Talk:A-10 Thunderbolt II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(comments)

Contents

[edit] ROEs under Clinton

The part about the Clinton administration being paranoid seems rather NPOV. Perhaps it should be removed? Berrik

Agreed with Berrik. Also it may be noted that for instance Swedish UN soldisrs on the ground benefited from having the A-10's available on call. The intimidating power of airborne support is quite good when the other side does not know what the ROE are for the planes. --J-Star 11:21, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I agree that the current phrasing may be more POV than required, but I don't agree with complete removal; that restrictive ROE limited the plane's usefulness in that conflict may well be true. We should probably do what we normally should do when expressing a point of view: find someone who said that and quote them. —Morven 18:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Fire

The article mentions two friendly fire incidents. However, I remember another; two A-10s attacked a refugee camp (with UN guards) on the border of Albania, in front of TV cameras. However, I don't remember any detals. --Ahruman 2005-04-04

[edit] Deletion revert

An anon removed large chunks of this article for no reason that I could see. I reverted that deletion since the information that was removed was correct as far as I am aware and appropriate for inclusion in the article. Kelly Martin 03:33, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

___________________________-

Does anyone have copyright free pictures of the HUD area that show the two meters on either side of the screen? I believe that design is a problem unique to the A10 and is responsible for crashes including Captain Button's.

You can reach me at http://VisionAndPsychosis.Net. The related material is on the Captain Button page.

[edit] Gun picture

That doesn't do justice to the gun. There's nothing for a size comparison.

You look at the picture, and you think "cool, it's a 7-barrel gatling gun". It looks like any common 50-caliber gun... except that it's a huge beast of a gun. The face of that thing is about as big as a human head, but from the picture you might guess it to be only 3 inches (7cm) across. The picture might as well be the gun of an Apache; it looks no bigger without something to compare against.

The ammo is crazy big too. The bullets are about 4 inches long, or about 12 inches when you include the casing.

BTW, the length of the gun should be mentioned. According to my fading memory, the gun is 23 feet long. It runs the length of the plane.

24.110.60.225 05:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the gun and its ammo drum is bigger than a Volkswagon Beetle. I've got a picture of it next to a VW but I'm not sure about the copyright laws. David Ayton 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture I was refering to is actually shown on the Avenger's own page. GAU-8 Avenger David Ayton 12:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with 24, the 50 cal on the thunderbolt is huge, it is one uber big gun. there definitely needs to be a comparison, i suggest going to a museum and getting a picture taken with an object that we would find large, maybe a hand or something so we can see that the gun is one big gun. Zeetoboy 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Any size comparison for the cannon should go in the GAU-8 article not here. It's caliber is 30 mm not 0.50 in. -Fnlayson 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Anybody that has a good size comparison photo, please do add it to the GAU-8 article, but puh-leez be careful with any claims you make in the text concerning relative size. I had to edit out some text that said that the gun filled half the aircraft fuselage and was a third the weight of the empty aircraft; those claims completely ignored the sizes and weights given in the GAU-8 article and this article as well. --Molon Labe 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development history

So we have half a page on A-10 in video games and not a single word on its design and development history? What gives? There is plenty to tell about the engineering innovations and the political obstacles (e.g. the flyoff against A-7). The A-10 is a bit too new for my interests but perhaps someone would be up to the task? - Emt147 Burninate! 07:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed up a bit. Guapovia 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a start. Thanks for your help! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television, films and video games

This section needs to be seriously trimmed. This is an article about an aircraft, not about computer games. The information like movie scene summaries and what attacks computer game units can do is totally irrelevant to the A-10. I will move the entire section out to a separate page unless there's a good reason for it to stay. Anyone? - Emt147 Burninate! 05:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I take the total lack of responses to be a consensus. The pop culture stuff was moved to A-10 Thunderbolt II in popular culture. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need information source of "whispering death" nickname

"The A-10 has received several nicknames from its enemies. In the first Gulf war 1991, captured Iraqi tankcrews called it: "Whispering Death" (a nickname that has also been attributed to the WW2 Bristol Beaufighter). In the 2003 defeat of conventional Iraqi forces, captured Fedayeens referred to the A-10 as "the Devil's Cross" a name that was also used for it in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising (1986). Captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters referred to it as 'the silent gun'. The rounds hit their target before the target heard the report of the gunfire" Is there a valid source for what it appears to be politically incorrect propaganda?, i mean we know that in middle east they are somewhat backwards, but to be as backwards to call a plane "whispering death"?... its not like they would call a train iron horse either.

I highly suspect that this is propaganda or soldier stories. The name "whispering death" has been attributed to Corsair and Beaufighter as well and AFAIK there is no historical evidence whatsoever that it was actually used by the enemies. The same goes for "the Devil's cross," particularly seeing how Tom Clancy used the term 5 years prior and I suspect US servicemen read Clancy more than Taliban fighters. I will pull it until someone can come up with references. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In the first Gulf war 1991, captured Iraqi tankcrews called it: "Whispering Death" (a nickname that has also been attributed to the WW2 Bristol Beaufighter). In the 2003 defeat of conventional Iraqi forces, captured Fedayeens referred to the A-10 as "the Devil's Cross" a name that was also used for it in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising (1986). (pulled text, - Emt147 Burninate! 00:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
I'd heard that 'Whispering Death' was the Nickname the NVA, and VC gave the F-111. I personally doubt that we captured many men in the Gulf Wars who were attacked, because many surrendered before that happened, and many who didn't were just plain dead. LWF 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's one ref that makes the "whispering death" claim: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/iraqifreedom/annasiriyah/default.aspx It doesn't sound insulting or backward to me by the way. I think you are reading too much into it.

One man with no credentials to speak of made an unreferenced and uncited claim, probably because he heard it from someone else. I will revert all "whispering deaths" with a vengeance unless someone can present an actual source for this. It's a myth that has been perpetuated for different aircraft since at least World War II because it sounds cool and makes for a good story. There is no truth that I know of behind it. Beaufighter and Corsair had large non-turbocharged radial engines with straight exhausts. F-111 runs on two massive afterburning turbofans. A-10 again runs on turbofans and has the aerodynamics of a school bus. Whispering my ass. The only airplane I know of from WW2-to-present time period that could be genuinely quiet is a P-38 Lightning at slow cruise because the large turbos very much muffle the engines and the aircraft is aerodynamically clean. And yet, no one ever claimed P-38 to be called that. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the A-10 is one of the quitest aircraft I had worked on in my time in the service... The only time you hear it is when it passed by you. The gun noise is the same way, its quite until after the bullets hit. I am not reverting anything, just pointing out that just because it is a jet aircraft doesn't mean it loud.```` Drew1369 07:58, 17 September 2006

>>Drew. I don't have your background/experience with as many planes, but I MUST say that you sure hear these bad-boys coming. I live close to Willow-Grove Naval Air Station in PA, home to the PANG's 111th Wing of A10s. And believe me....I hear them coming. It's to the point where I know if it's a single plane, a double, or a quad flight. Luckily, they don't do 'live fire' exercises in my area.

Possibly but I was also around f-15 and f-16's as well and the a-10 was music to my ears... like I said it is the quitest bird in the inventory minus the stealth fighter and bomber Drew1369 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Drew. The A-10 is an exceptionally quiet aircraft. And I must add, to the individual who lives near Willow Grove (as opposed to working on them, like myself and Drew), consider this: You may hear the aircraft approaching, but by the time you hear it, you've been within range of it's weapons for quite some time. If it WERE to fire on you, you would more than likely not live long enough to hear the roar of the engines.


  • This quote needs, at the very least, a citation: "Stories of enemies using fearsome nicknames to describe their opponents weapons are sometimes propaganda. For instance, during World War 2, the Allies claimed that Axis soldiers described some of their planes as "whispering death" and "flying porcupine," when in fact it was an invention to obliquely suggest the fearsomeness of Allied weapons." The presence of this paragraph insinuates that such nicknames reported for the A-10 in recent years are just that, propaganda. Unless there is specific evidence suggesting that this may be the case in this instance, I think this paragraph is totally superfluous and should be deleted. Furthermore, I suggest that those purported nicknames be deleted unless and until a reliable source can be found and cited. --Askari Mark | Talk 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I chopped out this phrase: "and its ability to engage targets with supersonic ammunition from distances that preclude hearing the incoming rounds before they impact." This is needless because all fired ammunition is supersonic and hits its target before impact. All bullets, cannon shells etc. travel faster than the speed of sound (332 m/s). You'll never hear a bullet before it hits you, even if it's fired from 20,000 ft. While falling bombs can theoritically be heard, there is no indication they are any quieter coming from an A-10. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.187.154.49 (talk • contribs).
    • Well the sound/round speed differential becomes more prominate at the longer ranges. The GAU-8 has a muzzle velocity of almost 3 times sonic. -Fnlayson 21:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • sighs* *shakes head*

Here's the deal. To the guy who says he hears the A-10s "all the time," you're hearing them operating around an airfield. During DESERT STORM, ENDURING FREEDOM, and IRAQI FREEDOM, the A-10s flew much, much higher than if they were landing or taking off. Additionally, there are usually other things going on (explosions, gunfire, etc.) that would preclude you from hearing the aircraft in its usual operating environment.

Additionally, the sounds you're hearing are of the A-10 landing and taking off, two states in which the engines are operating at higher than normal levels, which makes them louder. I've been in the field with A-10s flying and shooting around me, and you DON'T hear them.

[edit] Picture shift

I am going to shift around some of the pictures around to make this look cleaner, unless anyone has any objections in the next week or so. Cornell Rockey 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. the pictures removed were: Image:Thunderbolt.a10.fairford.arp.jpg & Image:Thunderbolt.a10.closeup.fairford.arp.jpg
Cornell Rockey 14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, it could probably do with more pictures being removed (as long as they’re in the Commons gallery, which all except Image:Thunderbolt_II_flight.jpg and Image:2seatwarthog.jpg seem to be). -Ahruman 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Those two pictures I removed were the least attractive, and I guess I'm partial to more stunning photographs. Honestly, Commons has a ton of A-10 pictures, & I'm tempted to nominate those two for deletion to cut the burden on wiki servers. Cornell Rockey 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Guys, you are much too keen to remove perfectly good photos. Have you realised that the two ground pics are the only two pics of the aircraft on the ground and might well be the sort of pic a reader wants for a project or homework or whatever? Is it up to you to make that judgement? Just present a variety of pics (including ground ones!) and let the reader decide.
To say the reader can go to Commons to see them is not being thoughtful to the reader. We should not force them to change to another site to see pics if the article has plenty of room for them.
There's no reason to put them up for deletion because I've read many times that the pics and text of WP occupy less than the hard drive capacity of a modern home computer. The poor speeds we see on WP are not due to that - Adrian Pingstone 12:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You can directly link to Commons images. If an image is not found on the Wikipedia server, it will look on the Commons server. The format is the same ol' Image tag and it works seamlessly. The nice thing about Commons images is that they are safe from roving vandals like OrphanBot. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No metion of JAAT

There is no metion of JAAT, (joint air attack team), in which attack helicopters and A-10s work together. The attack helicopters shoot at the air defences, and the A-10s attack the ground vehicles. It is supposed to be more effective than the two different aircraft attacking independent of one another. It has also been called JAWS, (joint air weapon system). 204.80.61.10 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Will need a citation or source. I'm not personally familiar so I can't comment on it. --Mmx1 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of joint ops, but that commen military practice to use several different types of aircraft to attack an area or specific objects Drew1369 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable facts.

I removed the following:

Because of this high position of the engines the thrust line would act above the longitudinal aerodynamic axis so to avoid nuisance trimming measures the engine tailpipes are angled at nine degrees upwards bring the combined thrust line down through the centre of gravity.

Just by visual inspection the claim is suspect, and it appears the engines are angled up, not down, to allow the gun to point downwards in level flight. I'd be happy to add it back in if the claim checks out

I said they were angled up. Angling the pipes upward brings the thrust line ahead of the engine down. David Ayton 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I may have been a bit unclear. By visual inspection, the tailpipes are higher than the front of the engines....i.e. angled down; bringing the thrust line up. e.g. [1] Do you mean the tailpipe as in the last portion only, and not the whole aircraft? --Mmx1 04:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the last portion only. The engines as a whole are raised up at the front for several reasons; inference with the wing, reduced risk of FOD, structural necessity. Therefore if the tailpipes where straight the aircraft would always experience a nose down pitching moment, not desirable especially if the pilot is incapacitated. The pipes at the back are angle 9 degrees upward to bring the thrustline ahead of the engine down to where the aircrafts aerodynamic centre is, or at least nearer. I can't remember the source of this information I've taken it from a project I did over a year ago. It may have been "Jane's". I have a picture that I have edited to try and explain this a little clearer. It's not 100% accurate but it explains it a bit better, but for some reason it's not uploading. Hope my explaination is enough. David Ayton 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks right and your explanation sounds reasonable. I'll put it back in or you can. It needs a clearer wording for the article that was previously present. --Mmx1 05:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, cheers, changed the wording a bit, hope it's more understandable. David Ayton 13:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I also removed a claim that the gun is the primary armament of the air craft. While a distinctive feature, I find that a very auspicious claim, particularly today with the guided and ranged ordnance available.

--Mmx1 04:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the A-10 was designed around the GAU-8 (with its armor-piercing DU ammunition). The plane could not carry any guided ordnance other than the self-guided Maverick until the Pave Penny pod was incorporated. The new upgrade to the A-10C standard makes it far more robust. --Askari Mark | Talk 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The pave penny pod is a guidence aid it doesn't designate or guide weapons to targets. The pave penny pod itself is only a laser receiver... not a laser designator which means it requires the laser to be shot from another source like a grunt on the ground or a laser pod like LANTIRN or LIGHTNING from another aircraft. AND the main purpose of the pave penny pod was actually designed to point the plane in the direction and angle of attack to fire the gun at maximum range Drew1369 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

"The A-10 Thunderbolt II was offered to the Pakistan Air Force as part of a package including the F-20. They opted to buy the multirole F-16 instead." This really doesn't say much about the A-10 itself. They could have gone with one plane over two for maintenance reasons, or perhaps they just didn't like the F-20. As such, it seems out of place in the middle of that section. Counterfit 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted that sentence altogether. As it stood it was irrelevant and added nothing to the article. It did not explain why they made this choice, as you point out, and it gives no 'criticism' of aircraft as such. Hydraton31 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


FYI: The Pakistanis' issue was with the F-20, not the A-10. To satisfy arms control advocates, the F-20 and F-16/J79 were developed to be offered to "third-world" countries instead of the most modern capabilities. You can imagine how many countries were enthralled with the idea of receiving only the "second best". Askari Mark | Talk 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightvision

I remember a bit on TV with a pilot telling about how they fixed the lack of night vision / radar capabilities by wiring one of the rockets that did have it so, that, until firing it, they could use its night vision / radar. I'm pretty sure he was talking about either the A-10 or the A-6. If anyone can find anything on that, it might be worth adding it to the article.

They didn't have to "wire" the missile. The AGM-65 with imagining infrared was used as a "Poor Man's FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed)" during DESERT STORM. It wasn't a fix, it was a stop gap.

[edit] Deployments

I am certain that the A-10 has not been deployed to Iraq since the initial invasion in 2003 and maybe a few months after that. They have been doing all of their work in Afghanistan but not Iraq in the last few years. Does anyone have any resources that would back this up. Deployment info is tough to get on the web. Cheers--Looper5920 04:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


The A-10 is still being used in Iraq... very often too! Drew1369 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-10s Stall - they don't come to a halt in mid-air :-)

The Trivia section is a little misleading to someone who is unfamiliar with aircraft. Aircraft don't come to a standstill in midair ... they stall :-) This is due to the Stall Speed of the aircraft. An A-10 would stall at about 80-90Kts, depending on the weight and configuration of the flaps. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaps_%28aircraft%29 . The only aircraft that can hover in mid-air are the Harrier and the V-22 Osprey :-).

  • Yea poor wording. The main point is about the recoil offsetting the thrust. -Fnlayson 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A related legend (I can't verify it) is that there's a pod-mounted 30mm cannon that they tried on the A-10 in addition to the main gun. One was mounted under each wing and it fired at the same time as the main gun. Allegedly, the recoil from three such cannon firing simultaneously caused the A-10 to immediately stall.

[edit] Updated A-10 to be unveiled today

August 18, 2006

Related links 917th Wing/47th Fighter Squadron: www.917wg.afrc.af.mil. Hill Air Force Base, Utah: www.hill.af.mil/main/index.html.

A-10 data sheet at Air Force Web site: www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=70. By John Andrew Prime jprime@gannett.com The A-10, the tough little ground-attack fighter that struck hard in combat in the Persian Gulf and other trouble hot spots this decade and last, will soon get a much-needed upgrade.

Over the next six years, all 356 airplanes in the inventory will be upgraded to the new mark, getting "glass cockpits" that do away with old analog instruments, and gaining state-of-the-art computer and control systems that will allow them to use the most modern and "smart" weapons.

The new A-10C will be unveiled today at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, while the type will first fly Nov. 4 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., according to a release from the Air Force.

"The new designation from A-10A to A-10C represents the largest and most sophisticated modification in the 30-year history of the close air support fighter," the Air Force release said.

Since the local 47th Fighter Squadron trains pilots and isn't a frontline fighting unit any longer, its 21 airplanes will likely be among the last to get the upgrades. But the thought of supercharging the airplanes excites fliers here.

"The most intriguing part is the incorporation of the latest technology, going from instruments of the 1960s and 1970s to something more state-of-the-art," said Col. Ozzie Gorbitz, commander of the 917th Operations Group, part of the Air Force Reserve's 917th Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base.

"The glass in the cockpit and getting rid of round dials will allow us to take advantage of data that's coming through the new targeting pods, and fully integrate these. Overall, we'll have a more capable airframe and will be able to better prosecute the war on terror."

An industry team led by Lockheed Martin developed the upgrades after a request for changes from Air Combat Command. Changes consist of a new cockpit instrument panel with two 5-inch-square multifunction color displays and a new stick-type grip and right throttle to provide fingertip control of aircraft systems and targeting pod functions, the Air Force said.

In addition, six pylon upgrades will allow the new A-10 to employ such advanced weapons as the Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAM, and the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser, WCMD, in addition to current weapons in its arsenal: the Maverick missile, a 30-mm Gatling gun, and laser-guided bombs.

Finally, a new computer called the central interface control unit will manage the airplane's avionics and the integrated Digital Stores Management System, or DSMS, that controls weapons.

Gorbitz, who previously was with the 47th Fighter Squadron and has close to 1,500 flight hours in the A-10, has seen the new cockpit configuration at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.

That will be the prime training location for the A-10C, he said.

"Pilots coming here who have follow-on assignments to the A-10C will continue to train in our A-10s and then will receive 'top-off' training in the A-10C, most likely at Davis Monthan," he said. "We will continue to train A-10 pilots going to units who do not yet have the A-10C."

[edit] Whispering death redux

I removed the entire section (again) and will continue to do so until someone provides a credible verifiable reference. There is nothing whispering about Corsair, Beaufighter, F-111, A-10, or wherever else your fancy takes you. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

Anyone who wants to re-add a claim along the lines of "The real reason" is politely requested to cite a reference. Personal knowledge is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Thanks. - Rogerborg 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Il-2

"The first production A-10 flew in October 1975, and deliveries to the Air Force commenced in March 1976. The A-10A is almost an exact counterpart to the Il-2 Stormovik. The first squadron to use the A-10 went operational in October 1977. "

Huh? Out of place, to say the least.

  • Yep, out of place. The Il-2 is mentioned in the first paragraph in the Origins section already. -Fnlayson 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll remove that sentence since it is covered earlier. -Fnlayson 21:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrade

This link may be of some interest concerning the A 10 upgrade:

[edit] Wing tips

The A-10's downturned wing tips can be seen on close inspection of the first image (1975 one). Just wondering, how long must a wing tip before it is considered a winglet? -Fnlayson 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a source which refers to the A-10's wing tips as "Hoerner wingtips", a word which is listed (but not defined) in the Wing tip article (right above the "winglets" entry). From the pictures, the Warthog's tips look to be no more that 18 inches long, if even a foot. I think most winglets are longer than that, but again that's also just a guess from the pics. Maybe someone with more direct knowledge can help us here. - BillCJ 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the A-10's upward-curling wingtips are Hoerner wingtips. They're intended to reduce induced drag by throwing the tip vortex outward and upward; droop tips are curved down, rather than up, and do mostly the same thing (as well as reduce the ground effect). They are useful Winglets are just like the name suggests — little wings appended upwards or downwards from the wingtips. Unlike the "curled" wingtips, they aren't used to reduce drag but rather to generate a thrust component from the vortex's movement over the airfoil. They are useful on aircraft that routinely fly at high altitude and or at large angles of attack. Askari Mark | Talk 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, as I grow older my "brain farts" are becoming more common. The A-10 has drooping wingtips, not Hoerners; they curl down on the A-10, not up. Sorry for the error, I should know better. Guess I need to eat more seafood. :( Askari Mark Talk 19:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of the function of winglets is just the opposite: that they are there to prevent the formation of drag-inducing wingtip vortices. The air is moving more rapidly over the top of the wing than the bottom, so when the air that moves out over the top of the wing meets the air moving out under the bottom it "curls" over, producing a vortex. Wingtip vortices have the same low-pressure center found in tornadoes and the eye of hurricanes, and this low-pressure zone induces drag through suction.--Molon Labe 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Wingtip device; it states that wingtip devices increase the lift generated at the wingtip, and reduce the lift-induced drag caused by wingtip vortices, improving lift-to-drag ratio. Turning to Wingtip vortices we find the statement "air flows from below the wing and out around the tip to the top of the wing in a circular fashion. This leakage will raise the pressure on top of the wing and lower the overall lift that the wing can produce. It also produces an emergent flow pattern with low pressure in the center surrounded by fast moving air with curved streamlines." So my description of how the drag is induced is incorrect; the drag is presumably not from any suction effect from the low-pressure zone in the center of the vortex, but rather from high-pressure air spilling over the end of the wing to the upper surface, spoiling the lift-inducing low pressure zone above the wing. I also forgot that wingtip vortices curl upward not downward. My bad. --Molon Labe 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheeler-Sack?

Last I knew, there were some A-10s being flown out of Wheeler-Sack near Fort Drum, yet I don't see any mention of it. Is it not a current positioning? I haven't been down that way much recently, so it's quite possible that they've moved them elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RussNelson (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Gun/landing gear

Unusual feature mentioned at GAU-8_Avenger -- the front landing gear are offset to accomodate the large main gun. Is the A-10 the only aircraft that has this feature? And which side?

The gun is offset to port (with the firing barrel, at the starboard-most position, being on the centre line). Presumably then the nosewheel is offset to starboard.
It is true that the gun makes the nosewheel offset to the right [2], and it is also true that it makes the aircraft taxi differently, but I doubt that anyone has bothered to write it down anywhere else (Saying this as a former A-10 mechanic) Guy G Sotomayor, III 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no, NO! The GUN isn't offset, the NOSE GEAR is offset. The gun is on the centerline of the aircraft. Look at the flamin' pictures! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.22.31 (talk • contribs).

Actually, the gun is slightly to the left. It's setup up so tht the firing barrel is on the aircraft centerline while it fires, then the barrel rotates back to the left, as stated above. It's very hard to see this in the pics of the nose in the article. However, if you loosk at this 3-view carefully, you can see in the drawing of the underside that the gun is offest to the left. - BillCJ 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The German Alpha Jet's landing gear are slightly offset and so is the belly mounted gun to accomodate each other ... although that gun actually fires from behind the landing gear. Its quite odd really.

[edit] Battlefiled repairs

http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/ This site shows some A-10's that took amazing damage and made it back to base, to be repaired and returned to battle. Especially incredible is the plane with the entire leading edge of its right wing gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Friendly Fire Incidents

While the statement of Friendly Fire incidents is true, I don't think this belongs in this page in this manner. Something under the guise of "The A-10 has been involved in several prominent friendly fire incidents" and provide references would be sufficient.BQZip01 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems like it is the same as reporting accidents with airliners. Got to cover the bad and good. The incidents could be moved out of that secion and just included in the service history chronologically. What do others think on this? -Fnlayson 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All I'm saying is that it seems out of place and is of almost no note with regards to the aircraft. In war, people die, sometimes through friendly fire. Every weapon system has this problem in war. However, the weapon of choice need not be skewered (I don't see any notes like this on the Maverick page, M-16 page, grenade pages, etc.). That said, the incident and all particulars could (and possibly should) be included in the friendly fire page or its own page (should size warrant it). Heck, I don't care if someone starts a page for the PEOPLE responsible, but don't lambaste an inanimate object.BQZip01 20:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I understand it is a weapon and can be used in the wrong way. I don't haev any better ideas. I'll go along with anything reasonable here. -Fnlayson 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I say we delete it. It is trivial that it was an A-10 that was used and the aircraft and its facts should simply be what they are: facts. If an A-10 was used for something unique or of particular note (such as shooting down a airliner on a diplomatic mission), then it should be included, but these incidents are only noteworthy in the fact that they made page 6 of the New York Times and then were, quick frankly, forgotten. I say remove the note altogether or add it for every weapon system that has caused friendly fire casualties. Thoughts? BQZip01 02:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it. Here's a copy of it.

"Friendly fire" incidents
A-10 pilots have been involved in a number of notorious "friendly fire" incidents. In the Gulf War of 1991 an A-10 attacked two British Army Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles (out of 37 parked up), killing nine soldiers.
During the Iraq War of 2003, two British Scimitar armored reconnaissance vehicles were attacked by an A-10, killing L/Cpl Matty Hull and wounding five comrades.[3] The A-10's gun camera footage of this attack was recently [4]. The A-10 was also involved in a friendly fire incident with a U.S. Marine Amphibious Assault Vehicle at the Battle of Nasiriyah during the opening stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On Monday September 4, 2006, Canadian soldier and former Olympian Pte. Mark Anthony Graham, a member of 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, was killed and more than thirty others wounded after a strafing run from two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts in Afghanistan.[5]

Someone can see what we were discussing there for reference. I turned the Refs into just links here. -Fnlayson 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation for percentage of mavericks fired

Is on this page http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=70

in the background section near bottom of page, if anyone wants/knows how to add.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.169.239.2 (talk • contribs).

  • Got it. Thanks for the help! -Fnlayson 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/-/1/Talk%7EA-10_Thunderbolt_II_5aaf.html"