A-10
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
A-10
Hope this isn't a repost:
Thank you, Colonel John Boyd, USAF (retd), where ever
you are!
The A-10 was an odd airplane - it was only developed by the USAF,
which hated John Boyd and the A-10, to deny the money to it's
worst enemy, the US Army.
John Boyd was responsible for the F-15, F-16, F-18 and A-10. You
might have heard of them.
It's a real pity he wasn't around to straighten out the F-22 and JSF.
He lack of influence on those programs is obvious.
Thank you, Colonel John Boyd, USAF (retd), where ever
you are!
The A-10 was an odd airplane - it was only developed by the USAF,
which hated John Boyd and the A-10, to deny the money to it's
worst enemy, the US Army.
John Boyd was responsible for the F-15, F-16, F-18 and A-10. You
might have heard of them.
It's a real pity he wasn't around to straighten out the F-22 and JSF.
He lack of influence on those programs is obvious.
Re: A-10
Thanks for that - brings back memories of a School Trip to Mildenhall Airbase in Suffolk, UK when I was about 9 or 10 which was the first time I ever got up close and personal with a Warbird. The A-10 is still one of my favourite jet aircraft.
The safety briefing still sticks in my head. "If you hear an alarm, go stand next to the nearest wall. The crash trucka won't see or stop for you, but they know where the walls are."
The safety briefing still sticks in my head. "If you hear an alarm, go stand next to the nearest wall. The crash trucka won't see or stop for you, but they know where the walls are."
Re: A-10
I think it's fair to say that Pierre Sprey really was the guy behind the A-10 (yeah you could argue that Boyd was the guy behind Pierre Sprey...)Colonel Sanders wrote:
John Boyd was responsible for the F-15, F-16, F-18 and A-10.
I'm not sure Boyd would be happy to hear that he was responsible for the F-15 and F-16

He aimed for much better, but the bureaucrats/technocrats got their hands too deep in theses projects.
What he wanted was lighter and much more maneuverable than what got out the production lines. As for the F-18, he was sort of the loser in the F-16 development competition.
Re: A-10
Always been my favorite plane. So many redundant and functional design aspects.
Interesting features off the top of my head- triple hydraulic systems, can fly minus one engine, one tail, and half the wing area compromised. Vulcan cannon offset to accommodate nose gear. The giant Garrett turbofans mounted in the most protected position from ground fire, cockpit housed in titanium and Kevlar tub.... Seem to remember something about the Vulcan actually slowing the aircraft down.
Anyone remember the story of the USAF chick flying back in half an a10?
Interesting features off the top of my head- triple hydraulic systems, can fly minus one engine, one tail, and half the wing area compromised. Vulcan cannon offset to accommodate nose gear. The giant Garrett turbofans mounted in the most protected position from ground fire, cockpit housed in titanium and Kevlar tub.... Seem to remember something about the Vulcan actually slowing the aircraft down.
Anyone remember the story of the USAF chick flying back in half an a10?
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: A-10
It's funny how the LWF "loser" (F-18) went on to become the mainstay
of so many military forces, so many decades later ... RCAF, USN, Aussies, etc.
Well, they finally got rid of John Boyd and the bureaucrats had a free hand
at the F-35, and look what they got.
of so many military forces, so many decades later ... RCAF, USN, Aussies, etc.
Well, they finally got rid of John Boyd and the bureaucrats had a free hand
at the F-35, and look what they got.
Re: A-10
They also have to keep inside all the empty shells to not disturb too much the W&B of the airplane!DanWEC wrote:Seem to remember something about the Vulcan actually slowing the aircraft down.
Colonel, we still don't know how the F35 is going to perform once operational. It might no be as bad as you think.
Remember that Boyd was pissed at what the F-15 ended up becoming, yet it became nonetheless the best air to air fighter of an era.
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: A-10
Of course! Isaac Newton (a very unpleasant fellow, by all accounts)the Vulcan actually slowing the aircraft down
described exactly that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
My father flew (and loved) the F-86 Sabre, and he says that you could
lose 50 knots when you fired the six Browning 50 caliber machine guns
it was equipped with, and they were only tiny 12.7mm pea shooters
compared to the honking huge depleted uranium 35mm rounds the
A-10 fired. Also, the rate of fire is over 3x on the A-10 vs the M3.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:09 pm
Re: A-10
DanWEC wrote:Always been my favorite plane. So many redundant and functional design aspects.
Interesting features off the top of my head- triple hydraulic systems, can fly minus one engine, one tail, and half the wing area compromised. Vulcan cannon offset to accommodate nose gear. The giant Garrett turbofans mounted in the most protected position from ground fire, cockpit housed in titanium and Kevlar tub.... Seem to remember something about the Vulcanactually slowing the aircraft down.
Anyone remember the story of the USAF chick flying back in half an a10?
The gun the A-10 was desingned around is the GAU-8 Avenger, not the Vulcan.