Did anybody ever model the Northrop A-9 .......

AndyG43 said:
...... or do I need to increase my medication again? :guinness:
Click to expand...

(icon:d doctor attending his patient:icon) Cough...increase the medication, NO pills!
The OUZO prescribed should be at least trebled, Brains, and anyway you started this thread deliberately in order to answer your own question!
Not to worry, this is just a side effect from hanging around with the likes of myself and other unscrupulous gentlemen of the air.

I'd recommend taking time off as well. Perhaps get away from it all in some far off place...Greece or somewhere such.

Incidently, What's a Northrop A-9 Andy?
 
nigel richards said:
(icon:d doctor attending his patient:icon) Cough...increase the medication, NO pills!
The OUZO prescribed should be at least trebled, Brains, and anyway you started this thread deliberately in order to answer your own question!
Not to worry, this is just a side effect from hanging around with the likes of myself and other unscrupulous gentlemen of the air.

I'd recommend taking time off as well. Perhaps get away from it all in some far off place...Greece or somewhere such.

Incidently, What's a Northrop A-9 Andy?
Click to expand...

Northrop A-9 was the competitor to the A-10 Thunderbolt.

Getting away sounds great, funds prevent it alas. Greece also sounds great, but I would have to make a detour to the Czech Republic en route.
 
AndyG43 said:
Northrop A-9 was the competitor to the A-10 Thunderbolt.

Getting away sounds great, funds prevent it alas. Greece also sounds great, but I would have to make a detour to the Czech Republic en route.
Click to expand...

I have often wondered whether the term 'aesthetically pleasing' was deliberately omitted from the specification given Northorp and Fairchild Republic or were they just that ugly by accident :icon_lol: ?????
 
There is no way that a plane called "The Warhog" could ever be a pretty plane....nor should it be. When the enemy sees that ugly plane coming in toward their location, they KNOW that things are about to get real UGLY for them.

Personally, I like the way the A-10 looks. It's shape suites it purpose. Looks a lot better than the F-22 and F-35 in my opinion.

OBIO
 
OBIO said:
Looks a lot better than the F-22 and F-35 in my opinion.

OBIO
Click to expand...

I dunnoh... I rather like the way the F-22 looks. :salute: I have to agree with you on the F-35. The term "SLUF" (Short little ugly fella) given to the A-7 Corsair could also be attributed to the F-35 JSF.

BB686:USA-flag:
 
X-32... Now THAT'S ugly. Wonder what designer was so upset with that project that he had to produce such an ugly little plane. Probably one of the reasons that it lost out to the F-35. :icon_lol:

BB686:USA-flag:
 
'I have often wondered whether the term 'aesthetically pleasing' was deliberately omitted from the specification given Northorp and Fairchild Republic or were they just that ugly by accident :icon_lol: ????? '

It was part of the specification. Passive defence suppresion- the denizens of the Xring are so busy gaping, they forget to shoot back!
Most of it has to do with survivability- widely separated engines, fire resistance by virtue of being out side the airframe, IR shrouded by the stabs. One of the factors against the YA-9 was the placement of the engines- experience with the A-6, and latter Harrier showed that root mounted engines/tailpipes make the aircraft vulnerable to MANPADS- proximity fuzed continuous rod warheads going off around the trailing edge can puncture fuel cells and trash goodies in the fuselage, doing damage all out of porportion to the 3.5lb warhead. The A-10 was also designed to be easy to repair- control surfaces can be swapped side to side, I seem to remember that the elevaor and rudders were interchangeable- might be wrong on that, and the flat, simple curves to facilitate field repairs with 3/4 inch plywood if need be, podded main gear totaly out side the wing structure to avoid cut-outs in the lower wing skins, the mains protuuding to mitigate damage in event of gear-up landings .
And it just looks plain mean....
 
AndyG43 said:
Always felt the USAF should have gone with the F-23, a much more attractive aircraft!
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you Andy, I think the F-23 is a sleek beauty compared to the F-22. I really believe that political influences played a part in the Air Force's final decision to go with the Raptor. The F-22 is a very capable aircraft tho.

I have an F-23 Black Widow for FS9 and it's alot of fun to fly. 3D Model, Textures and Flight Manual by Daniel Buechter, it's quite nice. No VC tho.

BB686:USA-flag:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top