Cessna builds a tactical jet
09-21-2013, 10:55 AM
#31
Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
It's optimized for low, slow, short-field, loiter, and good gas mileage like the A-10, T-6A, Super Tucano, and most drones. I wonder about unimproved fields though with the inlets so low. It is possible to place rock screens on the front of them but they still ingest a lot of crap.
09-21-2013, 11:33 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
It's optimized for low, slow, short-field, loiter, and good gas mileage like the A-10, T-6A, Super Tucano, and most drones. I wonder about unimproved fields though with the inlets so low. It is possible to place rock screens on the front of them but they still ingest a lot of crap.
09-21-2013, 12:31 PM
#33
Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
The engines are fed through wedge-type intakes fitted under the leading-edge extensions (LERXs), which have variable ramps to allow high-Mach speeds. As an adaptation to rough-field operations, the main air inlet can be closed completely and alter using the auxiliary air inlet on the upper fuselage for takeoff, landing and low-altitude flying, preventing ingestion of ground debris. Thereby the engines receive air through louvers on the LERXs which open automatically when intakes are closed...
09-22-2013, 07:36 AM
#35
Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
09-22-2013, 02:57 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Ground FOD wasn't the only hazard -- notice how close the inlet is to the cockpit. With the canopy open, any item that blew outside would go right into the engine.
09-23-2013, 05:06 PM
#37
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
A friend of mine, who flew A-37s in Vietnam, was a consultant on this program.
If the Air Staff succeeds in killing the A-10 (which I think is a mistake), I hope they replace it with something like this. The Hawg is awesome for CAS, but is limited by hot/high performance in Afghanistan.
A high-aspect wing like this could solve several problems:
1. Takeoff with full armament
2. Loiter time
3. Operating cost
4. Ability to engage close-in fights due to slower final speed
If the Air Staff succeeds in killing the A-10 (which I think is a mistake), I hope they replace it with something like this. The Hawg is awesome for CAS, but is limited by hot/high performance in Afghanistan.
A high-aspect wing like this could solve several problems:
1. Takeoff with full armament
2. Loiter time
3. Operating cost
4. Ability to engage close-in fights due to slower final speed
09-23-2013, 05:55 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: Doing what you do, for less.
Posts: 1,792
09-23-2013, 07:15 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 255
A friend of mine, who flew A-37s in Vietnam, was a consultant on this program.
If the Air Staff succeeds in killing the A-10 (which I think is a mistake), I hope they replace it with something like this. The Hawg is awesome for CAS, but is limited by hot/high performance in Afghanistan.
A high-aspect wing like this could solve several problems:
1. Takeoff with full armament
2. Loiter time
3. Operating cost
4. Ability to engage close-in fights due to slower final speed
If the Air Staff succeeds in killing the A-10 (which I think is a mistake), I hope they replace it with something like this. The Hawg is awesome for CAS, but is limited by hot/high performance in Afghanistan.
A high-aspect wing like this could solve several problems:
1. Takeoff with full armament
2. Loiter time
3. Operating cost
4. Ability to engage close-in fights due to slower final speed
How does the saying go? History repeats itself every 30 years? Or is it 50? Looked it up... it's 100. Hope it doesn't take that long to get a true A-10 replacement.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
turk
Flight Schools and Training
29
01-13-2012 06:58 AM
