Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Popular culture

This page could use one of those but for some reason I cant edit it? Heres a few things

• A-10's were seen in the movie Jarhead multiple times and most of all the friendly fire scene.
• A-10 LGB and Maverik armed aircraft can be use in the game Operation Flashpoint, GOTY and Elite for Xbox.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace keeper II (talk • contribs)

Popular culture sections aren't very useful unless the reference itself defines the subject (for instance, the Swingline stapler from Office Space). Otherwise, they're just dumping ground for bored teenagers to add random movie sightings. Chris Cunningham 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

↑Excellent point. Couldn't have said it better myself. –Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What about at least mentioning computer games and documentaries about the Hog? I remember Sierra had a A-10 simulation once in their program, the A-10 has also a very good model in Lock-on. A plain: "Hey I have seen it in a movie for 0.25 seconds" list is not really useful, but a section about the media with focus on the A-10 could be good and useful. 134.169.36.49 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Simulators can be OK if the A-10 is the only aircraft featured or the main one. Games and such where the A-10 is one of many are not significant and notable. See WP:MILMOS#POP for policy on this. -Fnlayson 13:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Errors????

It has been a while since I flew the Hog, but 180 knots??? Not in my lifetime, unless you are talking IAS at high altitude. Corner velocity is 325 KIAS. We operated at 250 KIAS when low level off of established low level routes due to FAA regs, but when on LLRs, it would be 300 - 325 KIAS.

As for gun firing rate, I know there have been osme mods, but it used to be slectable 2100 or 4200 rounds per minute. TCarraway 08:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My copy of the flight manual says that TO 1A-10-1059 deleted the "low" setting and changed the firing rate to a fixed setting of 3900 rounds per minute. Paul Koning 01:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• It'd be good if you could use that manual or something else to reference the firing rate. I've seen editors change from 4200 rd/min to 3900 and back again. I've left that alone since I didn't know for sure which was right. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Paul Koning 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Paul, I noticed that you adjusted the number of Mk82s from 10 to 18 with the max speed remaining at 450 knots. Could you double check whether that is what the manual really says or is there a different max speed for the two load-outs? Given the added weight and drag, I’d expect a lower top speed than for the 10-bomb load. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting. I did check carefully and that's what it says. There are some differences between the two cases: the 18 bomb load has limitations on stick deflection while the 10 bomb load does not.

I wonder if it might be interesting to give some details about the loading charts, or if that's going into deeper detail than is appropriate. Paul Koning 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! Sometimes it is easy to lose track when several changes are being made. Not having the manual to examine, I can't say whether there might be something worth working into the text, but I doubt that something like a section devoted to loadings is needed. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 00:31, 3 October 2007

(UTC)

Carrier based?

Can these guys land/take off on a carrier? Seeing their limited range, it would be hard to get to the core of Iraq without a friendly airbase ( which I doubt they had ) without a carrier somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.158.176 (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the A-10 is not carrier-capable. These aren't deep-strike aircraft either, so long range isn't usually needed. They are designed to operate from austere forward bases close to the front lines. Also, remeber the US military relies heavily on aerial refueling. Even carrier aircraft refuel at least once, and often 2 or 3 times, per sortie. This was especially true during operations in Afghanistan, which is several hundred miles inland.

As to range, remember the CAS figures are for a 250nm "radius" (one-way, then up to almost a 2-hour loiter time, 10 minutes in combat, and 250nm back to the base. The A-10 is very fuel efficient compared to jet fighters, even modern ones. It's designed to be based close to the action so it can get there quickly when called upon, and to loiter around for hours if needed, depending on how far it is from the forward bases.

Finally, there USMC uses the Harrier II for CAS work, and those are carrier-capable, tho they hardly ever operart from the supercarriers as they don't need catapults or arresting gear. They operate regularly from the Navy's amphibious assault ships for these types of missions, and then put to shore from small airstrips and pads to be even closer. - BillCJ (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Maximum / VNE

How come maximum speed is 833 km/h and never exceed speed is 832 km/h? I guess it's wrong. Marcos [Tupungato] (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• They are both listed at 450 knots, so neither is automatically wrong. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect unit conversion

From the article, Design/Weapons Systems (bold for emphasis here):

The gun is accurate as well, being capable of placing 80% of its shots within a 40-foot- (12.4 meter-) wide circle from a distance of 4,000 feet (1,800 meters) while the aircraft is in flight.[17] A two-second burst, therefore, will on average result in about 100 hits on a tank-sized target. The GAU-8 is optimized for slant range of 4,000 feet (1,800 m) with the A-10 in a 30 degree dive.[18]

1800 meters is almost 50% more than 4000 feet, so something is seems amiss here. I don't have access to either of the two books referenced so I can't check the actual citation.

• 1800 meters = 5905 feet
• 1220 meters = 4000 feet

-- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 05:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

4,000 feet (1,800 meters) is actually in the Sweetman (1987) source, so something is definitely not accurate here. It's on two separate pages, and is also in the 2000 edition. I'll put a verify source tag in untile we can verify which is correct: the feet or the meters. - BillCJ (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Jenkins A-10 book (ref 18) only lists the optimized slant range of 4,000 feet without the conversion. I copied the metric conversion from the other sentence without checking. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Because the Jenkins book only lists 4,000 ft & this is a US product, this looks to be an incorrect conversion to meters. So I changed the other 1,800 m to 1,220 m. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames

The entire "Nickname" section looks like it was written by someone with no connection to the people who actually flew it, and is based on pure speculation. The section needs a complete rewrite. It currently cites no sources.

Lineage of the "hog" attack jet nicknames:

In an interview of an A-10 pilot on The Discovery Wings Channel (now The Military Channel) I saw a few years ago, the pilot stated with authority the origin of the "Wart Hog" nickname. He stated it is a direct descendant of the "hog" nicknames given to previous Republic Aircraft Corporation "Thunder" series jet fighter bombers by their USAF pilots and the ground crews who maintained them (i.e. "the community"). He stated the Republic F-84 Thunderjet/Thunderstreak was the first jet fighter bomber to receive "hog" as one of its popular derogatory nicknames. This is confirmed on the F-84 Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-84

He stated that when the Republic F-105 Thunderchief was introduced into USAF service, replacing the older F-84, the aforementioned "community" nicknamed the new Republic fighter bomber the "Ultra Hog", paying homage to the F-84 "hog" nickname. He stated the "Ultra" addition was due to the much greater performance, newer avionics technology, etc, built into the new Republic plane. The Wikipedia F-105 page states "Hyper Hog" as one of the F-105's nicknames:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-105

I've never heard that one, and the pilot in the interview didn't mention it. However, I would assume that both "Hyper Hog" and "Ultra Hog" were used by various people as nicknames for the F-105. Since these are nicknames, and from my human experience individuals often come up with their own unique variations on existing nicknames, it seems plausible that there may have been any number of prefix-"hog" nickname variations applied to the F-105.

He stated that when the USAF attack "community" received the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, they nicknamed it "Wart Hog", again paying homage to the earlier Republic Thunder series fighter bombers. He stated that the origin of the "Wart" addition was for the simple, SINGLE reason that it was an "ugly" airplane. He didn't state any specific parts of the plane as being ugly, but that the WHOLE aircraft was simply ugly--ugly by the then current aesthetic standard for fighter aircraft of the day. "Sleek was sexy, and the A-10 was anything but!", is a direct quote from the pilot in that television episode. I'll never forget it.

I don't have any method of citing that episode I saw on Discovery Wings Channel, and I've not see what I just described above in print either in books or aviation magazine articles, so I can't cite a print reference at this time. However, given that I can state the source of my information, and that there are "hog" nickname references on both the F-84 and F-105 Wikipedia pages, what I state here is backed up by the other articles. I suggest that a trusted Wikipedia editor review the information I have presented here, and wholesale replace the current "Nickname" section with something like this:

"The A-10A Thunderbolt II received its popular nickname 'WartHog' from the pilots and crews of the USAF attack squadrons who flew and maintained this unique aircraft. The A-10 was the last in the line of successful Republic 'Thunder' series of attack aircraft to serve with the USAF. The Republic F-84 Thunderjet had been previously nicknamed the "Hog" and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief tagged with variations such as "Ultra Hog" and "Hyper Hog". After seeing this new attack aircraft and its purpose built shape, being the antithesis of sleek and sexy, and after witnessing the massive firepower of its GAU/8A cannon, the pilots and crews adopted the name 'WartHog'. This nickname was chosen for two reasons. It paid homage to the 'hog' nicknames of the previous Thunder series attack aircraft. It also conjured the image of the African wild pig of the same name and this animal's defining attributes of aggressiveness and ugliness." 69.155.191.69 (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

• I've got a book that supports the Warthog nickname at least. Nicknames for the F-84 and F-105 were there before, but was removed because that was not really related and it caused people to keep adding non-notable nicknames. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am confident in the information I have, and I already made the edit. The F-84 and F-105 reference are definitely related. That is the factual reason why the A-10 was given a "hog" nickname. One would be hard pressed to find an aviation book that does not have a reference to the nickname Warthog applied to the A-10. I can cite some of those references to the Warthog nickname. I've not found a book to date that actually ties all the Republic "Hog" nicknames together, showing the lineage. I'll go ahead and cite a reference with the Warthog nickname. I have the book right here. BTW, I'm surprised how quickly you responded! Wow. 69.155.191.69 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

• The way you connected the Hog nicknames is good. That is similar to what my Jenkins book says, I believe. Will look tonight after I get home. There was different and only tangently related F-84/105 info before. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never created a citation before so it may take me a while to hack through it and get the format correct. Just in case I screw it up, here is the source: The Complete Encyclopedia Of World Aircraft, General Editors Paul Eden and Soph Moeng, publisher Barnes & Noble Inc, ISBN 0-7607-3432-1, Copyright 2002 Aerospace Publishing Ltd 69.155.191.69 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

I just fired off an email to John Horner. He is an A-10 pilot and the son of Gen. Chuck Horner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Horner. I'm hoping he'll be able to provide the most accurate information and a referenced source for the origin of the Warthog nickname. And, hopefully he may decide to lend a hand in just making sure all the info on this A-10 page is as accurate as possible. 69.155.191.69 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

Nice edit Fnlayson. The manner in which you laid down the "hog" history pretty much eliminates the need for the rest of my text after your citation. What I have written is the correct history of why/how the nickname was originally adopted. However, we've been unable to, up to this point, find a text to cite that lays out the fine detail of the rather simple logic involved in the nicknaming of the A-10.

The way you've written it, the reader can somewhat easily infer the association to the ugly warthog pig merely by looking at the pictures of the various planes in the Thunder series and seeing the dramatic aesthetic differences amongst the F-84/F-105/A-10, the F-84 and 105 being of sleek aerodynamic lines, the A-10 the opposite of sleek. We can cite the fact that "Warthog" is the nickname of the A-10. We just can't cite the exact "why" of the nickname origin. For now, we can leave it to the reader to connect the dots on his/her own.

The exact quote in the book "The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft" I mentioned earlier is "Warthog is a nickname that has stuck with the A-10, largely as a result of its awkward looks". This doesn't state the origin of the nickname, but that it's still the main nickname used after 'some length of time'. I don't like that wording and would rather not cite it. The word "awkward" implies lack of balance, coordination, and the opposite of "nimble" or "agile". The A-10 is both nimble and agile. The warthog pig is not awkward, but a very agile and nimble (and aggressive) mammal which is one of the reasons it's such a dangerous a hazard to humans that accidentally cross its path in the wild. I understand why that author used the word "awkward", but it is not an accurate descriptive term for the A-10.

I'm going to edit again and remove all of my text following your citation mark as it is mostly redundant due to your fantastic edit, and because we can't cite a reference for it at this time. Also, I'm going to change tense ("was" to "is") in a place or two. The reason being that the A-10 is still in active service and will be for some time to come. The F-84 and F-105 should be referenced in the past tense as they have both long been retired. The A-10 should be reference in the present tense, as of 2008.

If/when we obtain a source that connects all the dots we can modify the article and cite it at that point. P.S. I love the fact that you laid all of it out so well, and with far fewer words than I did. I reads much more easily and conveys all the necessary information. I guess that's why you're the main editor!  ;) Again, you've done a very nice job. 69.155.191.69 (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

Good deal and thanks Stan. I write brief, too brief sometimes. I was going to let that text about why it was named Warthog go for a while. A little wording on why would be good backed by a reference of course. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't received a response from John Horner. It could be that the email address I have for him is no longer valid. I do not personally know him, but obtained his contact info from a "hawg driver" website managed by another A-10 pilot. I will continue my efforts by I can't give an ETA on when I might obtain the source we need. 69.155.191.69 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

Stall speed / Landing speed

I cannot find stall speed or landing speed values for this aircraft anywhere on the internet. Is this parametr known for this aircraft? Anyone can provide the value and cite the source? --BIS Ondrej (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Found one at http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_052a.html - in the article now --BIS Ondrej (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

More battle damaged A-10s

http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/home.htm This site has pictures of A-10's that were damaged and field repaired during the 1991 Gulf War. One had the complete right wing replaced and another, flown by Captain Paul Johnson, lost part of the right wing leading edge (with extensive internal damage), a long strip of upper wing skin plus damage to the center wing section and the right engine disabled. The right wing and center wing were replaced, other damage repaired, and the aircraft returned to service. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3205 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

References and punctuation

It is not true that reference citations always go after full stops or other punctuation. Nature (journal) places references before any punctuation, but Chicago Manual of Style erroneously recommends placing them after punctuation (see also Wikipedia:References#Placement and punctuation). What happens here is that some people follow Nature's convention while others follow Chicago's. However, these two conventions are not equal, but one is correct while the other leads to ambiguity, and the reason is that when you place references after punctuation you create a barrier separating the reference from the sentence to which the citation is attached, and it is possible that some readers may perceive the reference as being attached to the next sentence (since it is perceived as being a logical part of it, as it is separated by the previous sentence by punctuation).

See here:

Trees breath air(ref). Earthquakes happen.

The above is unambiguous since the reference is attached to the first sentence.

Trees breath air.(ref) Earthquakes happen.

Now this is not unambiguous. The reader sees two sentences with a full stop separating them, and they see a reference at the beginning of the second sentence. Some readers could assume that the reference supports the fact that earthquakes happen.

Thus, just like Oxford comma, placing a reference before full stops or other punctuation helps to remove ambiguity and help all readers understand to which sentence the reference is attached, and in this way this style is inclusive as it tends to accomodate all readers, regardless of whether they are familiar with citation style or not. However, placing a reference after punctuation (especially after full stops) is exclusive, as this style assumes that the reader should be familiar with citation styles and aware of the way Chicago style works (while Nature's style does not need the reader to be aware of it as it unambiguously keeps references within identifiable sentences).

With the above in mind, I would like to see the article adopting Nature (journal)'s style and let the reference citations be displayed before punctuations in order to improve clarity. NerdyNSK (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Punctuation and WP:CITE.

Wikipedia has a specific way of punctuating and citing.

Good thoughts, but misplaced. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{03:24, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

More specifically, WP:CITE#Placement and punctuation.

...and to say "Chicago Manual of Style erroneously recommends" is a personal opinion and by no means definitive.

To each their own... This is our Wikipedia's. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{03:32, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

WP:REFPUNC says: "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is normally placed immediately after any punctuation, except for dashes, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides.[1][2] Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it". This means that Wikipedia's manual of style currently recommends the use of Chicago's style, but recognises the existence of Nature's style and specifically provides a procedure (consensus) for the migration of existing articles from one style to the other. It is this migration procedure, clearly detailed in the manual of style, that I am now initiating, ie trying to show why Nature's style is better and reaching consensus in order to migrate the article from a style which I see as ambiguous to another which I see as better. NerdyNSK (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - interrupting punctuation to add reference links is very awkward-looking to me, and I'd be happy for this article to continue to use the existing style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much kills the consensus idea.

Not to mention the spirit of WP:OSE (which is consistency across articles) recommends the current arrangement;

most articles across Wikipedia use this form.

Nice thought, but not today. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{12:38, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Opposed I don't see the value added in making the cite style or ref/punctuation changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Same here, two years ago, the other format was much more in vogue, but the use of citations after punctuation is much "cleaner" and allows the reader to see the entire passage without an intrusive break. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

My revert of 71.158.181.131

I just reverted 9 edit sessions by User:71.158.181.131 with the rollback feature. As these were not vandalous edits, I need to explain the problems with his edits. Many were defintely qestionable, and some involved the insertion of non-encyclopedic parenthetical comments. None of these additions were sourced in anyway, and thus I did a wholesale revert, rather than trying to sort through the myriad changes made. I honestly don't believe any on f the edits made were an improvement. - BillCJ (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's a lot of background and early history to the A-X program. It'd be easy for that area of the article to grow immensely without controlling it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The background and history could be quite interesting. Would it make sense to create a separate A-X program article? sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1 mile vs 5 miles

Haxxploits (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Hey guys... the range on the GAU-8 is 5 miles... why does it keep getting changed back to 1?

Because you're changing a cited statement on accuracy. If you have a reliable published source for 5 miles, cite it. Otherwise, your change is original reserach, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. - BillCJ (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the source, and you were right: It's not one mile, it's 4,000 feet! The original source states "5mil, 80%", and distance is actually 4,000 ft, which is not a mile. The source also gives radius of the circle as 20 feet, which is 40 ft wide. I've made corrections from the original 1987 edition (top of page 46) which the cite is from, and the 2000 edition has the exact same figures (top of page 44). Someone else will have to explain what a "mil" is, as I have no idea. I do think I saw a discussions this week about a similar confusion between "mil" and "mile", but can't remember where. (Was that you, Jeff?) - BillCJ (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• That was from an edit summary of mine. A mil short for milliradian. That's a small unit of angular measure (FYI: 1 degree = 17.45 milliradians). My A-10 Warbird Tech book talks about the cannon's accuracy in mils (think of a cone). The accuracy is heavily related to the targeting system (LASTE) and the system's calibration. It says the sighting software is based on 1 type of round (1998 publish date). Fnlayson (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, the 4000 ft distance is not the cannon's max range. That is the distance it is optimized for. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it as is now, it looks fine. Except the CEP number is a bit misleading. The GAU'll put the rounds into a 20' circle; it won't necessarily be the 20' around the aimpoint. Go figure. Trekphiler (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the original source is talking about +5mil correction in a computing gunsight. As you start the gun run, you can dial in a 'mil' correction in the sight which will allow for greater or lesser aimpoint correction (read 'change') in the gunsight 'pipper' which will change the strike point. If the source used -5mil, it would be lower deflection. I am working from a PC that has search disabled, and so cannot provide cites, but this seems to make sense.Foamking (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the paint job?

The A-10 is the only U.S. military aircraft I can think of that has in the past had such a distinctive paint job? I know that not all A-10's have the maw of teeth, but when I was a kid that was the thing that got me to like the A-10. Do only certain units and flight wings paint the teeth on the front. Does the military allow pilots to paint they're aircraft? Why is the A-10 the only modern aircraft that seems to have custom nose art?--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The A-10 is an National Guard aircraft now, and they allow a bit of leeway in their schemes. If you check source material for the A-10 in USAF colors, you will find them mostly in plain green or a slate gray color scheme.Foamking (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Channel wing effect lawsuit

This discussion was suggested by the summary for the edit that reverted:

Willard Custer, inventor of the channel wing, also claimed that the engine intake position enhances lift by increasing the air flow over the top surface of the wing.

Does anyone know more specifics of the court and/or case number for the lawsuit between Mr. Custer and Fairchild over the A-10's design? The brief mentions on the web lack detailed discussion about the aerodynamic effects of the engine inlets on the A-10's wing and lift. Tim Wright's article "That Extra Little Lift" in Air & Space Magazine 2007-05-01 discusses Bob Englar's more modern research on the principle. If the A-10's lift is also enhanced by the engine inlet positioning, then that would be one more remarkable design innovation for this outstanding airplane.

Regarding the InterWiki links: even though Willard Custer invented the channel wing in Maryland, only the German language version of Wikipedia has articles about him and the channel wing; they have not yet been translated. Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cross-sectional drawing

It's still too small to be readable without opening the image. Koalorka (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Change to Variant list

Under the 'Variants' section, I intend to modify the list. As I understand it, the 2-seat trainer was SUPPOSED to be called the A-10B, but it was never built. The 2-seat version that was built (A-10 N/AW) is a prototype of the Night/Adverse Weather version. Note that these are NOT the same thing.

I'll look for my sources to back up my position before changing the Variant list. LP-mn (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/301-400/walk369_NAW_A-10/walk369.htm
• http://www.vectorsite.net/ava10_1.html
• http://www.tankkiller.com/photos/owl/index.html

• http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3206

Type	Number built/ converted	Remarks
YA-10A	2	A-X CAS prototype
A-10A	6	Pre-production A-10
A-10A	707	Production A-10
N/AW A-10	1 (cv)	Night/Adverse Weather prototype (rebuild of S/N 73-1664)
YA-10B	-	Trainer proposal, canceled
OA-10A	?	Observer Version {citation needed}

Note that there is no mention of the "OA-10A Single-seat forward air control version." from the nationalmuseum.af.mil source material. I don't have an explanation for this.

LP-mn (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) LP-mn (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) LP-mn (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC) LP-mn (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The YA-10B was a modified A-10A. The content is already cited in the Development section. No production version was ever ordered. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're in error. There never was a YA-10B built, even though the Edwards Airforce Base Museum does incorrectly label the airplane (http://www.afftcmuseum.com/ya-10b_38.html), it was a prototype that was converted into the N/AW version. This version never made it into production. The KEY difference is that the YA-10B was supposed to have been a trainer. THAT version never even had it's prototype built. See above references (or possibly the book by Campbell). LP-mn (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I stated modified above, not built. It was built/rebuilt from an A-10A. Will adjust article text to clarify that. I read Campbell's book. It generally does not get into the aircraft details like this. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And I stand corrected. I did mean to refer to an early prototype that was rebuilt as a N/AW (S/N 73-1664). Page 125-126 of Campbell refers to the N/AW, but other sites on the Web do a better discussion of the events, esp. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3206.

I'm 'wikify-ed', or formated cleaning up the above table for the above data (derived from www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3206). That information can probably be used in the main article. LP-mn (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I'm having trouble centering the Number Built/Converted column. LP-mn (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I'll insert the table into the 'Variant' list section, and leave editing the text up to you, Fnlayson. Is that OK by you?
LP-mn (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The OA-10 is a redesignation for some A-10s and is covered in a couple places in the article. Not sure the table is really needed, but I'm not against it. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am against the table, esp since the list is not that long to begin with, per Wikipedia:When to use tables#When tables are inappropriate. - BillCJ (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hum, I thought the table was to be in addition to the variant list that was there, not instead of. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture (2)

There should be a "in popular culture/media" section. The A-10 practically has a speaking role in Terminator Salvation. It's in every other shot! Scott Free (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Su-25 x A-10 Thunderbolt II

We must compare the Su-25 and A-10 Thunderbolt II. The A-10 was sold, until 1980 decade, only to the USAF and sells only used for other users, whyle the Su-25 is in production since 1970 decade until today and was sold (new) to many countries. The A-10 Thunderbolt II is better, but it was more expensive and bigger than the Su-25.Agre22 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Key West Agreement of 1948/Pace-Finletter MOU 1952

Shouldn't there be some metion of the USA Key West Agreement of 1948 in the article? This agreement basically said that the Air Force would get control of fixed-wind aircraft carrying offensive weapons, while the Army was limited to rotary-wing aircraft carrying offensive weapons. This explains why the Army has not been able to field a fixed-wing anti-tank aircraft, such as the A-10; and why the Air Force was given an aircraft that it really did not want, prefering fighter/attack planes such as the F-4, F-15 and F-16. With the Air Force wanting to replace the A-10 with the F-35, there could be an argument between the Air Force and the Army if the F-35 will suit the Army's needs for close-air support, the way the F-35 is supposed to serve the needs of the Air Force, Marines and Navy. In 1990, the Congress talked about transferring the A-10 to the Army and the Marines, but, the Air Force agreed to keep the A-10 in service. Since the Air Force is planning to replace the A-10 with the F-35 in 2025, the Army might feel that they should be able to field their own fixed-wing close-air support aircraft; the same way the Marines have their aircraft and are not dependent on the Navy for air support.204.80.61.110 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Another document that basically said that the Army could have attack helicopters, but, not fixed-wing, close-air support aircraft was the Pace-Finletter MOU 1952. This agreement, which expanded upon the earlier 1948 Key West Agreement, has kept the Army from having their own fixed-wing aircraft with offensive weapons, (unlike the US Marines), and kept the Army dependent upon the Air Force for that type of airplane. This was a big problem in Vietnam, where the F-4 Phantom II just wasn't very good in the CAS role. It could be a very big problem in the future, if the F-35 replaces the A-10 and a fighter/attack, multi-mission plane just isn't as good in the close air support role as aircraft designed from the beginning to be a CAS anti-tank plane.204.80.61.110 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Thunderbolt and lightning (image)

If you can get past that pun, I have a great image for your use, if anyone wants it: http://militarytimes.com/frontline/index.php?date=2009/10/23, high-res: http://www.whiteman.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/091020-F-2616H-001.jpg. Use {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The image is on Commons at File:A-10s lightning bolts.jpg now. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Improvements needed

Currently this article is not B-class and not ready for GA review. It has several paragraphs that need referencing. I've started on this, but probably do not have sources to cover the color schemes/markings and some other detailed content. Reword or remove text as needed to cite. Help where you can on this. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Making progress. Thanks Nigel. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Full referenced

This article is referenced thoroughly now. This has taken a couple years with the efforts of several editors. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, fixed one DAB link to firewall. My spell checker set on US spelling is saying that redesignated should be re-designated (with a dash), it picked nothing else up. Might be some non-breaking spaces missing, no biggie. My only other thought is that there are either too many images or they need spreading around, two section headers are displaced due to images in my browser (Firefox) and the text is 'sandwiched' between pictures in places, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it just has too many images, many cannon ones. I'll try spreading them out first, then maybe remove some. I thought US spelling did not use a dash after 're'. I'm not sure. Will have to check.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's picking it up in both 'languages'!! I did wonder if there was a better image for the infobox but it does seem to be the best one available, I know it has been shuffled a few times already. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary reckons no dash: redesignate. Happy with that, spell checker needs an update!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thunderbolt crash in Germany of 1988

I don't know if anybody of you ever heard about it, but on December 8th of 1988, one of two A-10s in a drill for low altitude flight crashed into a house, killed 6 people and injured 50 more. Someone could add that... for those of you speaking German, here's a link about the crash and its consequences: http://www.betrachter.de/flugzeugabsturz-in-remscheid/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.106.249 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One could add at least a interwiki link to this article: 1988 Remscheid A-10 crash. That said, today, another A-10 crashed in the Eifel, near the city of Laufeld (related article; in German).--Jack-ONeill55 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to the article (that I wrote a few years ago) under 'See also' today The Seventh Taylor (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

External copyvio

Just a note to potential reviewers: having looked over the history of the article, it appears that this external site is using Wikipedia's material and not the other way around. The giveaway is the Rudel mention, which has existed in this article in various forms but was inserted in its current format in this edit. Note that if it had been copy/pasted from an external source it probably wouldn't have misspelled "its". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the issue that the external site is not identifying its source material as from Wikipedia? It seems that there is a preponderance of Internet sites that use Wikipedia information but in nearly all cases, there is either a link to the original Wikipedia article or a clearly stated note indicating that it is a derivative of the original Wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Chris C identified that the fiddlersgreen.net site copied this article. Therefore this article is not violating that site's copyright. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. It is problematic that the site in question is not fulfilling its GFDL/CC obligations, but in practice this isn't something which I believe requires the involvement of WP's legal counsel at this time. The more important issue is that the article is not speedy failed for GA (and that parts of it are not summarily deleted) due to a mistaken assumption that parts of it were copied from an external reference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That site (fiddlersgreen.net) puts up a lot of text sent to members via email and I can see that for expediency, they simply find information and "slap it onto the 'net." I do find it disingenuous that their website is copywrit while they have possibly purloined the wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

The statement "Input on the design was later provided by famed World War II attack pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel" with a reference to Coram's book page 235 is not right.

According to Coram p.235, "Sprey insisted that everyone on the A-X project read Stuka Pilot, Rudel's wartime biography..."

So Rudel's input was passive, rather than actively solicited as is implied. 85.211.33.242 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It is corrected now. I thought this had been fixed before. -fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

is that confirmed? i read in several sources rudel was asked in person about his ideas for it. (and it is probably in wikipedia, on rudel, stuka and perhaps a few more) also the machine was initially meant to attack large scale tank offensives but actually went on to be used against way softer targets usually. interesting cus it shows weapons are allways used also for what they are not meant ..80.57.108.47 (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A-10 Armor penetration rating

The stated armor penetration in the wiki article is in error. While the 23mm round is a 'real' Russian round, just the A-10's windscreen glass canopy is resistant to armor piercing rounds up to 23mm. But the tub armor itself is resistant up to 37mm, and some 57mm. Cite: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/a-10/a-10.htm I made an edit, but that edit was also in error. I'll instead let the one who rightly reversed my edit and directed me to the talk channels fix the original content. 184.12.132.209 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The article text already mentions the bathtub armor was tested up to 57 mm. None of this is related to the 25 mm rating in your edit though. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, my previous edit was in error. The snippet I'm specifically talking about reads: "The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.", when in fact it should read: "The canopy glass alone has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire, while the 'tub' armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 37 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds". In all honesty, I'm not familiar with how to properly format the citations, so I figured I'd leave that to someone else. Just correcting information. 184.12.132.209 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The text is based on several books. The bathtub 23 mm/57 mm wording is covered by 2 book references. These are more reliable sources than milavia.net, which looks to have little or no peer review. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And likewise, peer review on the book sources is impossible, considering that they're both un-named and so absurdly obscure that no one could possibly verify the information within. 184.12.132.209 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10.htm [This looks like the info src from the Milavia.net] 184.12.132.83 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Don't read too much into the unknown, a simple check of their reference section should tell us something instead of you doing the guesswork. From the looks of it, both could have gotten their data from the same source. That much I can tell. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

DCS: A-10C in notable appearances in media

I think the DCS: A-10C Warthog flight simulator game may be notable enough for inclusion in the notable appearances in media section. The game has a very impressive amount of detail, realism and a 600+ page manual. Take a look at the game's website. Thoughts anyone? SCΛRECROW 04:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardly considered notable; nearly all gameboy, fanboy and cruft entries are routinely culled. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

A-10 replacement by the F-35?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as this section is no longer helping to improve this article per WP:TPNO, WP:NOTFORUM, etc.

---

Can we get a source on the quote "The A-10 is expected to be replaced by the F-35 in 2028 or later." near the top of the article? As far as I know, these are two aircraft which serve entirely different functions (Multi-Role, as opposed to close air support). 69.40.32.64 (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The replacement part is cited in the article at the bottom of the Operational history section (current ref. #15) and does not need to be cited again in the Intro per WP:Lead. Admittedly the reference is 3 years old and plans can change. But that's the most recent thing on what will replace the A-10. I have not seen anything official on the Air Force changing to some other replacement aircraft. Too far out, I guess... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want more (and newer) sources, you've got some here (Wired), and again here (New York Times), and even more here (Business Week). -SidewinderX (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not checked media outlets like those. By official, I meant from the DoD, Air Force or maybe the Air Force Assoc. The F-35 is to replace the A-10, but won't be a true replacement, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no, it won't. While the F-35 might technically be replacing the A-10, I bet we'll find that UAVs will do most of the work. Nothing like an airplane that can orbit over the battlefield for 12 or 24 or 36 hours, just waiting for someone to ask for help. -SidewinderX (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Most probably. And hopefully each is armed with a cannon too. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, it seems the US air force is trying to do with the F-35 what was attempted with the M14. They're trying to replace everything with one weapon. Doesn't seem to me like it will work out too well, given the previous track record for such attempts (The FG-42 wasn't a good 'multi-role' weapon either) 69.40.32.64 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That has been going on for years. The USA military often tries to do too much with one weapon, (a "one size fits all" idea). Look what happened in the Korean War, when the F/P-51 Mustang (with it's liquid-cooled engine) was used in the close air support role, while F/P-47 Thunderbolt (with it's air-cooled engine) was left back in the states. Many F-51 Mustangs were shot out of the sky by ground-based anti-aircraft weapons. Something, the durable F-47 Thunderbolts probably would have survived in greater numbers, just as they did in WWII. The way to solve the problem of the Air Force wanting to replace the A-10 with the multi-mission F-35 is to transfer the A-10 to the US Army (similar to the Marines who have their own mix of fixed-wing and rotatary-wing attack planes) and bring an end to the Key West agreement of 1948. The Air Force had wanted to replace the A-10 with F/A-16 (an F-16 with a 30mm gun pod attached), and that was shown to be a bad idea by the NY Air Force National Guard in Desert Storm (1991). "The more things change, the more they stay the same". 204.80.61.110 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Stupid ideia from some F-35 fanboy. The A-10 is subsonic, have large wings, armour and etc with a purpose, purpose that you cannot fill with a supersonic ligth figther. One F-35 doing the job of a A-10 is like one corvette trying to do the job of a truck.200.189.118.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-10 Warthog could serve until 2040

Here is a link that states that the A-10 Warthog might be serving until 2040.[[1]]. The longer the unique, designed from the ground up for the mission of close air support, A-10 Warthog serves, the better as far as I am concerned. Replacing the A-10 with the F-35 is bad an idea as the plan of replacing the A-10 with the A-16 was. Keep the A-10 flying until it cannot fly anymore, like the A/B-26 Invader, the B-52, and the C-130.204.80.61.110 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Production range in infobox

The production field in the infobox is currently 1972–1984, and is tagged as citation needed. The final production aircraft was delivered in 1984, which is cited to globalsecurity in the body of the article, or more precisely 20 March 1984 according to p308 of Michell, Simon (1994). Jane's Civil and Military Aircraft Upgrades 1994–1995. Coulsdon, UK: Jane's Information Group. ISBN 0-7106-1208-7., which seems to clear up when production ended, but WHEN DID IT BEGIN? Is it 19725, when the first prototype flew, 1973, when the A-10 won the compition and was ordered into production, or 1975, when the first production aircraft flew?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not think there was anything on end of production in the article. I have a couple of books on the A-10 and they do not cover the end of production. So I have nothing to cite that with. I would expect the prototypes to be included in the date range (~1972) unless something else is specified. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

F-35B no longer going to replace the A-10?

The Air Force version of the F-35 is the A variant, was this a poorly written article by the author or was the Air Force trying to replace the A-10 with the much less capable STOVL F-35B? 152.1.97.167 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Staton Grimes, August 30, 2012

? Why would you replace a tank-destroyer with a prime interceptor aircraft? Two diff planes with two different missions.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The F-35B is hardly an interceptor, and it's not really capable in most of its roles against single-mission types. The F-35 is sorta the Swiss Army knife of weapons systems, but has a kind of dull edge. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC).

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is armed with a GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm caliber cannon that weighs 560 kg (1,230 lb) fully loaded.
Rate of fire: 3,300 rounds per minute
Muzzle velocity: 1,000 m/s (3,280 ft/s)
Projectile weight: 215 grams (7.6 oz)
Carries 180 rounds.

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is armed with a GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm caliber cannon that weighs 1,828 kg (4,029 lb) fully loaded.
Rate of fire: 4,200 rounds per minute
Muzzle velocity 1,070 m/s (3,500 ft/s)
Projectile weight: 425 grams (15.0 oz).
Carries 1,174 rounds.

While the F-35B, being a STOVL aircraft can hover, it uses a lot of fuel to do so. and it cannot perform the maneuver that the A10 was designed for: the steep dive firing down at a tank's thinner top armor. Because of the wide wings and the Decelerons, it can dive with minimal acceleration. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your argument that the A-10 is a far superior ground attack platform is spot on. I don't know of anyone who disputes this. But I would like to point out that the cartridge/ballistics data you provided for the GAU-8 are inaccurate, higher than actual, probably copied from another wikipedia page which is also inaccurate. First, the PGU-14 DU projectile is 395g, not 425g. The GAU-8 certainly cannot push a 425g projectile to 3,500 ft/s as suggestd above. It would require too much powder and the chamber pressure would be too high resulting in bolt/carrier and barrel damage.

ATK and GD-OTS are the two primary DOD contractors producing 30x173 and 25x137 ammunition. Following are ATK's cartridge data for their PGU-14 and PGU-13, and GD-OTS' cartridge data for their PGU-20 and MK-2 MPT-SD. As you can see the muzzle velocities for the GAU-8 are some 5% lower than the figure quoted above, and are for 395g and 378g projectiles, not 425g. And you can also clearly see that the MV for 25mm MPT-SD is significantly higher than the PGU-13 of the GAU-8.

GAU-8/A
PGU-14 API - 3323 ft/s (1013 m/s)
PGU-13 HEI - 3346 ft/s (1020 m/s)

GAU-22/A
PGU-20 API - 3280 ft/s (1000 m/s)
MK2 MPT-SD - 3608 ft/s (1100 m/s)

http://www.atk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/AS-GAU-8A.pdf
http://www.gd-ots.com/download/25mm%20MK2%20MPT-SD.pdf
http://www.gd-ots.com/download/25mm%20PGU-20%20API.pdf

A 5% difference in MV of the A-10 rounds will yield no difference in ballistics and terminal performance with these large projectiles, and in fact the production contract allows for a variance of up to 3% per lot produced. So why am I making an issue of this? Because external ballistics performance is being used above in an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of the A-10/GAU-8 platform over the F-35/GAU-22 platform. Of course it is supperior. But ballistics simply cannot demonstrate the advantage. Especially when the 25mm HE cartridge is some 250+ fps faster than the 30mm, and the fact that the primary ground targets the F-35 will engage will be soft or lightly armored targets--if it even engages ground targets with its gun system, which will be very unlikely.

Hardwarefreak (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

115th Fighter Wing

The 115th Fighter Wing at Truax Field, Madison WI Air National Guard had the A-10 from 1981-1992. The transition was made to the F-16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebat 8 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? - BilCat (talk)

HMCS vs HMIT?

Are these two competing systems, a specific system vs a general category, or two names for the same gizmo? Hcobb (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A-X Program

The article states that the YA-10 was produced in Hagerstown, MD, and implies that all 715 production aircraft were produced there. This is incorrect. All of the A-10 production aircraft wee produced in the Fairchild Republic facility in Farmingdale, (LI) NY, located on the Farmingdale airport. Due to FAA restrictions regarding congested airspace and population density at that location, the wing and fuselage for each aircraft was mounted on a special flatbed and trucked to the Fairchild Republic facility in Hagerstown, MD, where the wing and fuselage wre mated and the aircraft then flown for acceptance by the Air Force Plant Representative pilots. To erroneously state that the aircraft was "produced in Hagerstown, MD" does a disservice to the hundreds of engineers, manufacturing and administrative personnel at the Farmingdale facility that designed and produced one of the truly exceptional aircraft in U. S. Air Force history.70.210.3.194 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)R.E. Boyd, rebob0865@gmail.com, 19 May, 201370.210.3.194 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)<ref. Personal experience>

sequestration of excuse

The USAF is using sequestration as their latest excuse, so why remove that? As the article reads currently it's just business as usual and drop the A-10 without any excuse for it. Hcobb (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

guarding rather than guiding?

The sentence "It also has a secondary mission, where it provides airborne forward air control, guiding other aircraft against ground targets." doesn't work (for me at least...) shouldn't it be "guarding" rather than "guiding" or if not that, then "around" rather than "against". Or if it is, in fact, guiding other aircraft maybe it could be re-written to "guiding other aircraft in attacks against ground targets."

I am sorry if it is terminology or lingo I am not familiar with, but the sentence sort of jumped out at me...

I am sorry if this is in the wrong place or formatted incorrectly, as I am new to editing and talk pages. Please forgive me, however I did read the guidelines and will try to adhere to them. AreThree (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)AreThree

Fair question, and this is the proper place for it. The Forward air control page should help. the text is says it guides or directs other aircraft in attacks on ground targets. Not sure how else to states this. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I see the text that you are talking about, and the way you put it "it guides or directs other aircraft in attacks on ground targets" seems to be clearer and maybe the text I pointed out should be replaced with what you said? The way it is now seems a bit like jargon to me, or the use of the words "guiding ... against" doesn't seem to fit or explain what that is. I wouldn't want to change the article itself; I am too new to presume that I know better as I am not an expert in the topic, or in the English language, and was just "passing by" the page. Thank you for your help! AreThree (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• That wording was adjusted to be more like my post above. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for editing that, it reads much better and is easier to understand. I really do appreciate your help and now - emboldened by my experience here, I shall perhaps wade deeper into the waters of editing articles (but only ones of which I have some knowledge!) Thanks again! AreThree (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Climate of intimidation notable?

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/c653cd18a834

Is the campaign to gut the warthog really any different from standard USAF culture? Is it even worth a note here? Hcobb (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Templates and edits

I recently cleaned up the Hardpoints template of the Armaments section because the last person to edit it didn't understand, nor bother to figure out, how the template works. It now looks as it should. I also edited the Combat Radius section because what existed didn't work with the template, and still doesn't. This template seems to be designed for only two values, a primary and an alternate. We're attempting to shove 3 values into it and it's not working. The evidence is the extra right parenthesis and missing space preceding "sea-level". I made 3 attempts at fixing it but only got close. I need to find template and figure out how to make this work.

Why did someone remove my formatting that made an aligned column list of the "Loaded weight" data? Presenting the 3 weights in a colum makes it easier for the reader to see the differences. This is common sense. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would remove that. I'm going to revert it back to the colum format I created. Before you change it again, discuss it here. This is precisely why the talk page exists.

The last thing I'd like to mention is that there is no such thing as an "anti-armor" mission, it's simply an "armor" mission. When the mission target is a bridge, bunker, or SCUD launcher, these missions are not called "anti-bridge", "anti-bunker", or "anti-SCUD". Adding the word "anti" is superfluous. It's literally the same as adding "target-" in front of these. Immediately after my edit removing "anti-" everywhere it preceded "armor" in the Specifications section, someone went back and added it in. Yes, many books including Jane's et al use this phrase. But it is simply incorrect, superfluous, redundant, etc. Before you add it back, discuss it here. Hardwarefreak (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Anti-armor looks to be more common and more clear to readers who may not be familiar with the terminology. Google searches turns up 76.5 hits for "anti-armor mission" and 9.75K hits "armor mission". -Fnlayson (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A-10 v. Russian tanks in Iraq?

I find it curious that, for an aircraft designed primarily for lethality against Russian tanks, this article doesn't convey much about its effectiveness in doing that beyond a brief mention of its destroying "more than 900" presumably modern Soviet-era tanks in Iraq during the first Gulf War (see the "Gulf War and Balkans" section of "Operational history" about a third of the way through the article). It could also use greater focus on, and a precise specification of, its survivability in the twenty-first-century MANPADS era.

I bet at least a few Wikipedia readers in The Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are very curious about its tank-killing record about now and might like to know more .... BLZebubba (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Design team

No mention of Alexander Kartveli, its Georgian designer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.214.146 (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Thunderbolt, I think.--172.190.41.54 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. Wrong Thunderbolt. Alexander Kartveli designed the P-47 Thunderbolt. He was 73 years old in 1970, retired for many years, when the USAF issued its detailed RFP for A-X. The Wikipedia article on Kartveli lists the A-10 as one of his "projects", which is simply not true. It's possible, even likely, that Fairchild put Kartveli's name on some of the A-10 documents to pay homage to him and the Thunderbolt heritage, but he was not involved in the A-10 project. Hardwarefreak (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No. That isn't quite correct. Most likely the A-10 Thunderbolt isn't listed in that article for no reason. Apparently Alexander Kartveli resigned from Republic Aviation in 1962 and continued working for Fairchild Hiller from 1964 till he died in 1974. [2] [3] I once read somewhere that he literaly died while he was drawing another sketch for an aircraft. Maybe it wasn't all just homage but he in fact could have been involved in creating early concepts. There is only very limited information unvealed from archives so far and some old newspaper articles and information on his engagements with aircraft can be partialy found here on the internet but it seems he was engaged in many different projects of the US airforce and also NASA. He worked as consultant on aircraft design for Fairchild. So him being involved in early conceopts and development process of the A-10 Thunderbolt is nothing far fetched at all. This is rather a very interesting story and should be investigated further. If decicive or not, if he was working for Fairchild his presence had an impact on the development of the A-10 in any case. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Engine nacelle angle

In section "Durability" one can read the following sentence: The engines are angled upward by nine degrees to cancel out the nose-down pitching moment they would otherwise generate due to being mounted above the aerodynamic center of the aircraft. I believe this sentence is at least confusing, but more likely wrong. The engines are behind the center of mass of the aircraft, thus their upward angle would actually increase the "nose-down" torque. If one takes a look at the inboard profile drawing one can guess a different explanation: the axis of the engine intake and the axis of the exhaust are not parallel. So the air that flows through the engine changes its velocity in an upward direction (also its speed), hence gaining momentum in an upward direction by exerting a downward force on the engine. Since the engine is behind the center of mass it results in a torque that lifts the nose of the plane. So far this is not sufficient to explain the upward angle of the nacelle, since a parallel engine with an upward angled exhaust would also work. The reason for choosing a nacelle at an upward angle and a more or less parallel exhaust (maybe bit upward directed exhaust? - hard to tell from the drawing)is probably to reduce variation of pitching torque due to changes of engine thrust.* --AemonN (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AemonN (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• On second thought - the angle of the engine might be a compromise in pitching torque variation due to thrust and thrust alignment with the direction of flight.--AemonN (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The nacelle is tilted up at its front, as is the body of the engine, but the exhaust--and therefore the thrust, obviously--is angled up at what looks to me, from the engineering drawing I'm looking at, to be angled up at pretty much the same angle as the intake end of the nacelle is tilted up. I'm guessing that the only reason for the nacelle angle is because it takes advantage of the cleanest possible airflow over the wing and into the intake, but that's just a guess.173.62.11.8 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Too long and excessively detailed ..." [summary-section] tag is unfounded

A few among the coterie of self-appointed guardians of the material at hand keep taking upon themselves the restoration of the baseless "Too long ..." tag. I don't find it too long nor do I find it excessively detailed; if anything it's too short from previous hack-jobs. As it is the section is pretty much the minimum amount of text required to lay out the issues and timeline at hand regarding the future of the weapon system that is the article's subject. Such information bears directly on the system's future existence; because of its relevance this material needs to be laid out in the body of the article.

Of course if subject at hand were merely an obsolete, historical aircraft then yes, I might say that describing the particulars of the irreversible demise of such a fleet of planes would be distractive, tedious and boring, but that isn't the case here.

If you find the section too long to comprehend, don't read it; others like myself who are interested in the geopolitics that weapons systems affect appreciate the (rather modest) detail and timeline and decision factors at play. It's not as if it obfuscates anything in the rest of the article - in fact it makes much of the rather tedious acronym-laden previous text more relevant. To remove or, as is more typical with the attempts at censorship disguised as editing in Wikipedia, to threaten emasculation of highly relevant material that hasn't been stated elsewhere is to potentially render the article less informative and relevant; now what would be the point of that?

Inserting a "Too long ..." tag without first putting up for discussion any alleged evidence behind it is to engage in literary goonship masquerading as editing. Since no one has discussed, much less credibly justified, the placement of this tag, I'm removing it and request that it not be replaced until a case for it has been made without objection.

Funny, but no one threatens to remove the footnotes because they're "too long and excessively detailed" (though they're far longer and more detailed than the material at hand). That's because any reasonable person finding such lengthy and important documentation to be too long and detailed can just skip over it; so too can they with the material at hand.

Leaving be lengthy, detailed but relevant and factual material is preferable to censorship. We're not trying to recreate a Hemingway short story for print here; we're writing a factual report, and the material at issue is the whole reason the previous detailed and lengthy material is worth reading: there's an impending societal decision that will be based on it, and the text at issue informs and brings that discussion to a head.BLZebubba (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The tag only asks for for the text to be summarized, not removed/censored. The "Proposed retirement" subsection is very long and and almost as long as the service history text. This is out of balance and seems to give undue weight to an event that is only being discussed at this point. Also, Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a News service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The 'Proposed retirement' section is the very definition of WP:RECENTISM - Why should A-10 in 2013-2014 get ten times the total coverage given to the A-10 in the fifteen years beforehand? More detail can, and should be, given to the previous operational history, but its plain out of balance to be quoting full verse from every two-bit source that pops out as they happen on this issue. I've lost count of the number of times content was added that was repeating that which had already been said and explained in vast (probably excessive!) detail above; it was often just being lazily throw in without care. This isn't a news bulletin, not every news article coming out has been saying something unique/notable. There's no valid reason for there to be such a gargartian section on the politics of its retirement, dwarfing the coverage given to not one, not two, not even three, but separate 'five wars across 25 years: I cannot name one reason that ratio to be valid, yet that's how it stands in the article right now, hence why it needs cutting down. Some of it is barely notable, and some won't be notable in the long term (which is the perspective we're supposed to be writing in). Finally, multiple separate editors have been reinstating this tag, its hardly a narrow point of view. Kyteto (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your "... ten times the total coverage given to the A-10 in the fifteen years beforehand" is grossly inaccurate. But so what if it wasn't? The viability of this weapon system for the future is at least as worthy of reading as its historical performance. And where in Wikipedia's editing rules does it say that discussion of the proposed retirement of an aircraft must only be in proportion to what's already been said about the aircraft's historical use (however inadequately or melodramatically)? There's virtually nothing in the "Proposed retirement" section that's been said elsewhere in the article. I question if you understand the relevance of what's being said in this section and why it's being reported therein. Weapon systems exist only to fill a military need, and the future of that need is at least as worthy of discussion as the weapon system itself.

While I agree that much in this section may not be noteworthy in the long run, it can be removed when the time comes i.e. when the system's retirement occurs, but for now the dates and developments noted in this section are relevant to a depiction of whether it's a current viable weapon system that's being described or an obsolete one. BLZebubba (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

":::Your "... ten times the total coverage given to the A-10 in the fifteen years beforehand" is grossly inaccurate." On my screen, we currently have about ten lines of text dedicated to the Iraq, Afghan, and Libyan wars; or roughly three lines of text for a whole war. That's compared with in excess of 40 lines dedicated to the last six months of sensationalist announcements, proclaimiations, claims and counter-claims on the A-10's prospective future; a fairly trivial topic compared with its actual war service. Why should a whole war get three lines or less, but a single person's political wrangling alone on the retirement issue receive more coverage? It's simply not balanced or fair coverage. The A-10 was set to be cut and replaced with the A-16, a variant of the F-16, why should that solid retirement and replacement plan (aborted in the 1990s) get 1/50th of the coverage of what amounts of a huge amount of hot air over (right now) no definitive plan at all? Kyteto (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps lengthen the other sections or subdivide this section then? I found the details here a valuable resource and would have found the article significantly less valuable with an abbreviated section.107.5.194.31 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed retirement chapter, another try

I fully agree that the current chapter is highly excessive. An encyclopedia article doesn't need to document every proposal and counter-proposal, because, as already said, it's not a news aggregator. In encyclopedic sense, discussing this weapon's future doesn't mean copying the actual public discussion (most of which is hot air) - there are other websites devoted to that. Instead, I propose the following summary (I'm putting it here for discussion because it's a big change):

Proposed retirement (click "show" to read)

The future of the A-10's service is currently uncertain, and the fleet is being slowly reduced. First plans to replace it completely with more versatile aircraft, such as the close air support version of the F-16, date back to 1980s, but were abandoned for the risk of jeopardizing tactical readiness of the US Army. There are currently two main lines within the USAF concerning this question: top commanders wish to retire the fleet completely, which would enable reallocating the budget to other projects, particularly the multi-purpose Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter, which is to replace the A-10 in the close air support role. They are opposed by lower-ranking officers with support of congressmen from states where the Warthogs are stationed, which emphasize its efficiency and reliability. They maintain that the A-10 is currently irreplaceable in its role. Critics of the retirement plan also point out that the F-35's cost is already enormous and still rising, with the plane still unable to generate the same number of sorties as the A-10. The long battle in the US Congress over the years resulted in numerous proposals about the future of the A-10, ranging from extending its service life until 2028 and further, to immediate reduction of the fleet by almost a third. In November 2013, 320 Warthogs had been in active use, with the their number being slowly reduced to 283 until the end of 2016. A recent proposal for additional retirements has been rejected for the fiscal year 2015.

Opinions? Note also that grammar needs to be polished, because I'm not a native speaker, I translated this from the text I wrote for :slwiki. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the middle ground proposals point out that some airframes have been recently refurbished so I wouldn't leave that out. Hcobb (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't find many of those (but I didn't really look too hard), you're welcome to add. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/March%202014/March%2012%202014/A-10-Rewinging-Continues.aspx “If we did divest the A-10 fleet, obviously we would start with the ones that haven’t had new [wings] put on them,” Fanning said.

Seems to be a hazard of jumping into a major edit without doing the research. Hcobb (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, re-winging appears to be an argument on both sides - "why retire the plane if we're making this effort" vs. "cancelling the refurbishment would mean additional savings". Consequently, it's of secondary importance to tactical issues. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The point of the debate is that some of the work has already been done, hence keep a portion of the fleet. Hcobb (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It probably goes without saying that the ones not yet upgraded will be retired first (either according to the current plan or an accelerated one), but according to what I read, some high commanders want to boot the entire fleet at once anyway - the upgrade is not far along and is way behind schedule, so cutting the losses wouldn't be so financially horrible, at least not compared to savings. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we include a mention of how the USAF has cheated on this test? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/critics-accuse-air-force-manipulating-data-support-10-retirement/ Hcobb (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of hot air I'd want to avoid in a summary. Perhaps later, if it turns out to be a crucial factor in the final decision. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the current situation: reduction in fleet numbers to 283 aircraft is happening now, with no relation to the retirement debate, and maintaining its service life until 2028 was a prediction before all of this, so it is not a current alternative proposal. The Air Force is trying to retire the entire A-10 fleet starting in the next fiscal year (FY 2015), and despite all the committee proposals and draft bill passages, it will not be certain until the FY 2015 Defense Authorization Act is passed and signed. According to [4] and [5], they determined that keeping the small number of re-winged planes and retiring all the rest would not save enough, and the additional savings from cancelling the wing upgrades for the rest increases savings from $3.7 billion to $4.2 billion. It is true that the A-10 has faced this argument to be replaced with fighter-bombers before, but the last time that happened Wikipedia wasn't around, so this time all information coming out has a place to go. That probably is getting to be a little excessive. It all depends on what is decided: if arguments to retire prevail, most of the information here is needed to explain the course of events; if some way is found to keep it in service for another decade or so, it will all be irrelevant and be reduced to a footnote; if some plan puts off the decision another year, we'll be back here arguing how much writing we need until another significant decision is made. Keep in mind the retirement section was a lot longer, but it was shortened before to what the first three-quarters of paragraphs are now. America789 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The section was shortened significantly, yes, but is still way too long. Again, not every action and counter-action needs to be reported, because Wikipedia is a collection of information, but not all information - we don't have to copy the whole public debate, we should summarize. Saying that the USAF is actively trying to retire the whole fleet for financial reasons is more than enough for now, and even if their plan goes through, it will be enough to state key events and decision makers. As it is, the section looks more like a news aggregating service. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We defiantly don't need a running commentary on draft propositions coming through Congress; we can report on them when they actually firm up - there's literally dozens of drafts, many of which would normally end up in the trash can, on a topic; if something concrete is decided or published it becomes a lot more relevant to being on this page. But we cannot cover every draft, every interpretation of a budget proposal, or the absence of any information on the subject within agiven draft; it's entirely normal for drafts to lack information on certain aspects or events as the party behind the draft might be waiting for input from other groups or individuals, or for a consensus to emerge. Hence why we shouldn't be trying to make conclusions on draft proposals and banter in article space; there's no rush, we can wait for solid events and facts to emerge. The phrase "mountain out of a molehill", and the policy WP:NOTNEWS, both come to mind. Kyteto (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Keeping the A-10 flying by grounding the USAF

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/20/house-votes-to-block-a-10-retirement/

The point here is that James is complaining that the A-10 funding is coming at the expense of USAF readiness, which just took a big hit in the last year. Hcobb (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, that's not what she complained about at all - she was asking that, if this aircraft is funded, that the funding please not be diverted from readiness - there is no proclamation anywhere that the funding was to come from readiness. While I can see that bigger picture being linked to this, it's a little excessive to cover all the potential cuts due to USAF budget restrictions on the A-10 article - there are dozens if not hundreds of what-ifs on what could and couldn't be lost. It seems like it'd probably best suited to an article more focused on USAF budget issues or something similar. I cannot see one person's suggestion of where budget cuts to the USAF budget should not fall as being particularly pertinent here - regardless of how the section has become so morbidly obese as it is. Kyteto (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

USAF "cherry-picked" details about collateral damage

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II&action=historysubmit&diff=646972229&oldid=646505407

No reason was given for this deletion. A mistaken cut? Hcobb (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative Fuels

In any discussion of the use of alternative fuels, it would be appropriate to mention that with all petroleum based fuels such as diesel fuel, kerosene, and jet fuel, the btu per gallon is in the 140,000 range. When alcohol/methanol/ethanol fuels are proposed, the dramatically reduced btu range from 65,000 to 90,000 would mean that combustion fuel nozzles might need to be increased in diameter to assure the same level of performance. During the periods of alcohol fuel use, the range of the plane would be reduced as full tanks would be carrying fewer btu.

2015 Redeployed to Europe in light of Ukraine conflict

As I had heard there was some talk of retirement I was a bit surprised to read that the A-10 was being redeployed to Europe to counter fears of a Russian invasion. Here is the link: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-10s-return-to-europe-to-stare-down-russia-20a0d902bd86

Not sure if this is the page to mention it, or where it would be mentioned in this article. So I leave it to those more familiar with the topic.

Wowaconia (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Which era was the A-10's predecessor, the A-1 from? Korea or ww2?

The A-1 was developed, designed, and flew in ww2. That would seem to indicate that it's a ww2 airplane. Should this article describe the A-1 as ww2 era or korean war era, the korean war starting ~5 years later in 1950.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the Douglas A-1 Skyraider article, the first production aircraft, as opposed to prototypes, was delivered to a combat squadron in December 1946. Prototypes did indeed fly while WWII was still ongoing, but it didn't see combat in that war (in fact, "flew in WWII" seems something of a stretch when it only flew a couple of thousand miles away from the closest enemy); describing it as a Korean War-era plane, where it indeed was heavily used, thus seems appropriate. Huon (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems like it was a ww2 era design that underwent it's baptism by fire in the next war. By design it was a holdover from ww2, and not an airplane of the '50s. The pace of development of airplanes at that time was frantic. A difference of 4-5 years was enormous. While germany had jets in ww2, korea may have, for instance, been the start of the jet era. I wouldn't, for instance, say that the jet mig-15, introduced in 1949 was from the same era as the A-1.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the hits I'm getting on google are saying korean or vietnam era. Ah well.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Reason Given For Engine Tilt

The "Durability" section makes the following statement:

"The engines are angled upward by nine degrees to cancel out the nose-down pitching moment

they would otherwise generate due to being mounted above the aircraft's center of gravity,

avoiding the need to trim the control surfaces against the force."

The engines are located above the mass-center (Mc), so if the engines were aligned horizontally, the closest approach of the thrust line would be directly above the Mc, and forward thrust would generate a nose-down pitching moment equal to thrust times the vertical offset, consistent with the current statement (and apparently based upon the following reference).

• Bell, Dana. A-10 Warthog in Detail & Scale, Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: TAB Books, 1986. ISBN 0-8168-5030-5.

Since the engines are also *aft* of the Mc, rotating them upward would move the point of closest approach between the thrust line and the Mc to be farther aft, but also to be of greater magnitude, which would tend to *increase* the nose-down pitching moment. In fact, if the engines were rotated up to be perpendicular to the Mc, the moment arm would be at its maximum, which would be the actual distance between the Mc and the engines. The article says that the engines were tilted upward in order to *decrease* the tendency for increased thrust to cause a nose-down pitching moment.

That statement was puzzling for a while, but obviously the plane was manufactured with just such a tilt to the engines, and done so for a reason.

The cause of the *reduced* nose down effect is likely due to entrainment of air that impinges on the horizontal tail, which is located aft and below the engines. The downward flow over the horizontal tail caused by increased flow through the engines associated with increased thrust would tend to counteract the thrust-induced nose-down pitching moment, which is just what is stated in the article although no explanation is given in the article.

I have not read the reference, nor do I plan to purchase the book in order to get access. The way the article reads right now (WRT the engine tilt and the pitching moment) seems to be absolutely correct. The thing that is missing is an explanation as to why the engine tilt reduces the nose-down moment even though the increased lever-arm for the thrust line would tend to have the exact opposite effect.

So, I would like to see the explanation included, but I've had that comment reverted (2015-04-14), so the text may still be puzzling to the next person who reads it without taking into account the proximity of the horizontal tail. The proposed wording is the following:

"The engines are angled upward by nine degrees to increase entrained downward flow

on the horizontal tail in order to cancel out the nose-down pitching moment they would

otherwise generate due to being mounted above the aircraft's center of gravity, avoiding

the need to trim the control surfaces against the force."

PoqVaUSA (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do have that book, but in a quick scan I can't find the statement that's quoted. I did notice that the photos and drawings show that the engine centerline slants down towards the tail. But in addition, the exhaust nozzle points downward. So it isn't clear to me if the angle being discussed is that of the engine centerline -- which indeed seems to be counterintuitive -- or the nozzle -- which seems just what you'd expect to produce a nose-down effect.

Also, while your proposed wording sounds plausible, do you have a citation for it? I don't think it would be appropriate without a reference to support it. Paul Koning (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I am an aerospace engineer by profession. For engines aft of the Mass Center, in the absence of interference with the horizontal tail, tilting the engines so that the inlets rotate upward increases the offset of the thrust line from the Mass Center and therefore increases the nose-down pitching moment as engine thrust is increased. That is a matter of physics. Cite God as a reference if you want to, I don't know what else to say, unless the citation is a high school or freshman college physics book.

The thing that makes the situation different for the A-10 is most likely the impingement of the engine exhaust on the horizontal tail. The thrust line is strongly influenced by the net direction of the accelerated flow. That is why thrust vectoring works, because the exhaust (but not the entire engine) is deflected to align opposite the direction of the desired force. Instead of being angled downward in the aft direction, the horizontal tail would redirect the exhaust more directly aft, and therefore more in line with the Mass Center.

The arrangement of having the engine exhaust impinge on the horizontal tail means that the A-10 can have engines mounted above the Mass Center, but avoid the consequent nose-down pitching moment by having the horizontal tail redirect the exhaust in a more aft direction, i.e. putting the thrust line more in line with the Mass Center and thereby reducing the thrust-induced pitching moment.

The current wording is confusing to anyone with a basic understanding of physics. The missing element is the impingement of the exhaust on the horizontal tail. I suppose not many people would be concerned about that anyway, so why should I try to 'fix it'? Leave it however you want to. I really don't care.

PoqVaUSA (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "impinge" is probably too strong a word. It would seem to be a bad idea to point hot engine exhaust directly at an aircraft structure, unless that structure were designed to take the heat, which would make it heavy. Certainly engine nozzles are designed to take the heat. The hot core is probably aligned above the horizontal tail. However, the proximity of the tail, and the free-stream air flow over the horizontal tail, would tend to redirect the air entrained by the engine exhaust. The free-stream flow over the horizontal tail would also provide some buffering against the core flow, and provide some active cooling of the surface while in flight. The A-10 would still need to be able to taxi without melting it's tail off, so that would be one design point for consideration when tilting the engines.

The basic physics of the pitching moment still apply. All I can say for certain is that the current article, as written, doesn't tell the full story on the engine tilt vs. pitching moment. It would be good to find some comments written at the time of the engine tilt design in order to get a more complete story. The source that talks about the tilt would be a good place to start to track that down. That by itself may have sufficient background, if read for understanding.

PoqVaUSA (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I have often wondered how the angle of the engines helps offset a downward pitching moment. Logic would indicate that the engine angle would increase a downward pitch. Seeing A-10s operate at airshows myself, I assumed the engines were angled to decrease an upward pitch tendency until reading this article. You're right, it needs to be fixed. I'm not logged in, and as you say, I don't know a source that would explain it other than a basic physics or aeronautical text. Cheers and good luck. Jororo05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)