Warbird Information Exchange

Reading the thread about the F-105 that got demilled fast when Colling's wanted it got me thinking. Will we ever see a civilian owned A-10? Would the Gov consider it a high level tactical jet? It seems to me it would be a good candidate for civilian ownership since it is non fly by wire etc. Not only that, but probably easier to fly, and maybe a little safer to operate than some others.

no way!!! but a nice thought.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

I don't know, I could see an A-10 fire bomber...

I remember back in 1997 when a A-10 Thunderbolt went 800 miles off course that April and crashed into Colorado mountains.
They were about to lay an egg here in Denver,CO.
Then again, he did have four 500-pound bombs.
Still I could never see anyone in power letting a civilian own one.

I remember hearing a few years ago about an effort to acquire and convert some A-10s for firefighting, to be called "Firehogs." Haven't heard anything about it recently though.

SN

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

The Firehog was an interesting concept at the time. Especially for a type that was going to be retired en masse. The A-10 wasn't a favorite of the fighter mafia and the powers that be in the USAF were going to retire it and give their mission to tha F-16.

Then came Desert Storm I and the A-10 did what it was designed to do and it did it very very well. It's value could not be ignored. Now the A-10 is being upgraded with new avionics, new targeting capabilities, GPS, and Lockheed was just given a new contract to build new wings.

I don't think the A-10 is going to be available any time soon.

You are right, back in the nutty Merrill McPeak days, the A-10s future was seriously in doubt.
In fact, there were classified plans in hand for replacing them at the big A-10 base at RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge.

The A-10 was to have had a future with foreign air forces and firefighting. Now they're re-winging them.
Eventually, they'll be a neat exhibit for the Collings Foundation.
Why? Quiet, thrifty civil-based engines and a pretty simple airframe. Great for displays.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Yes an A-10 would be fun, especially the one out at Edwards.

With the A-10C Upgrade and some tentative plans to maybe make further upgrades at some point, I think we will probably see A-10s in service for at least another 15 to 20 years and maybe beyond that. I think that the Air Force is slowly coming to the realization that the F-35 may be a good replacement for the F-16, but not for the A-10. Hopefully we are looking at a dedicated A-10 replacement 20 years or so down the road. Basically what I am saying is that the potential status of the A-10 as a warbird/former service military aircraft is a LONG way down the road.

A civilian A-10 is being considered for use as a Storm Penetration Aircraft.

_________________

Commemorative Air Force
Experimental Aircraft Association
Warbirds of America

What are you waiting for? Join us!

Best way to contact me- email my last name @gmail.com

That will be difficult. The State Dept thought about usin the A-10 as a drug interdiction sprayer, much like they are using the OV-10. Apparently the USAF had a problem releasing them and every time the spray apparatus was used the engines wanted to flame out. I never did understand how that was happening but it apparently had to do wwith the airflow pattern surrounding the plane as well as the amount of air being sucked by those big fans.

Here's one for the thread. Passed onto me by my friend Jim Babcock at Aero Union, this was a conceptual look. The A-10s effectiveness (much to the embarassment of some factions in the USAF) and 9/11 put paid to the idea.

I wonder though if S-3 Vikings could be converted to fire bombers as the last of those leave the fleet in the next year or so and there's little chance they will be reconstituted in any way. The fuselage appears to have the volume though you'll likely not see any type of belly fairing due to the landing gear arrangement and the lack of vertical spearation of the belly fto the ground.

There appears to be an ongoing need for a medium size tanker somewhere between the P-2/P-3/C-54 class and the Air Tractor/helo class and I cannot think of any civilian aircraft that readily fit into that size of aircraft yet strong enough for the working conditions. I can't imagine many of the commuter size aircraft (Beech 1900, EMB-120, ATR-42, etc.) being durable enough for the abuse.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

I have a question that may seem dumb but oh well... If the A-10 IS used as a mud bomber, I would think there would have to be some serious ballast put in the noses when the GAU is removed. Those aren't exactly pop-guns and HEAVY. I know it's doable, just curious about the aft CG problems that might arise.



Jim