WT Forums

Like I said I am just a crew chief repeating what the reps told us a year or so ago. I am going to talk to some of the guys tomorrow and if I can find the info from the reps I will post it because it was really interesting.
After reading your post a couple of times it sounds like what I was alluding to without knowing what I was alluding to. Regardless, like I said the new engines wouldnt really be for increased speed but rather for money and maintenance.



Edited by - Hawg166 on Jun 19 2003 12:20 PM

_________________
YGBSM !

Yeah, a serious attempt to make the A-10 go faster is probably a fruitless effort. Even if you could clean up the bumps, scoops and warts on the fuselage, the wing is too thick to go fast. There's a drag "wall" above .75 Mach that makes approaching it very ineffecient. Most of the re-engine upgrade proposals also included a new wing option for that reason (take out the camber and make it thinner). More power will help acceleration, climb, turning rates (P sub s stuff) and airport performance (heavier loads out of shorter fields) which sounds worthwhile. Unless the engine is high bypass though, the range will suffer and comparisons to other jets don't come off well. Some of the things that make the A-10 a unique CAS weapon are attributable to the low speed/high bypass engine combination. You have to be careful you don't ruin a good thing.

Mc/I + P/A

_________________
????

But to the best of my understanding the engine on the S3 Viking and the Canadair Challenger are the same basic TF34. They have much more power. So high bypass I dont think would be an issue. Dice can comment on the wings. I know right now the "new wings" arent new. I dont know and havent heard about works t build new composite wings which would make to much sense. So I know that wont happen.But new composite wings would definetly rock. Someone in the forum is a structural engineer for the F22 I believe. Maybe we could get some insight into the process and how much it would cost. This is a good thread and I am curious................Hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm.

_________________
YGBSM !

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
But to the best of my understanding the engine on the S3 Viking and the Canadair Challenger are the same basic TF34. They have much more power.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Much more power?
TF-34-GE-2 in S-3A, 9275# SLS thrust
TF-34-GE-100 in A-10, 9065#
CF-34-3A1 in Canadair RJ, 9220#
CF-34-1A in Challenger 601, 8650#



Mc/I + P/A

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
But new composite wings would definetly rock. Someone in the forum is a structural engineer for the F22 I believe. Maybe we could get some insight into the process and how much it would cost.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I would be totally against composite wings for the A-10 mostly because the battle damage characteristics of those materials are not suitable, most especially for a fuel tank. Composites are too brittle and need all kinds of fixes, commonly internal metal spars, to make them viable. In this case composite material wouldn't save enough weight and would increase vulnerability and triple the cost.

Mc/I + P/A

_________________
????