Anyone interested in some visually stunning video of carrier aviation, check out the French Navy Rafale pilot videos.

Obviously I (as a US Navy guy) will make fun of their tiny aircraft carrier, but they fly like we do and this guy "Tex" captures some of the iconic moments you see while flying over the water around the world.

When flying you rarely have the time to appreciate what you are seeing & doing, as you are too busy working and paying attention so you don't die, but sometimes, just sometimes you are able to stare at the wonder of the world and the being privileged enough to fly around it in that manner.

quote:

I think he's saying the "10" in A-10 and OV-10. Then again, it is bendable so it's open to interpretation.

correct,
if you look at the A 10 and the ov 10
( to me any way)
they are some what similar ,
at least where the engines are located

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
correct,
if you look at the A 10 and the ov 10
( to me any way)
they are some what similar ,
at least where the engines are located

Pure coincidence.

Don’t see the similarities in an A-10 and an OV-10 except twin engines.

The USAF used "Century Series" numbering, then McNamara came up with a new numbering scheme, (effective in 1962) that is still in use. (affected all services)

The numbers typically have no relevance, with exceptions. One is the T-37 and the A-37. Both based on the Cessna T-37, a trainer airframe, and the A-37 that was outfitted to be used as an "attack" aircraft.
It had better engines, (much faster spooling time) wingtip tanks, and a bunch of hardpoints under the wings to allow it to be a baby bomb truck.


Example, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-110 (F-110 Spectre, was affected by this change and changed to F-4 Phantom), F-111.

Later, we had F-4, F-5, F-15, f-16 and so forth. The F-117 is a "throwback" to the nature of the program being developed in the "black" and during flight testing, it used "117" callsigns (similar callsigns were used for "other aircraft" usually those of foreign forces such as Russian aircraft "on loan" from Israel, like 113, 115, 116 for the MiG-21, 23 and such. The "117" was used so much, that it "stuck" and was used in the documentation, so when the aircraft was "delivered" to the USAF, F-117, was a 1/2 step process, even though it went against the "normal acquisition" process.

Hope that helps, along with the other info folks have posted.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:

quote:

I think he's saying the "10" in A-10 and OV-10. Then again, it is bendable so it's open to interpretation.

correct,
if you look at the A 10 and the ov 10
( to me any way)
they are some what similar ,
at least where the engines are located

The A10 has aft mounted engines, while the OV10 has wing mounted engines. The A10 has turbofan engines, while the OV10 has turbojet engines.

The OV10 has two engines, while the A-10 has two half-engines...

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

the A-10 has two half-engines.

'Splain, please? I have a bit over 8,000 hours of piston time, less than one hour of turbine time (introductory instructional flight), so I do not understand this "half-engine" thing.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

the A-10 has two half-engines.

'Splain, please? I have a bit over 8,000 hours of piston time, less than one hour of turbine time (introductory instructional flight), so I do not understand this "half-engine" thing.

If you fly multi-engine piston powered airplanes, then you understand the half-engine concept.

A piston powered airplane isn't even required to maintain altitude on one engine; all do at low altitudes and weights, some do a little better than others, but none are very strong. The remaining engine, in light piston twin engine parlance, is just enough to "get you to the scene of the crash."

The A-10 driver has a bit of an advantage over a single engine aircraft, in the event of a single engine power failure, but not necessarily a whole lot more. The remaining engine, despite having a lot more thrust than a piston twin, is not a whole lot of thrust for the aircraft.

It's jokingly said that it doesn't have two engienes, but one; two half-engines.

so how many engines does this B.K.A. 350 have?

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

If you fly multi-engine piston powered airplanes, then you understand the half-engine concept.

A piston powered airplane isn't even required to maintain altitude on one engine

Ah, I understand. It was humor. I took it to be some sort of technical thing that applied to the turbine engines on the A-10.

Re piston multis not required to maintain altitude, I knew that is true for lighter GA airplanes (I got my multi rating way back in the dark ages in an Apache that would descend at only 50 fpm if you did everything correctly), but is there a performance requirement for heavier piston twins? Convair 240, for example?

Too much that I don't know, once I get out of my experience area.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

If you fly multi-engine piston powered airplanes, then you understand the half-engine concept.

A piston powered airplane isn't even required to maintain altitude on one engine

Ah, I understand. It was humor. I took it to be some sort of technical thing that applied to the turbine engines on the A-10.

Re piston multis not required to maintain altitude, I knew that is true for lighter GA airplanes (I got my multi rating way back in the dark ages in an Apache that would descend at only 50 fpm if you did everything correctly), but is there a performance requirement for heavier piston twins? Convair 240, for example?

Too much that I don't know, once I get out of my experience area.

Part 23 airplanes, no. No performance requirement on one engine. That is to say, there's no guarantee on performance. so go around on one engine, and it may be a bad choice. Part 25 airplanes (transport category) are a different matter. Military aircraft are neither, and have other criteria.

I have had FAA and examiners demand a single engine missed approach in light twins, and I've refused in each case; the airplane isn't certified to do it, I'm not going to attempt it. What about an airplane on the runway, they ask? Land on the taxiway, or in the grass, but not going around on the one. Fools errand.

The joke for the A-10 is that it's a true fighter: single seat, well armed, and single engine...

My old 56TC Baron (with 380 HP Duke engines) would climb single engine >410 fpm at gross, had a FL320 service ceiling and a FL190 single engine service ceiling. I consider it a two-engine plane, unlike the anemic Apache I got my rating in.

It also burned 96 GPH on takeoff I forget exactly how much gas it held, but it was less than 150 gallons.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: aileron,

Everything is a tradeoff.

In the P2V we averaged 200 gph on two R3350's. Light off the two J34 jets (avgas burning), and we tripled the fuel consumption to 600 gph for takeoff or for a drop.

On aircraft with afterburner, the loiter time drops to minutes, once the afterburner's lit.

In the 20 series Lears, I could see the fuel gauge move. In the Sabreliner, it was often a climb to 390 or 410 before turning around and descending, even if there was no cruise time at altitude.

In light piston twins, most have abysmal single engine performance.

The OV-10 isn't particularly steller, incidentally, with a load aboard, and one out. Especially at high density altitude locations, like Bogota...

Get an engine that won't feather, even on four engine military models, and life gets interesting.

I'm kinda' glad a C172 is all I am capable of flying right now, after reading all this.

Always some give and take. The 172 can be landed almost anywhere with an engine-out, if the flight is conducted properly. The military single engine airplane comes with a get-out-of-jail-free card, at the expense of potential pain, injury, and a loss in tallness and gain in back injury.

The light twin may or may not have a positive rate of climb following loss of an engine, but the 172 surely doesn't. Even in a light twin that's going down hill, it's probably going to go farther than the 172. On the other hand, it's not going to be able to land almost anywhere, has higher kinetic energy, higher landing speeds, and the one big problem that the 172 doesn't; a minimum control airspeed (below which is a loss of directional control).