A-10 in WWII??

Kristan Roberge twisted the electrons to say:
Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay
there until NASA can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter
into orbit...

.... and where does Columbia find the fuel to do this?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
. ..
Kristan Roberge twisted the electrons to say:
Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay
there until NASA can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter
into orbit...

... and where does Columbia find the fuel to do this?

Yes, this was emphatically not a possibilty...

John

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:25:05 GMT, Kristan Roberge
wrote:



Tamas Feher wrote:

If you give set of requirements to number of different
contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.

You mean:
Space Shuttle --Buran
Concorde -- Tu-144
F-15 -- MiG-25
Northrop A-9 -- Szu-25
etc.

Spies 'r' us!

Sepecat Jaguar --- Mitsubishi T-2 / F-1 (explain that one while yer at
it)




Here ya go:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avt2f1.html

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:28:39 GMT, Kristan Roberge
wrote:



Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:59 -0500, "Emilio"
wrote:

From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
vehicles. That part is there design.

Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.

Requirement:
1) Able to house VW size gun.
2) Ability to loiter
3) Good visibility for ground attack
4) 2 power plant for reliability
5) Large Ordinance capacity
6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.

Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the
fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
wing, which can blocks large area of his view.

Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished
by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
requirements; long and skinny wing.

Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space.
The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both
at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
Where do you mount it?

What's you're A-10 design look like?

Emilio.


Don't forget to add "your plane must be able to land gear-up and
extend it's gear with no power".

Well landing with gear up... hmmmm...oh i know, let's semi-expose them into the
airflow below the wing... like on a freaking DC-3 !!!

Extend with no power? Geee.... ya think if you balance the weights right, that
gravity and airflow might pull the suckers down.

If it were that simple they'd all do it. They don't. Requiring the
wind to lock your gear out pretty much necessitates forward retracting
gear which limits your options. Gee ya think you'd have known that.

In article ,
Kristan Roberge wrote:

As to Challenger, my understanding of post accident investigations were that
the crew were pretty
much all recovered together, and still strapped to their seats in the cabin,
and that they may
have still been alive post explosion (though unconscious). An ejection seat
system that could have blown them clear
of the crew compartment in such a major system failure would possible have
been useful.

So much for any useful payload...

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kristan Roberge wrote:

As to Challenger, my understanding of post accident investigations were
that
the crew were pretty
much all recovered together, and still strapped to their seats in the
cabin,
and that they may
have still been alive post explosion (though unconscious). An ejection
seat
system that could have blown them clear
of the crew compartment in such a major system failure would possible
have
been useful.

So much for any useful payload...

Yeah, seven ejector seats would not have worked.

On the other hand, it is mind-boggling that they had not even given any
thought to the possibility of abandoning it in flight...

It is at least possible that simple parachutes and a bail-out pole might
have saved them, such as are now installed.

John

The Hungarians may have had their own indigneous project. Don't
forget they did have the worlds first turboprop in the 1930s. It
worked but had problems with the combustion chamber burn through.
Someting that could only be solved with hard work on the test stand or
good alloys.

And which turboprop would that be? My understanding is the british did it first, and it
was in the 1940s.

The Jendrassic CS-1 designed in 1938 and tested in August 1940. The
war stopped its production even though a specific aircraft was
designed to fly with it- the Hungarian RMI-1 X/H which was fitted with
DB engines instead and destroyed in a bombing raid.

Rob

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...

(snip)

Well, that was one, unmanned flight. Vs. numerous ones in shuttles that
aged
over time, flew in different weather conditions, etc.

Challenger was done in partly by low temperature at launch, and the foam
that hit Columbia came off the external tank, Buran also has an external
booster unit in a similar location, strapped to the belly. Both accidents
happened after numerous successes. One cannot know Buran's true odds as
one
for one is 100 percent. Like a batter hitting 1000 after two at bats, will
he still be batting 1000 at the middle of the season?

Challenger was killed by a SRB letting go. Buran-Energia had no SRB's.

Columbia was killed by foam insulation falling off an ET and hitting a wing.
I do not think this could happen in the Buran-Energia setup, looking at how
they are oriented.

STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.

Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions
but
feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
figures?

Well there was that time one decompressed while still at very high
altitude
during a landing. Not sure about others, but then again there are still
rumors that not all the Soviet era space stuff has come out as yet,
accidents, etc.

AFAIK there were only the two well-documented Soyuz losses, one
decompression and one parachute failure. All the Soviet era accidents can be
safely assumed to have come out I would say.

And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of
the
1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
abort
system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered
a
nasty landing incident.

Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger, any
survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces
involved
in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could
have
survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own
mechanics
over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.

As I have said above, I do not think Buran would have been susceptible to
either disaster in the first place.

Both were consequences of the poor design of the STS in the first place, and
of breathtaking complacency within NASA about safety.

Columbia's loss was from such a hit that I cannot be sure if any wing
built
could have survived, with that kind of glide path and loss of heat
shielding. Is there any information on what Buran's heating
characteristics
and glide path were intended to be, or recorded as during her flight?

(snip)

I am certain they were fine peices of equipment, but I would run one down
at
the expense of the other. Energia is a fine piece of equipment - do they
still make them? Be the thing to get a Mars craft up there to orbit for
assembly.

It certainly would. AFAIK they are finished like the Buran.

John

One of the big reasons that "squeeze bore" guns were abandoned was barrel
wear from the intense pressure and velocity. Not only projectile
composition, but barrel composition, were issues. When one considers the
friction increase inherent in the design one can see why. Also I wonder how
the accuracy was.... also accuracy from shot to shot.

As for the talk of Allied/Western cannon effectiveness, yeah, the Panther
and Tiger were some sick tanks as far as their armor and guns. Though the
Germans found themselves outproduced on both fronts.... one of the reasons
that antitank planes were important in WW2. The Stuka was the big one for
Germany, as were a couple others they designed (Didn't Kurt Tank design
one?) The Russians had the Il-2 Sturmovik and the Pe-4 Bomber(?) with twin
engines, and the P-39/P-69 series. Lots of use of heavy cannons on all those
planes vs. tanks and troops, I believe. Did western antitank planes rely
more on bombs and rockets? (Outside the P-39 of course?)

DEP

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...

(snip)

Well, that was one, unmanned flight. Vs. numerous ones in shuttles that
aged
over time, flew in different weather conditions, etc.

Challenger was done in partly by low temperature at launch, and the foam
that hit Columbia came off the external tank, Buran also has an
external
booster unit in a similar location, strapped to the belly. Both
accidents
happened after numerous successes. One cannot know Buran's true odds as
one
for one is 100 percent. Like a batter hitting 1000 after two at bats,
will
he still be batting 1000 at the middle of the season?

Challenger was killed by a SRB letting go. Buran-Energia had no SRB's.

Sir, Energia was a gigantic booster. Solid or liquid there is room for error
in each.

Columbia was killed by foam insulation falling off an ET and hitting a
wing.
I do not think this could happen in the Buran-Energia setup, looking at
how
they are oriented.

How so? I felt they were more or less similar, shuttle riding the
booster/fuel section, the Energia for Buran and the SRBs/Tank for the NASA
shuttle.

STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller
crews),
and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.

Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions
but
feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have
better
figures?

Well there was that time one decompressed while still at very high
altitude
during a landing. Not sure about others, but then again there are still
rumors that not all the Soviet era space stuff has come out as yet,
accidents, etc.

AFAIK there were only the two well-documented Soyuz losses, one
decompression and one parachute failure. All the Soviet era accidents can
be
safely assumed to have come out I would say.

There is still the contorversy over whether another fellow went up before
Gagarin, though....

And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of
the
1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
abort
system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have
suffered
a
nasty landing incident.

Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger,
any
survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces
involved
in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could
have
survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own
mechanics
over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.

As I have said above, I do not think Buran would have been susceptible to
either disaster in the first place.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if there was some sort of insulator on
sections of Energia, and if the tank on Energia contained fuel and booster
units, the possibility IMO exosted for failures simply because similar
things were present. The composition of the foam and performance under
different conditions and the performance of Energia may not have as much
available data as those of the shuttle, and the question of possible
failures in Buran over time are hard to plot out from the one flight. I do
hope it was a sound ship, it is just toguh to look at it all now compared to
another system's record over years of flights, reuse cycles, weather
conditions, foam changes, etc.

Both were consequences of the poor design of the STS in the first place,
and
of breathtaking complacency within NASA about safety.

The foam thing really gets me, I cannot see the reason it was changed if the
old foam was fine. I know the envoronment matters, but the science being
dealt with is also important, and the tank either orbits or burns up in the
high atmosphere anyway.

Columbia's loss was from such a hit that I cannot be sure if any wing
built
could have survived, with that kind of glide path and loss of heat
shielding. Is there any information on what Buran's heating
characteristics
and glide path were intended to be, or recorded as during her flight?

(snip)

I am certain they were fine peices of equipment, but I would run one
down
at
the expense of the other. Energia is a fine piece of equipment - do they
still make them? Be the thing to get a Mars craft up there to orbit for
assembly.

It certainly would. AFAIK they are finished like the Buran.

That's sad. In the early 1990s I recall hearing mention of their possible
use a space station or large vessel component boosters. Very powerful
rocket....

John