RegularJoe
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by RegularJoe
-
-
10 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:
My question (forgive if stupid) is why did they drastically change the design? If it was working just fine then why screw with it?
I'm not going to get into capabilities on an open forum but I will answer your question and you can figure out the rest.
- SA uses the original A-29 to fight drug dealers, cartels and wanna be terrorist, we intend to use it to fight people pissed off at us with means to seriously fire back.
- USAF is not going to buy a 20 year old design without some gold plating on it to make everyone happy that it is spiffy and new
- Last time we had a prop driven aircraft who's role primarily dropped bombs was a Skyraider.... come on now.
-
1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:
Copy all
Quite the list of deficiencies.
Kind of like expecting this
Then getting to the dealership and getting this
-
12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
Copy - did you fly the Super T or still do? Asked as I took a closer look at your account image (Super T initial cadre)
Just buy it AF....
I was a senior exec for the prime, but eventually got tired of "Taco" stories about how great we were.
A-29 is a good aircraft as a whole but design for USA was not the same as the one build in SA for years therefore needs to be considered like any brand new design and it has some severe struggles that people on the end side probably don't know about..
Has four fuel pumps because known failure rate of these is 90%+
Has only one hyd pump which known failure rate is 65%+
Have to fly with two tanks to ensure any sort of reasonable range however when you fly with tanks the .50 casings bounce off the tanks and get stuck in the flaps damaging them once you move them.
Guns jam all the time due to design issues with empty shute
If you fly with a POD then centerline station is unusable
Hud is basically worthless as the PSU failure rate is 98%+
Fuel system wont transfer, single point fueling is problematic at best.
Gear handle switch down doesn't always equal gear down.
OBOGs is like trying to sucking air through a straw
It goes on and on, so as I said before AT-6B would be my choice based on Beechcraft's years of experience and working with a known design. A-29 is really a new design that has never been tested before that is being directed by SA mgmt that has no experience or idea how to build a US Military aircraft.
-
1
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
Informal survey - which would you buy for the Big Blue? AT-6B or A-29. Unfortunately Scorpion is not an option nor any other design (L-159 ALCA, OV-10X, etc...) and it is one of those two (not that they are bad choices) but that is all there is.
AT-6B. What lurks behind the curtain in A-29 production land is of no value to us either as war fighters or taxpayers
-
7 hours ago, Lawman said:
If we can make it more expensive we can justify getting 4 more F-whatever’s when we cancel the whole program 11 years in.And suddenly we have funding for a 7th Gen Fighter that will probably be designed with a stick and OBOGS system in it but no seat and delivered 20 years to late.
But as long as control + Alt + Delete works
-
1
-
-
It will be interesting to see what this Swiss army knife of aircraft looks like once all the gold plating is finished
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
Semper maybe...
Doubt the USMC has even asked for this capability (didn't see it referenced in the article) but would it be reasonable / possible to operate an A-29 / AT-6B from an LHD with a 800+ foot flight deck? Modified for carrier suitability (upgrades airframe, gear, brakes, higher HP, better prop, etc...)
Considering that to be of any use the A-29 has to fly with two tanks, it would make 800 feet really tight.
AF Light Air Support Aircraft
in General Discussion
Posted
Fixed for you.
SNC simply provided what the customer listed as requirements.