What's the most amazing flying machine you've seen in person?

[Ted_Stryker]

Why does the A-10 Rock ? It has a Minigun the size of a Mazda MPV !

Id have to say...that the SPECTRE just kicks ass...its huge...its comfortable (has even seats with leather!) and the arsenal is huuumongous!!! (4 x Miniguns , 2 x 75mm cannon, and 1 x 150 mm. cannon - REMEMBER! The arsenal on the Spectre can be changed ! this is the Default build-up) it was...awesome...

It is indeed quite an aircraft!  The A-10 Thunderbolt has it's specialty, as does the SPECTRE and SPOOKY, both versions of the C-130 platform.  During Vietnam, the SPECTRE was used quite heavily.  The A-10, however, is designed specifically as a tank killer, with a 30mm cannon in it's nose, and two huge GE engines behind.  From the pilot's perspective, the A-10's high survivability, with a titanium "bathtub" around the pilot, affords a high degree of "aviator survival confidence".  The SPECTRE and SPOOKY are great at what they do too, just that their missions differ.  I've seen A-10's come back that looked like they had sustained damage so severe they had no logical reason to have been able to keep flying, yet they did.  If you have a tough tank or apc enclave you want to route out, the A-10 can get the job done fast, and deadly.  On the other hand, if you want orbital suppression fire, and LZ clearing, along with other tactical missions for special ops forces, then the SPECTRE can be your best buddy too.

Here's a link on the SPECTRE and SPOOKY: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm

And, here's a link on the A-10 Thunderbolt... aka the Warthog: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm

[Mike]

I heard that they want to get the A-10s certified as airtankers someday. I am sure it'll take years before this will becomes reality and the government will sell them to civilian operators but if they do (or when they do)
. . .I might have to go back to stuck wing !!!

Can you imagine? Fighting fires with A-10s?? AWESOME !!!

[Ted_Stryker]

I heard that they want to get the A-10s certified as airtankers someday. I am sure it'll take years before this will becomes reality and the government will sell them to civilian operators but if they do (or when they do)
. . .I might have to go back to stuck wing !!!

Can you imagine? Fighting fires with A-10s?? AWESOME !!!

I remember hearing similar rumors   Not sure how well that would work out in terms of the aerodynamics and load capacity, since the airframe, while tough, is still designed for tactical and not "cargo" work, which one really needs for aerial firefighting tankers.  I'd love to see what the schematics look like for that!  I guess we'd have to call it the A-10F "Firehog"   Hmmm... instead of the nose cannon it could have a firehose nozzel for pinpoint application.... come to think of it, that might just work!  Maybe "waterbombs" attached to the hardpoints?!  Possibilities there...

[Gulfstream Driver]

I'd like to meet the guy that decided to put a Howitzer on an airplane.   

[Mike]

I would like to disagree with you there Ted.
Firefighting with planes (correct me if I am wrong fireflyr) is very much so tactical flying and not cargo. It's cargo to the drop, but for the drop itself, the "run" they call it, you need a plane that can get low and slow and is very maneuverable. And it looks just like a gun-run of an A-10. I think it's possibly a better plane than any other big tanker that's currently out there BECAUSE it was designed for gun running and getting really low. That's why the wings broke off on the C-130, it's designed to be a cargo plane and not a firefighter. And the other planes they have (except the SEATS) are almost all cargo planes or bombers (but high level bombers that is).

Put on an external tank underneath and get in there really low with the A-10 (so the slurry don't drift) like a SEAT but with more capacity, and you will have an excellent airtanker! ...at least in theory. . . in my little world. . .where I am god and everybody loves me

[Ted_Stryker]

I would like to disagree with you there Ted.
Firefighting with planes (correct me if I am wrong fireflyr) is very much so tactical flying and not cargo. It's cargo to the drop, but for the drop itself, the "run" they call it, you need a plane that can get low and slow and is very maneuverable. And it looks just like a gun-run of an A-10. I think it's possibly a better plane than any other big tanker that's currently out there BECAUSE it was designed for gun running and getting really low. That's why the wings broke off on the C-130, it's designed to be a cargo plane and not a firefighter. And the other planes they have (except the SEATS) are almost all cargo planes or bombers (but high level bombers that is).

Put on an external tank underneath and get in there really low with the A-10 (so the slurry don't drift) like a SEAT but with more capacity, and you will have an excellent airtanker! ...at least in theory. . . in my little world. . .where I am god and everybody loves me

Mike,

Sorry if I stated what I did poorly.  What I meant was that the A-10 is not designed to haul large amounts of cargo/weight, like the kinds of weight were you drop the loads of water or fire retardant.  I agree it's a tactical flight maneuver... just curious how they would modify the A-10 to let it haul that much water/retardant, etc.

Hope this clarified my statement.

Bob

[Mike]

Oh, I see...

Do you know how much it can carry?
I was assuming they would put a tank on the bottom of the plane. Even if they can hold less than a P3 Orion for example, I am a firm believer that 800gal delivered precisely where you want them might be more effective than 2000gal or more "in the general area". Do you see what I am getting at? I think the A-10 might have the ability to delivery whatever she can way better than the big tankers we have now. We have found the SEATs to be very effective (with a good pilot) in Nevada.

The one thing I can't figure out is: They built the plane around a big-@$$ machine gun. If they take that out, will the plane stay together? Would they have to rebuild the airframe? Or would they leave it in and disable it and put in water instead of ammo??
Questions over questions...

[Ted_Stryker]

Oh, I see...

Do you know how much it can carry?
I was assuming they would put a tank on the bottom of the plane. Even if they can hold less than a P3 Orion for example, I am a firm believer that 800gal delivered precisely where you want them might be more effective than 2000gal or more "in the general area". Do you see what I am getting at? I think the A-10 might have the ability to delivery whatever she can way better than the big tankers we have now. We have found the SEATs to be very effective (with a good pilot) in Nevada.

The one thing I can't figure out is: They built the plane around a big-@$$ machine gun. If they take that out, will the plane stay together? Would they have to rebuild the airframe? Or would they leave it in and disable it and put in water instead of ammo??
Questions over questions...

According to the hyperlink I posted, it looks like 16,000 lbs on the hardpoints under the wings, and additional weight on the underbelly itself...max takeoff weight is 51,000 lbs.  I'm not sure what it's basic empty weight is though.

The plane would stay together if they took the nose gun out.  They'd have to counterweight, and put a block plate in the nose, but that would be about it.  When they say they "built the plane around the gun", they mean they designed the plane to be a flying gun, with the dimensions, power, and speed needed to deploy against tanks.  The gun dimensions, firing rate, muzzle velocity, and ammunition needs were factors in determining the shape of the fuselage with refinements for the aerodynamics... but it's basically built without the idea of carrying any cargo of any kind, other than a survival pack in the ejection seat for the pilot, though a pilot can attach a "PE Pod" (personal effects pod), that will let him transport himself, and his belongings, in a bomb-like casing on the belly of the aircraft.  That is common on other fighter aircraft too.  Some branches of the service call them "P-Pods", "POPs", etc., with the nicknames having changed a little over time, but all meaning the same basic thing.

[Mike]

Ok, so if you attach water tanks to the hard points under the wing, it would give you close to 2,000gal of slurry. WAY more than a SEAT could deliver. It could be an awesome thing...
Thanks for all the detailed info by the way!

Maybe I just want this to happen so bad because I think the Thunderbolt is such an awesome kick-@$$ plane !!
(Chuck is that you?)

[Ted_Stryker]

Ok, so if you attach water tanks to the hard points under the wing, it would give you close to 2,000gal of slurry. WAY more than a SEAT could deliver. It could be an awesome thing...
Thanks for all the detailed info by the way!

Maybe I just want this to happen so bad because I think the Thunderbolt is such an awesome kick-@$$ plane !!
(Chuck is that you?)

I was thinking you'd need greater capacity than that.  I guess I'm used to seeing C-130's and heavy-lift choppers used for firefighting that I didn't think there'd be sufficient capacity.  I stand corrected

Glad to be able to provide the added info

I wouldn't mind flying one of those A-10's myself!  I have a PowerPoint slideshow somewhere of some that came back from action all shot up from action in Afghanistan.  And the amazing thing is, they came in safe, and were repaired, and set back out!  One of the planes I saw had it's wings and tail pretty shot up, with half a tail just gone, and it made it back!   Pretty damn impressive!

[Mike]

  wow...

If you find the pictures, please post on or two in here.
I'd like to see that.

[Ted_Stryker]

wow...

If you find the pictures, please post on or two in here.
I'd like to see that.

You got it  

[Ted_Stryker]

Some of the A-10 photos.... still haven't found the ones with the greatest damage, but this gives you a great idea about how tough that plane is!

These pictures are from 2003 in the fight against Iraq.

[Ted_Stryker]

Ok... now... here is something that is also ultra-cool...

Anyone for a super-secret "Blackstar" ?

Too bad it's destined for the museums at some point in the next 10 years or so.  I guess the CIA, NSA, NRO, and DIA will have to get those SR-71's out of mothballs again!

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/030606p1.xml

[Mike]

WOAH !!!!  
That explains why these A-10 pilots live every day like it's their last!
They are intense people let me tell you. (watch out if you go party with them because they know how to party)

This is amazing!!