Sciencescience

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 12:26 AM

Before the A-10 Warthog, there was...




"The Cessna A-37 Dragonfly, or Super Tweet, is an American light attack aircraft developed from the T-37 Tweet basic trainer in the 1960s and 1970s by Cessna of Wichita, Kansas. The A-37 was introduced during the Vietnam War and remained in peacetime service afterward."

- Wikipedia

Stumbled across an early 70's Testors model of this in an antique store yesterday, which I purchased immediately!

"The aircraft weight 14,000 pounds fully loaded. Its maximum speed was 507 mph at 16,000 feet with a range of 460 miles. The ceiling for the Dragonfly was 41,765 feet. The armament of the A-37 consisted of a 7.62mm minigun mounted in the nose capable of firing 6,000 rounds per minute. The aircraft had also been modified by mounting eight hardpoints on the wing, which could carry up to 4,800 pounds of ordnance. Different configuration consisted of two machine gun pods, two 2.75-inch rockets and four bombs; or in place of the gun pods, two 250-pound bombs or four Sidewinder missiles. The aircraft had a crew of two."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-37.htm



"The bird could carry 7,500 pounds of munitions compared to the 7,000 on the F-100. It was usually operationally equipped with two 760 pound drop tanks for extra fuel. This extra fuel allowed the A-37 to stay in the target area longer, often an hour if necessary, and even longer if one engine was shut down. The other fighters were good for only 15 to 20 minutes, and that was another reason the FACs and the ground troops loved the new little fighter.

The outboard pylons could carry a 500 pound store, plus we had the strafe, which was generally too small to be really effective. The A-1 could carry 8,000 pounds of munitions on 15 hard points, so we weren’t quite as good as aircraft built in 1945 , but we were faster and very, very easy to maintain and smaller and harder to hit. We bombed from 2500 feet at 320 knots so we worked closer to the target than anyone but the A-1. And if we used the snake eye bombs, we bombed from 1500 feet. I once put one of those in a cave mouth smaller than a garage door. The FAC went nuts. While I was at Bien Hoa in 1970-71 we had aircraft hit by ground fire at one third the rate the F-100s had there, probably it was because we were one third their size."

http://lc-vans.lintcenter.org/the-a-37-dragonfly-story/


"To get around the Geneva Accords restrictions, the Air Force Butterfly NCOs (and all subsequent volunteers) were scrubbed of their military identity and given a new civilian cover for the duration of their deployment in Laos, a process colorfully referred to as “sheep dipping.” Sitting in the co-pilot’s seat of the spotter aircraft, Butterflies would issue targeting instructions to Thai, Laotian, and later Hmong pilots trained through Project Water Pump. Originally created to teach indigenous and Thai pilots how to conduct Search and Rescue missions from forward bases along the Laotian border with Vietnam, Water Pump was soon expanded to train pilots for combat roles..

Mavericks, with an aggressiveness and courage bordering on the foolhardy, and stamina to endure flying twelve or more hours a day under some of the most harrowing combat and weather conditions, the Ravens and their Hmong counterparts the Nokateng (Swooping Bird) fought the war from bases at Vientiane, Luang Prabang, Pakse, Savannakhet, and Long Chieng, flying O-1 Bird Dogs, O-2 Skymasters, modified for combat AT-28 Trojans, Porter Pilatus and other aircraft. To say that the flights were dangerous is an understatement. Of the 191 who served as Ravens, thirty-one paid for their dedication with their lives."

http://argunners.com/ravens-and-the-secret-air-war-in-laos/







17 replies, 684 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply Before the A-10 Warthog, there was... (Original post)
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 OP
Tolk Feb 2017 #1
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 #3
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 #6
def_con5 Feb 2017 #2
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 #4
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #5
Slayer Feb 2017 #7
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 #9
Slayer Feb 2017 #10
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 #12
Daves Not Here Man Feb 2017 #8
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 #11
His Daughter Feb 2017 #13
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 #15
Duke Lacrosse Feb 2017 #14
wonderwarthog Feb 2017 #16
Badsamm Feb 2017 #17

Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 01:35 AM

1. Thanks for that

The A10 in my opinion is one of the most important tools in the US arsenal.
I've made parts for them and have seen them in action...fortunately have not seen them in combat.
I'm saving your link to read it later.
I used to have a list of what a fighter pilot has to do reflexively when he goes into combat that was given to me long before the internet, and when I was just a kid and cutting my teeth in the machinst world.
I guess we were still at the edge of the mechanical age?

Anyways it was a write up on how fast a pilot has to go into combat mode and how quickly he had to make decisions and flick the switches I was making without a thought on his part.
It wasn't a button he was pushing it was an actual mechanical device with linkage that had to work in a split instance.
I made those linkages, bores and shafts with .0005 tolerances or less.
To this day I get a guilt trip when I hear we lost kids because their equipment failed.

Now it's all computerized...I would rather rely on those tight tolerance linkages than a button that may or may not work.

The simple technology and power of the A10
Represents US military power more than anything else. .

Reliance on technology is going to screw us...dramatically in my opinion.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tolk (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 09:10 AM

3. Interesting post

And you're very welcome, and thanks for your interest!

I worked in aerospace after going back to school for electronics in the 90s.

I can relate to what you are saying, the reliability of my work was literally a matter of life and death.

But mainly death. Lots and lots of death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tolk (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 09:26 AM

6. ...

'computation.



They are:

Altitude above the target.
Airspeed.
Dive angle.
G load. Nominal one g is desired.
Yaw angle. This should always be zero.
Wind.
It is clearly impossible to solve all these variables in your head, so what we did, back in the day, was pull up a pre-computed set of release parameters from the ballistics tables. For example, for a Mk-82 500 lb bomb, dropped from 2500 feet at a 30 degree dive angle and 320 knots airspeed, the proper mil setting was 130. So you set 130 in the sight, and then try to fly into an invisible funnel of all of those parameters exactly over where you want to bomb with a wind correction estimate. While the enemy shoots at you. And you talk on the radio and chew gum.'

"Our antique gun sight was little more than a fancy grease pencil mark on the windscreen. The pipper started with zero, the centerline of the aircraft, and that setting was used for strafe. The mils we so precisely set in it were fractions of an angle of depression below that centerline. I fondly think of them as mille-micro-give-a-shits, because it was genuinely like marking a line with a micrometer and then using an axe to cut it."

http://lc-vans.lintcenter.org/the-a-37-dragonfly-story/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 07:42 AM

2. Cool

Thanks Wonder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 09:12 AM

4. My pleasure!

The simple pleasure of running across a piece of history in a dusty old box is the kind of thing that makes me smile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 09:16 AM

5. Enjoy your purchase!

Been years since I've put together a model of any kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 09:50 AM

7. I was thinking thunderbolt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 12:18 PM

9. The A1 Skyraider

Which is another WW2 plane, was used widely for close support of troops on the geound.

It looks a lot like a P-47.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 12:22 PM

10. Swept wings?

 

Ineresting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 12:33 PM

12. A1J

Last variant with redesigned wings to reduce stress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 09:51 AM

8. He's gorgeous. A perfect subject for a model plane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 12:26 PM

11. Had to be

A fun ride.

If you weren't being shot at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 09:32 PM

13. I think the A1E Skyraider did a better job...

Many more of them as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 12:30 AM

15. .....

"The bird could carry 7,500 pounds of munitions compared to the 7,000 on the F-100. It was usually operationally equipped with two 760 pound drop tanks for extra fuel. This extra fuel allowed the A-37 to stay in the target area longer, often an hour if necessary, and even longer if one engine was shut down. The other fighters were good for only 15 to 20 minutes, and that was another reason the FACs and the ground troops loved the new little fighter.

The outboard pylons could carry a 500 pound store, plus we had the strafe, which was generally too small to be really effective. The A-1 (Skyraider) could carry 8,000 pounds of munitions on 15 hard points, so we weren’t quite as good as aircraft built in 1945 , but we were faster and very, very easy to maintain and smaller and harder to hit. We bombed from 2500 feet at 320 knots so we worked closer to the target than anyone but the A-1. And if we used the snake eye bombs, we bombed from 1500 feet. I once put one of those in a cave mouth smaller than a garage door. The FAC went nuts. While I was at Bien Hoa in 1970-71 we had aircraft hit by ground fire at one third the rate the F-100s had there, probably it was because we were one third their size."

(from second link)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Sat Feb 25, 2017, 10:39 PM

14. Awesome airplane, high on my list of "Airplanes I'd like to own."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 12:33 AM

16. C. I. A.

Was using them in South America for a while after Vietnam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 11:53 AM

17. That looks like a blast to fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience