A-10 in WWII??

From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
vehicles. That part is there design.

Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.

Requirement:
1) Able to house VW size gun.
2) Ability to loiter
3) Good visibility for ground attack
4) 2 power plant for reliability
5) Large Ordinance capacity
6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.

Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the
fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
wing, which can blocks large area of his view.

Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished
by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
requirements; long and skinny wing.

Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space.
The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both
at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
Where do you mount it?

What's you're A-10 design look like?

Emilio.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
If you give set of requirements to number of different
contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.

You mean:
Space Shuttle --Buran
Concorde -- Tu-144
F-15 -- MiG-25
Northrop A-9 -- Szu-25
etc.

Spies 'r' us!

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:52:53 +0200, "Tamas Feher"
wrote:

If you give set of requirements to number of different
contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.

You mean:
Space Shuttle --Buran


Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.



Concorde -- Tu-144

ISTR there was a question of espionage there.



F-15 -- MiG-25

About the only similarities there is they both have two vertical
tails, two engines, and ramp intakes. So does the Tomcat, Flanker,
Fulrum. And both the Vigilante and Rapier had ramp intakes and twin
engines before that.



Northrop A-9 -- Szu-25


And A-6 and F-89 and numerous others. I think it falls into the
category of "there's only so many ways to make a plane". It actually
resembles an F-4 more than it does the A-9



etc.

Spies 'r' us!



It seems to be rare that exact copies are ever done but copying
generalities happens all the time. For example LERXs/strakes were in
vogue for a while there.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:59 -0500, "Emilio"
wrote:

From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
vehicles. That part is there design.

Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.

Requirement:
1) Able to house VW size gun.
2) Ability to loiter
3) Good visibility for ground attack
4) 2 power plant for reliability
5) Large Ordinance capacity
6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.

Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the
fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
wing, which can blocks large area of his view.

Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished
by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
requirements; long and skinny wing.

Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space.
The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both
at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
Where do you mount it?

What's you're A-10 design look like?

Emilio.


Don't forget to add "your plane must be able to land gear-up and
extend it's gear with no power".

Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Emilio.

Scott Ferrin wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:52:53 +0200, "Tamas Feher"
wrote:

If you give set of requirements to number of different
contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.

You mean:
Space Shuttle --Buran


Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.



Concorde -- Tu-144

ISTR there was a question of espionage there.



F-15 -- MiG-25

About the only similarities there is they both have two vertical
tails, two engines, and ramp intakes. So does the Tomcat, Flanker,
Fulrum. And both the Vigilante and Rapier had ramp intakes and twin
engines before that.



Northrop A-9 -- Szu-25


And A-6 and F-89 and numerous others. I think it falls into the
category of "there's only so many ways to make a plane". It actually
resembles an F-4 more than it does the A-9



etc.

Spies 'r' us!



It seems to be rare that exact copies are ever done but copying
generalities happens all the time. For example LERXs/strakes were in
vogue for a while there.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:23:25 -0500, "Emilio"
wrote:

Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers.

No, they actually did a lot of testing and came to the conclusion that
they were duplicating all the studies NASA did so they decided to copy
it.


Russian industry simply was not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do.

I don't know about that. I think it's more outright stupidity than
anything nefarious when it comes to the dreaded $300 pliers etc. That
and a lack of understanding of the problem by those quoting the
numbers. The pliers make sense if you know what happened. It wasn't
a SMART thing to do but it does make sense. While taking a Cost
Estimating class in college the instructor related the pliers tale to
us. He was working for Boeing at the time and apparently the contract
said something to the effect of Boeing producing all the tooling for
the project and hey pliers are tools. So Boeing made like twelve
pairs of pliers or something. That and they weren't exactly the kind
you'd find at Home Depot. So a production run of 12 made by an
aerospace company. Is it any wonder they weren't eight bucks? That
story about the rivets related here on r.a.m. a while back though. . .
Makes you wonder how much the defense budget could buy if all of that
inefficency and waste could be eliminated. Would take a hell of an
audit to find it all though.



If they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Emilio.

"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100
a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.

Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from. Heavier
payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the ET
and the SRBs.

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.

STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit while
they were ahead.

John

Well, the $20 nuts and bolts come from all the paperwork that is attached to
it. Aerospace fastener and materials strength are carefully controlled;
much tighter spec then the commercially available fasteners; smaller run.
This certainty in the strength of material helps you to design light weight
aircraft and rockets. Uncertainty means, "We need to beef it up just in
case it fails!" Russian rockets were heavier because they used fastener and
materials from there local hardware store! They just beefed it up to make
sure it flew. Nothing is wrong with that approach, and their vehicles were
properly designed to account for the uncertainty.

It is not as simple as just copying the shuttle design. The design is based
on American philosophical thinking in design and in infrastructure.

Emilio.

Scott Ferrin wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:23:25 -0500, "Emilio"
wrote:

Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers.

No, they actually did a lot of testing and came to the conclusion that
they were duplicating all the studies NASA did so they decided to copy
it.


Russian industry simply was not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do.

I don't know about that. I think it's more outright stupidity than
anything nefarious when it comes to the dreaded $300 pliers etc. That
and a lack of understanding of the problem by those quoting the
numbers. The pliers make sense if you know what happened. It wasn't
a SMART thing to do but it does make sense. While taking a Cost
Estimating class in college the instructor related the pliers tale to
us. He was working for Boeing at the time and apparently the contract
said something to the effect of Boeing producing all the tooling for
the project and hey pliers are tools. So Boeing made like twelve
pairs of pliers or something. That and they weren't exactly the kind
you'd find at Home Depot. So a production run of 12 made by an
aerospace company. Is it any wonder they weren't eight bucks? That
story about the rivets related here on r.a.m. a while back though. . .
Makes you wonder how much the defense budget could buy if all of that
inefficency and waste could be eliminated. Would take a hell of an
audit to find it all though.



If they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100
a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Emilio.

In article ,
"John Mullen" writes:
"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100
a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.

Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from. Heavier
payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the ET
and the SRBs.

Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations
have their advantages, and their risks.

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.

Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.

STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.
There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
any safer than the STS.

I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit while
they were ahead.

More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
booster)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Emilio" wrote in message
...
From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus
they
stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
vehicles. That part is there design.

Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.

Requirement:
1) Able to house VW size gun.
2) Ability to loiter
3) Good visibility for ground attack
4) 2 power plant for reliability
5) Large Ordinance capacity
6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.

Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in
the
fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
wing, which can blocks large area of his view.

Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be
accomplished
by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
requirements; long and skinny wing.

Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance
space.
The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out
both
at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
Where do you mount it?

What's you're A-10 design look like?

Something like a BV-141?
--
Zamboni

Actually, I recall hearing that when they designed the A-10, they had one of
the top German WW2 Stuka pilots as a consultant, he had specialised in
attacking (Mostly Soviet) tanks and held the record for tanks killed in the
war. Apparently they ran the design by him and asked him what a pilot with
such a mission would want in an airplane, as far as weapons, characteristics
in flight, etc.