-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Did anybody ever model the Northrop A-9 .......
- Thread starter AndyG43
- Start date
nigel richards
Charter Member
...... or do I need to increase my medication again?
(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?
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.
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
?????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
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
Blackbird686
SOH-CM-2025
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:
Kinda agree about the SLUF and F-35, but think it even more-so of it's rival the X-32.
Blackbird686
SOH-CM-2025
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.
BB686:USA-flag:
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 ????? '
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....
????? '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....
Always felt the USAF should have gone with the F-23, a much more attractive aircraft!
Blackbird686
SOH-CM-2025
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: