F-111 was supposed to replace the F-4, among many others, which was the closest thing to a joint-service multi-role fighter the US has ever had. - BillCJ 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement

message: ST. LOUIS, June 29 -- The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) has been awarded a U.S. Air Force contract worth up to $2 billion between 2007 and 2018 for engineering services and the manufacturing of 242 wing sets for the Air Force's A-10 fleet. ... from  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.144.210 (talk • contribs) 
*Don't copy and paste whole articles.  That's a copyright violation.  Here's Boeing's release on this  Boeing Awarded $2 Billion A-10 Wing Contract.  That's already mentioned in the article too. -Fnlayson 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boeing Awarded $2 Billion A-10 Wing Contract

message: Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 July 28/Articles for details.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: is much better than
don't you think? the first one shows it in much more detail, and it is so beautiful. You can see the hardpoints, the weapons, so much more clearly than the second pic. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, plus the second one doesn't have the distracting polka dots. I agree there are better pictures than the second one, but the first pic isn't one of them! - BillCJ 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with this picture? 

message: "Thanks. I just added a reference for the Boyd book. -Fnlayson 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pierre Sprey 

message: Under the section on Durability, I removed the request for citation involving the aircraft being referred to as "a flying tank".  Such citation requests are frequent on wikipedia, and frivolous.  One needs only to spend a second or two looking for "Flying Tank" and "A10" on google to verify the obvious. CameronB 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "one" does not have a second on Google to do so; one could be reading an offline version of Wikipedia, or one may not wish to spend time reading the idle chatter of military enthusiasts on random websites. If this is widely-enough used that it deserves a mention in the article then it should be referenced. If not, it's original commentary and has no place here. Chris Cunningham 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durability Citation