| Warthog Territory Forums https://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| A-10 Stress a few Q's if I may https://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7098 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Dice-man [ 10 Sep 2004, 09:46 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looking through some of my files I can across the below "New Thunder" news letter showing an "A-10" on a "shake-and-bake" fixture. This raised a few questions in my mind.... 1. When was this airframe built? 2. Was it ever assinged a pre-production/production (tail) number? 3. If no production number would you still consider this an A-10 which would bring the total number of A-10s built to 716? This is just for my info. BTW I still trying to track-down that second two-seater which crashed and was covered-up by the AF...maybe this was it!! <img src=newicons/tard.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/history_files/may1976.JPG" border=0> Ugly But Well Hung |
|
| Author: | Terry [ 12 Sep 2004, 20:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> BTW I still trying to track-down that second two-seater which crashed and was covered-up by the AF...maybe this was it!! <img src=newicons/tard.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle> <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Dice, maybe this is the 2 seater Swordfish is refering to<img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle> http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7120 <img src="http://members.aol.com/a10warthog99/images/signature%202.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | Dice-man [ 13 Sep 2004, 07:34 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The number of two-seater's built comes-up at least a couple of times a year..there are a lot of "wives-tales", "rumors", and just bad info out there on this aircraft! <img src=newicons/tard.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/tard.gif border=0 align=middle> Ugly But Well Hung |
|
| Author: | a10stress [ 13 Sep 2004, 08:16 ] |
| Post subject: | |
That is a picture of the "Fatigue Airplane" as it looked during testing in the Farmingdale, L.I. laboratory. The way those tests work is that hydraulic cylinders apply loads to simulate gravity (g's), lift, drag, thrust, sideload, etc. In that test no thermal changes were included and no vibration either. When it was running you could tell what portion of a flight it was in by the motion and the sounds. During taxi the airframe was motionless and a lot of noise came from the landing gear attachments. For flight conditions, there was quite a bit of bending motion going on, a few feet at the wing tips and a foot at the gun muszzle. The wings bent up ,the fuselage and tail bent down. Rolling conditions bent the fins over. It was also easy to see impact landings (spin-up, spring-back) bending the dummy landing gear fore & aft. All these load conditions were totally balanced by the hydraulic cylinders in a way to the actual thing. There were arranged in a logical sequence called the "Flight by Flight Spectrum". After a few years of testing, the noises from the airframe get pretty loud, but you get used to the normal "groaning". Occasionally, a big bang is heard which also means big trouble for us (the stress analysts). After the test is declared over the airfame is totally disassembled to look for cracks. The jumble of parts is probably taking up space in a landfill if it has not been melted down to make beer cans. The Fatigue airframe was the fourth one assembled. The build sequence for the DT&E program was tail # 731664, 731665, Static, Fatigue, 731666, 731667, 731668, 731669. To my knowledge, there were no "tail numbers" assigned to the ground test airframes. The static (ultimate strength) tests were done in a lab at Wright Patterson in Dayton. I wouldn't consider these test articles another A-10 since they did not have any systems in them, a subset of control surfaces, no engines. They were only structural shells. On the F-22 the first flying airplane, and the first constructed, had the tail number ...4001,. Again the build sequence was 4001, 4002, static, fatigue 4003 etc. Internally, we called static 3999 and fatigue 4000 but I do not think the government assigned those "tail numbers" so you shouldn't see them in any official list. Have you heard about the single seat <b>A-10 cabriolet</b> version that dispensed with the canopy so the pilots could wear goggles and scarves again? It was styled by Ghia and built in the Karmann works in Germany in 1978, a little known fact. THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> "The F-22...It's the poo" |
|
| Author: | Dice-man [ 13 Sep 2004, 09:11 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for the info A-10Stress! I know what you mean about the nosies because I went to Dallis/Fortworth and got to see the "new" wing being tested for the A-10's recertification. They should have 987's body and tail on that fixture now to do the same thing. I will add this to my "body of useless info" on the A-10. <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle> Ugly But Well Hung |
|
| Author: | Smitty216 [ 13 Sep 2004, 22:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I saw the cabrio......what a wonderful top boot it had too. The pilot was also required to have a cigar stub in his maw at all times too I believe ".....leave the bodies. The buzzards gotta eat too." Smitty |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|