USAF Thunderbirds A-10 "Thunderbrrrt"

[TheChronicOne]

^ With similar weight distribution as the gun, both longitudinally and laterally? It is a big system that takes up a lot of real estate. Then flight testing it to make sure it is in the CofG limits? I can think of better ways to spend a few million US$. I'd also want to leave it as vanilla as poss, so if the balloon went up, Davis–Monthan would have a little more time to generate attrition replacements. The Thunderbirds would just need a quick spray-paint and a ferry flight to theatre.

Not my model, of course but if no-one gave their 2-cents it would be a real quiet site!

That's what I'm thinking...    Just cram some weight in there to simulate the gun being inside. It along with whatever other gadgest not necessary wouldn't be added, either, and in the end we have a more inexpensive and lighter aircraft that's easier to maintain. Less systems, less maintenance hours. And sure enough.... consider combat losses, it would look good to the bean counters NOT to have a "wasted" Avenger in an airplane that will never use it. It just makes more sense to me, that if you are building an airplane, you aren't going to cram it full of stuff expressly meant for war when it'll never be flown in battle.

[TheChronicOne]

OR.... get this... and stay with me....... we could simply put something heavy in there? Mind blowing, I know.  Here's the thing, why would the military dump a bunch of expensive equipment into an aircraft that would never need or use it? How much do GAU-8s cost? Instead of putting the GAU-8 inside, putting something of equal weight in there instead and save the GAU-8 for an actual combat capable vehicle.

Guys, correct me if i'm wrong but don't the demo teams have to be able to return the show planes to combat ready status in 24 hours or something like that?
I know that the Viper has it's gun removed but how much effort would the Hog need to be in proper conditions for a show or combat?

I was getting to this. lol  Warbird 10... it actually happened once! And I AM going to be building it. It's the coolest looking Thunderbird F-16 ever. But...still... just as you said, even the F-16's don't do their shows will all the war-fighting stuff installed. As far as the requirement, I suspect the rest would be on par with the F-16s if not quicker even. The answer would be: whatever time frame the gov't required. I think it was 72 hours? Or 48?

Then again, they could also waive the requirement all together for the one or two Warthogs. But, at the end of the day, having all sorts of weaponry and superfluous "stuff" loaded into demo planes is opposite of how they all do it....   Angels, Thunderbirds, Red Arrows, .... none of them are flying around in aircraft full of weaponry and combat gear... they're all streamlined versions of the aircraft so why on Earth would this one be any different?  If such a requirement exists, then they'll just arm it up just like they do the F-16s. It's all irrelevant either way... all this is done already in real life so it's not a stretch that it could be done in fantasy land. 

And hell yeah a VW Beetle on the front would be awesome!!!!     The more I think about it, the more I want to graft one on the front........ 



Anyway.... forgot the update!   Still cleaning up parts. Did a little gluing in the way of closing the ladder door. I have the canopy pieces clipped out and cleaned up then I dunked 'em Future to dry for a day... now I can either mask them or paint them. Haven't figured out which yet. Plans for this evening are more cleaning up of parts and to get some transfers found for this.

[sideshowbob9]

^ With similar weight distribution as the gun, both longitudinally and laterally? It is a big system that takes up a lot of real estate. Then flight testing it to make sure it is in the CofG limits? I can think of better ways to spend a few million US$. I'd also want to leave it as vanilla as poss, so if the balloon went up, Davis–Monthan would have a little more time to generate attrition replacements. The Thunderbirds would just need a quick spray-paint and a ferry flight to theatre.

That's what I'm thinking...    Just cram some weight in there to simulate the gun being inside. It along with whatever other gadgest not necessary wouldn't be added, either, and in the end we have a more inexpensive and lighter aircraft that's easier to maintain. Less systems, less maintenance hours. And sure enough.... consider combat losses, it would look good to the bean counters NOT to have a "wasted" Avenger in an airplane that will never use it. It just makes more sense to me, that if you are building an airplane, you aren't going to cram it full of stuff expressly meant for war when it'll never be flown in battle.

Just like that eh? Getting military hardware certified is a bit more nuanced than that. How is it secured? If it is just one lump, are the local frames rated for that weight across the flight regime? If you distribute the weight along the length of the GAU-8's now unoccupied volume so as to not over-stress any of the forward structure locally, it is an asymmetric load, how much weight is left of centreline, how much right? How much above the CofG, how much below?

Now you have your test bird at Edwards. You've got to put it through the entire flight regime of a display aircraft multiple times through benign, gusty and marginal conditions. Up to Elmendorf for a rinse and repeat, down to MacDill (say), rinse and repeat. Pull it all apart for NDT of components. Analysis, analysis, analysis. You've cost TAC/ACC (depending on when this is set) $millions and since the weight distribution is now "the same" as a line bird, there is no saving in fatigue life with which to sell the accountants on. All assuming that some part of the GAU-8 assembly isn't structurally integral itself, which is a distinct possibility, in which case the whole thing is nixed.

Quite apart from that, no 4-Star worth a tin of beans is going to let what could form the core of another TFS/FS out of his OOB and pay for the pleasure.

You could leave the gun in. Just a thought.

[DogfighterZen]

Sideshowbob's right, that plane was built around that gun so, it could be that some part of the gun's components could be structurally fundamental... And the weight distribution and all... Very pertinent issues... In the real world, that is! 
Now seriously, involving so much hassle and money like SSB said, they'd probably just keep the gun... but, you can say they replaced the gun with the smoke generator equipment and oil tanks in the gun bay along with some steel ingots to match the weight and it's distribution inside the airframe... 

[sideshowbob9]

...but I am in the real world..... aren't I?

[Fades to black]     

My real-world issues were purely a FYI. Please all, as ever, note or ignore as much of it as you prefer!

[Old Wombat]

[PR19_Kit]

And hell yeah a VW Beetle on the front would be awesome!!!!     The more I think about it, the more I want to graft one on the front........ 

Ericr has probably already done it. 

[TheChronicOne]

^ With similar weight distribution as the gun, both longitudinally and laterally? It is a big system that takes up a lot of real estate. Then flight testing it to make sure it is in the CofG limits? I can think of better ways to spend a few million US$. I'd also want to leave it as vanilla as poss, so if the balloon went up, Davis–Monthan would have a little more time to generate attrition replacements. The Thunderbirds would just need a quick spray-paint and a ferry flight to theatre.

That's what I'm thinking...    Just cram some weight in there to simulate the gun being inside. It along with whatever other gadgest not necessary wouldn't be added, either, and in the end we have a more inexpensive and lighter aircraft that's easier to maintain. Less systems, less maintenance hours. And sure enough.... consider combat losses, it would look good to the bean counters NOT to have a "wasted" Avenger in an airplane that will never use it. It just makes more sense to me, that if you are building an airplane, you aren't going to cram it full of stuff expressly meant for war when it'll never be flown in battle.

Just like that eh? Getting military hardware certified is a bit more nuanced than that. How is it secured? If it is just one lump, are the local frames rated for that weight across the flight regime? If you distribute the weight along the length of the GAU-8's now unoccupied volume so as to not over-stress any of the forward structure locally, it is an asymmetric load, how much weight is left of centreline, how much right? How much above the CofG, how much below?

Now you have your test bird at Edwards. You've got to put it through the entire flight regime of a display aircraft multiple times through benign, gusty and marginal conditions. Up to Elmendorf for a rinse and repeat, down to MacDill (say), rinse and repeat. Pull it all apart for NDT of components. Analysis, analysis, analysis. You've cost TAC/ACC (depending on when this is set) $millions and since the weight distribution is now "the same" as a line bird, there is no saving in fatigue life with which to sell the accountants on. All assuming that some part of the GAU-8 assembly isn't structurally integral itself, which is a distinct possibility, in which case the whole thing is nixed.

Quite apart from that, no 4-Star worth a tin of beans is going to let what could form the core of another TFS/FS out of his OOB and pay for the pleasure.

You could leave the gun in. Just a thought.

Or they could simplify things and save money by not putting it in there. Are you trying to say that aircraft engineers would be too stupid to figure out how to do it or something? lmao  They would simply do whatever they needed to to compensate. If they can certify a full gun system, they can certify something far more simpler. If they can build an entire weapons system, they can easily build something far simpler. When I say, "just cram some weight in there" do you seriously think I'm being LITERAL?   OF COURSE they would do everything necessary for it to pass muster....... why wouldn't they?

[TheChronicOne]

Sideshowbob's right, that plane was built around that gun so, it could be that some part of the gun's components could be structurally fundamental... And the weight distribution and all... Very pertinent issues... In the real world, that is! 
Now seriously, involving so much hassle and money like SSB said, they'd probably just keep the gun... but, you can say they replaced the gun with the smoke generator equipment and oil tanks in the gun bay along with some steel ingots to match the weight and it's distribution inside the airframe... 

It would save a ton of money by not creating and implementing complex weapons systems when simply filling the space with equivalent yet cheaper things. I think everyone is thinking about this backward...... I dunno how the idea got started that we're taking an already made A-10 and cutting it up.... that's just stupid.... this is being BUILT this way on purpose. So, the gun provides some structural component.....   well, are aircraft engineers so stupid they couldn't figure out how to make it work with traditional methods and materials?

I'm not messing with it any more any way. Apparently it's a stupid idea to make a demo airplane following the same precedent and doing it exactly how all the other ones are done so to hell with it.

[DogfighterZen]

Whoa... Brad, I don't think we're saying your idea stupid... At least i assumed it would be a normal A-10 because that's what the Thunderbirds' Vipers are... And then modified for the demo team, gun removed and smoke generator and oil tanks in the gun's place... It's your build so no one can tell you that you can't do it like you're imagining it. I thought we were just discussing the possibilities and issues of such mods... 

[TheChronicOne]

I was on the fence anyway after last night. I failed to find a way to utilise any decals for the striping and the bird on the bottom and all that jive. I would have had to create masks for all this stuff and when I started to take stock of the magnitude of it all and the time it would take I was like, "Damn, maybe I don't want to mess with this right now... this was meant to be a swift, easy build but if I have to spend 4-5 days just masking then I might need to find something else." Hell, day ONE it was throwing problems at me. Not a good sign. 

As for the rest, I'm just failing utterly to understand the points being offered when I've read and researched so much about aircraft engineering that say the opposite. When designing and building an airplane.... the idea is to NOT jam it full of things it does not need and will never use. Yet, I'm being told that creating a far simpler and less intricate design with materials that would only cost a fraction of the military equipment (that we don't need) would somehow be difficult and cost MORE.    It just doesn't make sense but.. apparently I and 100+ years of aircraft design are wrong and the way to make things simpler and cheaper is to make them more complex and with high cost systems and materials.  (see, it doesn't make any sense when phrased this way).     

I found something else to do. A MiG Duck.

[TallEng]

Pity, it sounded a rather splendid idea
I was just going to suggest you could keep the BFG and use it to fire pretty flares,
And maybe party poppers at the crowd....

Regards
Keith

[Captain Canada]

Be a great display ! The one we saw in London last month was pitching up so violently I'd never seen them move that much. Just awesome.

[zenrat]

A prophet is never recognised in his own land Brad C.
You should build exactly whatever you want and write your backstory to suit.

[PR19_Kit]

You should build exactly whatever you want and write your backstory to suit.

Remember Kit's 2nd Law of Whiffing, 'The backstory can always be modified to suit the model'