A-10 Successor

**~~Shipwreck~~** · 13 Oct 06,, 03:14

Originally Posted by glyn

In general though aircraft can be crudely lumped into two types, those that are thrust limited (and would thus benefit from extra horses) and those that are drag limited (where increasing engine power shows very little, if any, improvement in speed). In this case a drag-reduction program would be pointless as all the oo-nasties hang under the wing!

Exactly right.

Because of the thick wing of the A-10, there is a drag *wall* above 0.75 Mach that makes approaching it very inefficient.

For that specific reason, some of the re-engine proposals investigated in the past (e.g. F-100, F-404 and RB-199) also included a new wing option (not to mention that they involved flying with external tanks to be competitive range-wise).

While any attempt to make the A-10 significantly faster is probably a fruitless effort, more power will nevertheless improve other (IMO worthwile) performance parameters such as acceleration, climb & turn rates and airport performance (heavier loads out of shorter fields), etc... (see post #45 above)

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Just a guess based on the % of thruse increase of the newer engines. The A-10 is never going to be fast, it is too draggy, but that much more thrust could very well give it another 25-50kts of level flight speed.

That sounds like a fair estimate. My understanding is that the extra 2,500 lbs or so of thrust per engine with the TF34-GE-101 would result in up to 50 knots more top speed (or so am I being told by people who are MUCH MORE competent on such matters than I will ever be).

The TF34-GE-101 being a turbofan, you'd still lose available power as the plane climbs, but fuel efficiency would still be pretty good.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

So to me, getting 425kts in level flight isnt much of a stretch from new engines. Im sure if this is incorrect Glyn will say so.

That sounds reasonable given current max. speeds (390 knots @ sea level and 355 knots @ 20,000 feet).

Originally Posted by glyn

I shall have to consult the dash One for the A-10A, especially the Performance Data Manual to see what the bird can really do.
(...)
Now I must spend a couple of hours on those manuals...........

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I have an A-10 operations manual too, i was speaking in generalities wrt speeds on purpose. No reason to make Haji's job any easier.

Relax Sniper.

Glyn is presumably experienced and qualified enough to know what can be posted on a public forum and what shouldn't be there.

Even if *sensitive* information were to be *inadvertently* disclosed, an insurgent organization would have to be VERY organized, disciplined, and trained to make good use of such info.

Besides, some of the A-10 manuals were available on the internet and have been removed from there just 2 or 3 years ago.

I for one would be delighted to hear what Glyn has to say when he'll be finished with the manuals.

**~~Shipwreck~~** · 13 Oct 06,, 04:33

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

A-10 pilots sure dont seem to feel manuever deficient. At least not the ones on my board.

This may not be the case for the guys on your board, but there are definitely some Hog pilots for which new engines are pretty high on the wishlist :

Col. Thomas Groznik, vice-commander, 52nd Fighter Wing : "Give it an extra engine's worth of thrust and this aircraft will really be something." (Flight International, March 2004)

Lt. Col. Robert Silva, chief of A-10 requirements at ACC : "(The new engine) would reduce pilot exposure to surface threats." (Aviation Week, May 2004)

**Bill** · 13 Oct 06,, 06:41

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

This may not be the case for the guys on your board, but there are definitely some Hog pilots for which new engines are pretty high on the wishlist :

Col. Thomas Groznik, vice-commander, 52nd Fighter Wing : "Give it an extra engine's worth of thrust and this aircraft will really be something." (Flight International, March 2004)

Lt. Col. Robert Silva, chief of A-10 requirements at ACC : "(The new engine) would reduce pilot exposure to surface threats." (Aviation Week, May 2004)

I didnt say theyd be unwelcome, new engines would be very welcome, it's just that the times i've seen it discussed at my site the Hogdrivers seem to generally acknowledge they already have a highly agile machine as is. But yes, they will complain about poor climb rates and such, particularly when they're "haulin' Iron".

As soon as the wings are funded(As "Coach" from my board said, the wings have to have total budgetary priority at this time), i say full speed ahead with the new powerplants. What i'd REALLY like to see is JHMCS/AIM-9X integrated, but for use with updated vectored thrust IIR Mavericks as well.

**glyn** · 13 Oct 06,, 15:04

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

I for one would be delighted to hear what Glyn has to say when he'll be finished with the manuals.

Having read the manuals, let me first say they are rather out of date, as the dash one is from February 1983 updated by change 8 in March 1987, and the Data Performance is from November 1982, with change 5 of September 1987. The Flight Manual has 400 pages, and the PDM 166 pages.
My impression is that the A-10A is a strange bird with a surprisingly small speed range. It is clearly underpowered. I would say that the achievements of this aircraft are largely due to the abilities of the pilots than the types inherent qualities. There is undoubtedly life left in it (Assuming the crack problem is addressed), but it has had a good innings in first line service. (Don't I remember the USAF were going to retire most of them not too many years ago and keep only a limited number for FAC work?). After three decades it is IMHO time to start thinking about a replacement.

**Archer** · 13 Oct 06,, 20:56

Uh oh, I can see M21 is going to blow his top on that..

**glyn** · 13 Oct 06,, 23:03

Originally Posted by Archer

Uh oh, I can see M21 is going to blow his top on that..

Surely not? I thought he was angling to take the post of secretary of my fan club!

**Archer** · 14 Oct 06,, 00:46

He's a good bloke Glyn, just quick on the draw thats all.

**Bill** · 15 Oct 06,, 15:47

Originally Posted by glyn

Having read the manuals, let me first say they are rather out of date, as the dash one is from February 1983 updated by change 8 in March 1987, and the Data Performance is from November 1982, with change 5 of September 1987. The Flight Manual has 400 pages, and the PDM 166 pages.
My impression is that the A-10A is a strange bird with a surprisingly small speed range. It is clearly underpowered. I would say that the achievements of this aircraft are largely due to the abilities of the pilots than the types inherent qualities. There is undoubtedly life left in it (Assuming the crack problem is addressed), but it has had a good innings in first line service. (Don't I remember the USAF were going to retire most of them not too many years ago and keep only a limited number for FAC work?). After three decades it is IMHO time to start thinking about a replacement.

The USAF has them scheduled to remain in service until 2028. Short of JFS(about as incompatible a plane with the CAS role as i can imagine), there is no 'replacement' program for the A-10 that i am aware of.

I would agree the A-10 is underpowered, though still quite agile, and obviously, tough as nails(with one honking big anti-tank gun). With the proposed engines it's few ills should be entirely corrected.

**Bill** · 15 Oct 06,, 15:48

Originally Posted by Archer

He's a good bloke Glyn, just quick on the draw thats all.

I know what the plane's shortcomings are, and Glyns analysis was factual and lacking in malice.

No need to shoot the messenger(this time, hehehehe).

PS, thanx for the "Good bloke" comment.