Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

Thats for a reasonable repy.

My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the
lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion.

Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a
slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get
an plane suitable for a fighter pilot.

In article .com,
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
manufacturer.

The manufacturer is long gone. No hope there.

All the real professionals here need to complain of the
lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion.

Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens.

You don't actually know anything at all about aerodynamics, do you, Doug?

An A-10 is a
slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get
an plane suitable for a fighter pilot.

Except your prescription wouldn't do what you claim/want it to do.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
is a simple airframe stress.

That you're able to be so spectacularly (and obliviously) in error
regarding your basic premise, doesn't do a lot for your overall
credibility.
--
Noah
"When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut."
-Ashleigh Brilliant

Well, supersonic flight is not a trivial matter. I flew the F104A
equipped with the J79-19 engine. Minutes after takeoff the fuel was
down to wehere the aircraft had a 1:1 thrust to weigth ratio. With
18,900 pounds of thrust (engine was later de-rated for longevity) the
Zipper would exceed its thermal limit quite handily. The problem as I
saw it was the windshield and canopy. M2.0 in the stratosphere in a
standard atmosphere (-57F) gave us an inlet temperature of 100C. M2.0
was also the USAF limit of lateral stability. Yes, we went faster now
and then - some went faster than others (I had a wife and 2 kids' 2.2
was enough for me). 2.4 is the limit for an aluminum-fuselaged aircraft
- above that you risk de-tempering the alloy and subsequent loss of
strength. The F106 on display at the USAF Air Academy is one such
aircraft - it and its engine were expended to establish a speed record
around (ISTR) M2.45. The idea of rebuilding an A10 to make a supersonic
interceptor out of it is so far from being even remotely practical that
only total unfamiliarity with what would be required could excuse such
a concept. Sorry for the bluntness - but it's true.
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote ...


Well, supersonic flight is not a trivial matter. I flew the F104A
equipped with the J79-19 engine. Minutes after takeoff the fuel was
down to wehere the aircraft had a 1:1 thrust to weigth ratio. With
18,900 pounds of thrust (engine was later de-rated for longevity) the
Zipper would exceed its thermal limit quite handily. The problem as I
saw it was the windshield and canopy. M2.0 in the stratosphere in a
standard atmosphere (-57F) gave us an inlet temperature of 100C. M2.0
was also the USAF limit of lateral stability. Yes, we went faster now
and then - some went faster than others (I had a wife and 2 kids' 2.2
was enough for me). 2.4 is the limit for an aluminum-fuselaged aircraft
- above that you risk de-tempering the alloy and subsequent loss of
strength. The F106 on display at the USAF Air Academy is one such
aircraft - it and its engine were expended to establish a speed record
around (ISTR) M2.45. The idea of rebuilding an A10 to make a supersonic
interceptor out of it is so far from being even remotely practical that
only total unfamiliarity with what would be required could excuse such
a concept. Sorry for the bluntness - but it's true.
Walt BJ


Thanks for a nice, readable explanation of the stresses, physical and
thermal, of high speed operations. I didn't realize the F106 could achieve
that sort of speed. The F92-102-106 lineage covered several decades, a lot
of investment, and a mixed bag of results. Losing a high school friend as
he was transitioning into 102s and later a younger neighbor in a 106
accident, I would be slow to belittle the avaiation skills of the current
President who did successfully fly the birds, by some accounts statistically
more hazardous than most military endeavors

Douglas has now been briefed from a variety of perspectives as to the
unsuitability and inoperability of hid projected "redesigned/re-engined"
A10, "Wonder Wart Hog" to borrow from the cartoonist Gilbert Shelton and
just as unrealistic as were Gilbert's cartoons, either from the Austin
_Texas Ranger_ era or the later years in Hashbury.

Somewhere in his lineage, Douglas's ancestors matched an obstinately
pig-headed gene with one from the "Just Plain Stupid" family tree, and a "Do
Not Replicate" (even for fun or at home) placard should have been attached
to all offspring of the damnable conjoining, especially Douglas (who adds to
the mangy mix the additional qualities of (a) being a few bricks short of a
full load, (b) owning an elevator which stops well short of the top floor,
and (c) possessing an ever-burning porch light when nobody's home). Having
ridden into the fair city of smn perched in the back of a watermelon wagon,
his departure huddled in the back of a turnip truck would bring joy to all
(although admittedly, he has brought to us more amusement than most of his
ilk).

TMO

On 6 Feb 2006 08:41:38 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote:

Thats for a reasonable repy.

My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the
lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion.

Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a
slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get
an plane suitable for a fighter pilot.

Please take one of the many clues that have been offered already:
planes are designed for a specific performance envelope. Changing
engines will do something but not modify the basic flight
characteristics (much). Wings break off when overstressed, the
canopies will collapse when hit by supersonic shock waves, non swept
wings have very bad performance characteristics in supersonic flight,
etc. etc. etc.

The A-10 doesn't carry an air intercept radar, a necessity for a
fighter aircraft.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote ...
Thats for a reasonable repy.

My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the
lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion.

The F14 was in essence designed to fill much of the requirement you're
postulating, adding the capacity for quick high speed reaction, close combat
handling capacity, a mix of short and long range missiles, plus rapid climb
to station, all qualities unable to be met by even a totally redesigned A10.
The trade off? A much shorter time on station, but then in a combat
environment against enemy strike a/c, any a/c's weapons load would be
quickly exhausted, so loiter time was not the highest priority. On the
drawing boards since the mid60s, the F14 has come and gone, the mission for
which it was designed and expensively developed gone with it.



Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
is a simple airframe stress.

Jeez, how can you be that unaware of the realities of basic aerodynamics.
Would you care to predict the Mach number at which Cessna 172s begin to shed
important components? I'm not quite sure if we could bolt a surplus J79 to
a 172, but just for illustration sake the results would be informative for
you. It would take a hell of a lot of airframe stiffening (measured in the
many, many pounds category) to move an A10 to higher (but still subsonic)
Mach ranges, and once there the a/c would be essentially uncontrollable, a
doomed lawn dart.


Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a
slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get
an plane suitable for a fighter pilot.


I'm not sure that their are many available choices less suitable than an
A10.

TMO

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

:My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
:manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the
:lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion.

Except:

1) That's not a problem, and

2) Your suggestion is worse than useless at correcting that problem if
it should happen to exist.

:Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
:is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a
:slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get
:an plane suitable for a fighter pilot.

Yes, but the actual idea is to get a deathtrap that disintegrates the
first time you:

1) Launch from a carrier,

2) Hit the throttle and get close to Mach 1, or

3) Recover on a carrier.

Not to mention that it won't do the mission.

Other than those small details, it's a PERFECT plan.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 6 Feb 2006 08:41:38 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote:

Thats for a reasonable repy.

My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the
lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion.

Several things problematic there, not the least of which is that the
manufacturer of the A-10 is out of business.

As for "lack of adequate fighter design", I think that F-22 and F-35
seem to refute that contention quite nicely. And that totally ignores
the various competing aircraft that were developed in those two
competitions and a whole gaggle of systems which came and went off
drawing boards unseen by the general public.

Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a
slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get
an plane suitable for a fighter pilot.

You might want to visit a good library and pick up some aero texts
regarding your contention about simplicity. Lots of things happen when
an airframe is pushed through the mach with various shockwaves coming
and going, various shifts of centers of lift and pressure, various
losses and regainings (hopefully) of control effectiveness.

Simply putting big engines on barn doors does not get you supersonic
(experience with the F-4 notwithstanding.)



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

In article ,
on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:29:38 GMT,
Ed Rasimus attempted to say .....

Simply putting big engines on barn doors does not get you supersonic
(experience with the F-4 notwithstanding.)

I had a thought, the M1 tank has a gas turbine engine, could we fit reheat to
it and use the beastie as a fleet defense aircraft ???

;')


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.