On 7 Feb 2006 11:32:50 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote:
I will comment here on the thread responses so far.
A basic complaint of my idea is that at mach 1 the wings will fall off.
Not at all. The basic complaint is your contention that putting more
powerful afterburning engines on a subsonic airframe would allow it to
fly both longer and faster.
Neither is very likely with the A-10, since the existing turbofans
were designed for extended endurance in the first place. Afterburning
engines would consume more fuel, not less and with the planform of the
aircraft already established, there's no room for more fuel.
While you might be able to push the Hog a bit faster, you won't get
anywhere near Mach 1 without encountering severe problems of
compressibility, high drag rise, shockwave interference, etc. etc.
More powerful engines could allow you to sustain airspeed a bit better
and achieve higher g-loads without airspeed bleedoff.
I do not wonder very hard at the ingenuity of the designer of the A-10
because it is an over built and stressed aircraft. Taking some weight
out of the wings just might be in order.
The A-10 (like all aircraft) is a complex bundle of engineering
trade-offs. It is not over built, but built to do the job it was
designed for.
Consider that the wing is stressed to carry ordnance--lots of it. That
means strength is required and that strength must deal with multiples
of the weight of the ordnance load encountered when maneuvering (i.e.
pulling "G").
So the angle of the wings as the deciding factor has to be decided.
And it is a fact that as speed increases that angle of attack
decreases. ANd the supersonic speed does not alter the rule.
As speed increases AOA usually does decrease. But, you also encounter
increases in drag and as you approach the mach, the drag rise increase
is exponential, not linear.
Depending upon the shape of the airfoil, supersonic speed does alter
many of the rules--that's why it was so hard to build a supersonice
airplane in the first place.
A single problem exists and the cause of unstable airframes is a large
problem. And I think the original designer made sure the design was a
nice stable nonvibrating one. And so the aerodynamical question
becomes the higher speed stability in relation to the original design
speed.
Do not confuse issues of airframe stability with controllability at
transonic speeds. Stability refers to the tendency of an aircraft to
converge or diverge from original conditions after a control
displacement. Highly maneuverable aircraft tend toward instability and
this is compensated for by various control systems. Decidedly subsonic
aircraft like the A-10 tend to be more stable and require less high
tech solutions.
So the person then needs to consult the aerodynamical type who warns of
the means of stability control in mdern airframes. So the
poster/commenter has to request the exact airframe beam to be examined.
And it has beams for such stability reasons already.
What? Or in the military vernacular, WTFO?
And inadequacy for a higher frequency of reduction is then the real
question. Maybe it is going to have the tail fall off. But the wings
will stay on.
You're nowhere near the problem with that either.
And the beams are designed for a complete failure of the additional
beam. It literally has a durability unsurpasable in strength.
Still out of the ballpark with regard to supersonice flight.
And so the fact remains that making it a new aircraft is the question.
I vote yes. And the typical commenter says the wings will fall off.
If it is a new aircraft, rather than a re-engined A-10 (which was your
proposal), then I suggest we call it F-35.
I do not know the exact design issue, but have seen the drawings and it
appears fine for re-engining. In fact new engines are going in. May be
a subsonic missile platform is needed.
What new engines are these?
A nice radar can be mounted on it.
Where? What would be a "nice" radar? What size, weight, power
requirements, emissions, agility, defensive measures, weapons served,
etc? Where displayed? What range?
SO my claim is that it is just an idea, and it does not stink, because
it is already getting new engines and maybe then it will be allowed to
go to supersonic?
OK, it's official--I hereby "allow" anyone who wants to put the
throttles in the far left quadrant for as long as they want and to go
as fast as they can. They will not go supersonic.
And so the real issue the becomes the exact method of covering air
defenses. Why not ask for 12 missles and radar on the S-3. Somebody
made that comment. It is a lightweight design compared to the A-10.
and I get to comment critically.
The Hoover is a different airplane for a different task, however it
should be noted that it already has a radar and is carrier qualified.
ANd so the story goes to the provable necessity for the design to match
the exact role. So pick the tactic for the available aircraft or
request the new aircraft.
What? Do you mean design the aircraft for the mission? That's what the
A-10 did. And that's what the F-14 did. And, that's what the F-22,
F-35 and every other tactical system has done. Put conversion of sows
ears into silk purses still isn't practical. Ditto for lead into gold.
I can then advise on the exact usage of the given aircraft. And the
commenter then gets to advise why the mission is out to the critical
distance and then a return. A certain real law of available contact
duration is calculatable. And the exact cause of the pattern is to be
discussed by the real commenter.
A, the ol' real commenter--hopefully someone with some tactical
experience or maybe someone with some aeronautics background or maybe
even someone with some design history.
Yes, I'd be happy to "advise why the mission is out to the critical
distance and then a return"--it's because you've got to go where the
target is and because I always like to come home.
So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic.
Now that you've changed your topic, hopefully it will be something
related to your expertise.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com