Talk:A-10 Thunderbolt II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A-10 Thunderbolt II article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

Contents

[edit] BL755 integration

Does anyone have a source that the BL755 CBU was ever integrated on the A-10 other than in Hunting Engineering marketing material? Riddley 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was anything more than a test fitting. I checked the Jane's Air-Launched Weapons listing for the A-10 and there's no mention of the BL-755. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement

Hm... seems like the A-10 could get completely replaced by raptors. Considering Raptors are pretty damn agile, not to mention they feature those vulcan guns that were actually designed to shoot through tanks. The A-10 also features this, however it only falls under 'support' like many ppl already seemed to mention.

A-10's have also existed much longer, which explains the fact that they exist at all. These are all only based on assumptions from what I've read, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.92.95 (talk • contribs)

  • The F-22 Raptor's Vulcan cannon is smaller caliber (20 mm) and is actually meant for air to air combat. Currently, they intend to replace the A-10 with the F-35. High speed jets aren't the best choice for ground attack CAS where the targets are much slower. The USAF experimented an attack version of the F-16 called the F/A-16 and its speed was 1 drawback that ended the trial. -Fnlayson 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • They are doing upgrades to the A-10 to keep it going for several years to come. Supposed to be until 2028, as I recall. -Fnlayson 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Every now and then the USAF gets the idea that one aircraft can replace many different types of planes, i.e. the F-111 was supposed to replace almost all the fighters and bombers in the inventory. Of course it did not. I would not be surprised if the A-10 is like the A-26 Invader or the B-52. A plane that due to it's unique design and tough construction flies until it can not fly anymore.204.80.61.110 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Another consideration is sturdiness. What other plane can be hurt as badly as an A-10 and keep flying? Paul Koning 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Every now and then the USAF gets the idea that one aircraft can replace many different types of planes," actually, in the case of the F-35 it was Congress and the DoD deciding to roll several programs into one. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
With the F-111, it was Secretary Robert McNamara and the DOD that pushed it. Fnnny thing is, the F-111 was supposed to replace the F-4, among many others, which was the closest thing to a joint-service multi-role fighter the US has ever had. - BillCJ 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"The USAF experiemented an attack version of the F-16 called the F/A-16 and its speed was 1 drawback that ended the trial." Almost all versions of the F-16 have a ground attack capability. In fact, most U.S. versions can carry wide range of conventional ordance, comparable to the F/A-18 or the F-15E.Stanleywinthrop 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Not sure where that quote comes from, but the F/A-16 was specially equipped with a 30 mm cannon.[1] -Fnlayson 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but your origional statement implies that the current F-16 doesn't do ground attack--which is falseStanleywinthrop 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but the article states that a "ground attack" version of an F-16 was cancled. The reference clearly refers to a "close air support" version of the F-16 and not a "ground attack version", and I changed the article to reflect as such. The irony is, even though this close air support version was cancled, the F-16 has engaged in close air support (CAS) in every major conflict (for the U.S.) it has flown in, up to and including present day operations in Iraq. Your definition of ground attack is skewed. Ground attack can be many things, including CAS, but also things such as interdiction, where high speed can be very much an advantage for a ground attack aircraft, to help avoid defenses.Stanleywinthrop 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I was leaving out air interdiction. -Fnlayson 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing Awarded $2 Billion A-10 Wing Contract

ST. LOUIS, June 29 -- The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) has been awarded a U.S. Air Force contract worth up to $2 billion between 2007 and 2018 for engineering services and the manufacturing of 242 wing sets for the Air Force's A-10 fleet. ... from [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.144.210 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Copyvio?

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 July 28/Articles for details. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Why not ask here first? They deleted the article. The info could have come from the same place. -Fnlayson 21:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I've restored it - the external site is definitely a copyvio of us! --Rlandmann 22:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. There are parts of this article that need to be referenced better though. -Fnlayson 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with this picture?

is much better than

don't you think? the first one shows it in much more detail, and it is so beautiful. You can see the hardpoints, the weapons, so much more clearly than the second pic. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The first one doesn't show all the aircraft and the shading is better in the 2nd one. -Fnlayson 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Concur, plus the second one doesn't have the distracting polka dots. I agree there are better pictures than the second one, but the first pic isn't one of them! - BillCJ 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the first one to the Operational history section. The article is getting full of images in the lower half or so. -Fnlayson 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Sprey

"Thanks. I just added a reference for the Boyd book. -Fnlayson 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)" Since we are using the Boyd book for a reference can we add the fact that Pierre Sprey played an important role in the A-10? I find no mention of him in this article. In fact, I believe he was the one who distributed the copies of the above mentioned book to designers. I no longer own a copy of the book, can some one look up the relevant pages?Stanleywinthrop 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durability Citation

Under the section on Durability, I removed the request for citation involving the aircraft being referred to as "a flying tank". Such citation requests are frequent on wikipedia, and frivolous. One needs only to spend a second or two looking for "Flying Tank" and "A10" on google to verify the obvious. CameronB 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "one" does not have a second on Google to do so; one could be reading an offline version of Wikipedia, or one may not wish to spend time reading the idle chatter of military enthusiasts on random websites. If this is widely-enough used that it deserves a mention in the article then it should be referenced. If not, it's original commentary and has no place here. Chris Cunningham 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

This page could use one of those but for some reason I cant edit it? Heres a few things

  • A-10's were seen in the movie Jarhead multiple times and most of all the friendly fire scene.
  • A-10 LGB and Maverik armed aircraft can be use in the game Operation Flashpoint, GOTY and Elite for Xbox.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace keeper II (talk • contribs)
Popular culture sections aren't very useful unless the reference itself defines the subject (for instance, the Swingline stapler from Office Space). Otherwise, they're just dumping ground for bored teenagers to add random movie sightings. Chris Cunningham 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
↑Excellent point. Couldn't have said it better myself. –Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What about at least mentioning computer games and documentaries about the Hog? I remember Sierra had a A-10 simulation once in their program, the A-10 has also a very good model in Lock-on. A plain: "Hey I have seen it in a movie for 0.25 seconds" list is not really useful, but a section about the media with focus on the A-10 could be good and useful. 134.169.36.49 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Simulators can be OK if the A-10 is the only aircraft featured or the main one. Games and such where the A-10 is one of many are not significant and notable. See WP:MILMOS#POP for policy on this. -Fnlayson 13:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors????

It has been a while since I flew the Hog, but 180 knots??? Not in my lifetime, unless you are talking IAS at high altitude. Corner velocity is 325 KIAS. We operated at 250 KIAS when low level off of established low level routes due to FAA regs, but when on LLRs, it would be 300 - 325 KIAS.

As for gun firing rate, I know there have been osme mods, but it used to be slectable 2100 or 4200 rounds per minute.

TCarraway 08:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My copy of the flight manual says that TO 1A-10-1059 deleted the "low" setting and changed the firing rate to a fixed setting of 3900 rounds per minute. Paul Koning 01:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It'd be good if you could use that manual or something else to reference the firing rate. I've seen editors change from 4200 rd/min to 3900 and back again. I've left that alone since I didn't know for sure which was right. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Paul Koning 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Paul, I noticed that you adjusted the number of Mk82s from 10 to 18 with the max speed remaining at 450 knots. Could you double check whether that is what the manual really says or is there a different max speed for the two load-outs? Given the added weight and drag, I’d expect a lower top speed than for the 10-bomb load. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's interesting. I did check carefully and that's what it says. There are some differences between the two cases: the 18 bomb load has limitations on stick deflection while the 10 bomb load does not.
I wonder if it might be interesting to give some details about the loading charts, or if that's going into deeper detail than is appropriate. Paul Koning 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! Sometimes it is easy to lose track when several changes are being made. Not having the manual to examine, I can't say whether there might be something worth working into the text, but I doubt that something like a section devoted to loadings is needed. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 00:31, 3 October 2007

(UTC)

[edit] Carrier based?

Can these guys land/take off on a carrier? Seeing their limited range, it would be hard to get to the core of Iraq without a friendly airbase ( which I doubt they had ) without a carrier somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.158.176 (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the A-10 is not carrier-capable. These aren't deep-strike aircraft either, so long range isn't usually needed. They are designed to operate from austere forward bases close to the front lines. Also, remeber the US military relies heavily on aerial refueling. Even carrier aircraft refuel at least once, and often 2 or 3 times, per sortie. This was especially true during operations in Afghanistan, which is several hundred miles inland.
As to range, remember the CAS figures are for a 250nm "radius" (one-way, then up to almost a 2-hour loiter time, 10 minutes in combat, and 250nm back to the base. The A-10 is very fuel efficient compared to jet fighters, even modern ones. It's designed to be based close to the action so it can get there quickly when called upon, and to loiter around for hours if needed, depending on how far it is from the forward bases.
Finally, there USMC uses the Harrier II for CAS work, and those are carrier-capable, tho they hardly ever operart from the supercarriers as they don't need catapults or arresting gear. They operate regularly from the Navy's amphibious assault ships for these types of missions, and then put to shore from small airstrips and pads to be even closer. - BillCJ (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum / VNE

How come maximum speed is 833 km/h and never exceed speed is 832 km/h? I guess it's wrong. Marcos [Tupungato] (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • They are both listed at 450 knots, so neither is automatically wrong. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My revert of 71.158.181.131

I just reverted 9 edit sessions by User:71.158.181.131 with the rollback feature. As these were not vandalous edits, I need to explain the problems with his edits. Many were defintely qestionable, and some involved the insertion of non-encyclopedic parenthetical comments. None of these additions were sourced in anyway, and thus I did a wholesale revert, rather than trying to sort through the myriad changes made. I honestly don't believe any on f the edits made were an improvement. - BillCJ (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • There's a lot of background and early history to the A-X program. It'd be easy for that area of the article to grow immensely without controlling it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1 mile vs 5 miles

Haxxploits (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Hey guys... the range on the GAU-8 is 5 miles... why does it keep getting changed back to 1?

Because you're changing a cited statement on accuracy. If you have a reliable published source for 5 miles, cite it. Otherwise, your change is original reserach, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. - BillCJ (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked the source, and you were right: It's not one mile, it's 4,000 feet! The original source states "5mil, 80%", and distance is actually 4,000 ft, which is not a mile. The source also gives radius of the circle as 20 feet, which is 40 ft wide. I've made corrections from the original 1987 edition (top of page 46) which the cite is from, and the 2000 edition has the exact same figures (top of page 44). Someone else will have to explain what a "mil" is, as I have no idea. I do think I saw a discussions this week about a similar confusion between "mil" and "mile", but can't remember where. (Was that you, Jeff?) - BillCJ (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That was from an edit summary of mine. A mil short for milliradian. That's a small unit of angular measure (FYI: 1 degree = 17.45 milliradians). My A-10 Warbird Tech book talks about the cannon's accuracy in mils (think of a cone). The accuracy is heavily related to the targeting system (LASTE) and the system's calibration. It says the sighting software is based on 1 type of round (1998 publish date). Fnlayson (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the 4000 ft distance is not the cannon's max range. That is the distance it is optimized for. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it as is now, it looks fine. Except the CEP number is a bit misleading. The GAU'll put the rounds into a 20' circle; it won't necessarily be the 20' around the aimpoint. Go figure. Trekphiler (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect unit conversion

From the article, Design/Weapons Systems (bold for emphasis here):

The gun is accurate as well, being capable of placing 80% of its shots within a 40-foot- (12.4 meter-) wide circle from a distance of 4,000 feet (1,800 meters) while the aircraft is in flight.[17] A two-second burst, therefore, will on average result in about 100 hits on a tank-sized target. The GAU-8 is optimized for slant range of 4,000 feet (1,800 m) with the A-10 in a 30 degree dive.[18]

1800 meters is almost 50% more than 4000 feet, so something is seems amiss here. I don't have access to either of the two books referenced so I can't check the actual citation.

  • 1800 meters = 5905 feet
  • 1220 meters = 4000 feet

-- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 05:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

4,000 feet (1,800 meters) is actually in the Sweetman (1987) source, so something is definitely not accurate here. It's on two separate pages, and is also in the 2000 edition. I'll put a verify source tag in untile we can verify which is correct: the feet or the meters. - BillCJ (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Jenkins A-10 book (ref 18) only lists the optimized slant range of 4,000 feet without the conversion. I copied the metric conversion from the other sentence without checking. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the Jenkins book only lists 4,000 ft & this is a US product, this looks to be an incorrect conversion to meters. So I changed the other 1,800 m to 1,220 m. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

The entire "Nickname" section looks like it was written by someone with no connection to the people who actually flew it, and is based on pure speculation. The section needs a complete rewrite. It currently cites no sources.

Lineage of the "hog" attack jet nicknames:

In an interview of an A-10 pilot on The Discovery Wings Channel (now The Military Channel) I saw a few years ago, the pilot stated with authority the origin of the "Wart Hog" nickname. He stated it is a direct descendant of the "hog" nicknames given to previous Republic Aircraft Corporation "Thunder" series jet fighter bombers by their USAF pilots and the ground crews who maintained them (i.e. "the community"). He stated the Republic F-84 Thunderjet/Thunderstreak was the first jet fighter bomber to receive "hog" as one of its popular derogatory nicknames. This is confirmed on the F-84 Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-84

He stated that when the Republic F-105 Thunderchief was introduced into USAF service, replacing the older F-84, the aforementioned "community" nicknamed the new Republic fighter bomber the "Ultra Hog", paying homage to the F-84 "hog" nickname. He stated the "Ultra" addition was due to the much greater performance, newer avionics technology, etc, built into the new Republic plane. The Wikipedia F-105 page states "Hyper Hog" as one of the F-105's nicknames:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-105

I've never heard that one, and the pilot in the interview didn't mention it. However, I would assume that both "Hyper Hog" and "Ultra Hog" were used by various people as nicknames for the F-105. Since these are nicknames, and from my human experience individuals often come up with their own unique variations on existing nicknames, it seems plausible that there may have been any number of prefix-"hog" nickname variations applied to the F-105.

He stated that when the USAF attack "community" received the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, they nicknamed it "Wart Hog", again paying homage to the earlier Republic Thunder series fighter bombers. He stated that the origin of the "Wart" addition was for the simple, SINGLE reason that it was an "ugly" airplane. He didn't state any specific parts of the plane as being ugly, but that the WHOLE aircraft was simply ugly--ugly by the then current aesthetic standard for fighter aircraft of the day. "Sleek was sexy, and the A-10 was anything but!", is a direct quote from the pilot in that television episode. I'll never forget it.

I don't have any method of citing that episode I saw on Discovery Wings Channel, and I've not see what I just described above in print either in books or aviation magazine articles, so I can't cite a print reference at this time. However, given that I can state the source of my information, and that there are "hog" nickname references on both the F-84 and F-105 Wikipedia pages, what I state here is backed up by the other articles. I suggest that a trusted Wikipedia editor review the information I have presented here, and wholesale replace the current "Nickname" section with something like this:

"The A-10A Thunderbolt II received its popular nickname 'WartHog' from the pilots and crews of the USAF attack squadrons who flew and maintained this unique aircraft. The A-10 was the last in the line of successful Republic 'Thunder' series of attack aircraft to serve with the USAF. The Republic F-84 Thunderjet had been previously nicknamed the "Hog" and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief tagged with variations such as "Ultra Hog" and "Hyper Hog". After seeing this new attack aircraft and its purpose built shape, being the antithesis of sleek and sexy, and after witnessing the massive firepower of its GAU/8A cannon, the pilots and crews adopted the name 'WartHog'. This nickname was chosen for two reasons. It paid homage to the 'hog' nicknames of the previous Thunder series attack aircraft. It also conjured the image of the African wild pig of the same name and this animal's defining attributes of aggressiveness and ugliness." 69.155.191.69 (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

  • I've got a book that supports the Warthog nickname at least. Nicknames for the F-84 and F-105 were there before, but was removed because that was not really related and it caused people to keep adding non-notable nicknames. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am confident in the information I have, and I already made the edit. The F-84 and F-105 reference are definitely related. That is the factual reason why the A-10 was given a "hog" nickname. One would be hard pressed to find an aviation book that does not have a reference to the nickname Warthog applied to the A-10. I can cite some of those references to the Warthog nickname. I've not found a book to date that actually ties all the Republic "Hog" nicknames together, showing the lineage. I'll go ahead and cite a reference with the Warthog nickname. I have the book right here. BTW, I'm surprised how quickly you responded! Wow. 69.155.191.69 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

  • The way you connected the Hog nicknames is good. That is similar to what my Jenkins book says, I believe. Will look tonight after I get home. There was different and only tangently related F-84/105 info before. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never created a citation before so it may take me a while to hack through it and get the format correct. Just in case I screw it up, here is the source: The Complete Encyclopedia Of World Aircraft, General Editors Paul Eden and Soph Moeng, publisher Barnes & Noble Inc, ISBN 0-7607-3432-1, Copyright 2002 Aerospace Publishing Ltd

69.155.191.69 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

I just fired off an email to John Horner. He is an A-10 pilot and the son of Gen. Chuck Horner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Horner. I'm hoping he'll be able to provide the most accurate information and a referenced source for the origin of the Warthog nickname. And, hopefully he may decide to lend a hand in just making sure all the info on this A-10 page is as accurate as possible.

69.155.191.69 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

Nice edit Fnlayson. The manner in which you laid down the "hog" history pretty much eliminates the need for the rest of my text after your citation. What I have written is the correct history of why/how the nickname was originally adopted. However, we've been unable to, up to this point, find a text to cite that lays out the fine detail of the rather simple logic involved in the nicknaming of the A-10.

The way you've written it, the reader can somewhat easily infer the association to the ugly warthog pig merely by looking at the pictures of the various planes in the Thunder series and seeing the dramatic aesthetic differences amongst the F-84/F-105/A-10, the F-84 and 105 being of sleek aerodynamic lines, the A-10 the opposite of sleek. We can cite the fact that "Warthog" is the nickname of the A-10. We just can't cite the exact "why" of the nickname origin. For now, we can leave it to the reader to connect the dots on his/her own.

The exact quote in the book "The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft" I mentioned earlier is "Warthog is a nickname that has stuck with the A-10, largely as a result of its awkward looks". This doesn't state the origin of the nickname, but that it's still the main nickname used after 'some length of time'. I don't like that wording and would rather not cite it. The word "awkward" implies lack of balance, coordination, and the opposite of "nimble" or "agile". The A-10 is both nimble and agile. The warthog pig is not awkward, but a very agile and nimble (and aggressive) mammal which is one of the reasons it's such a dangerous a hazard to humans that accidentally cross its path in the wild. I understand why that author used the word "awkward", but it is not an accurate descriptive term for the A-10.

I'm going to edit again and remove all of my text following your citation mark as it is mostly redundant due to your fantastic edit, and because we can't cite a reference for it at this time. Also, I'm going to change tense ("was" to "is") in a place or two. The reason being that the A-10 is still in active service and will be for some time to come. The F-84 and F-105 should be referenced in the past tense as they have both long been retired. The A-10 should be reference in the present tense, as of 2008.

If/when we obtain a source that connects all the dots we can modify the article and cite it at that point. P.S. I love the fact that you laid all of it out so well, and with far fewer words than I did. I reads much more easily and conveys all the necessary information. I guess that's why you're the main editor!  ;) Again, you've done a very nice job. 69.155.191.69 (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

Good deal and thanks Stan. I write brief, too brief sometimes. I was going to let that text about why it was named Warthog go for a while. A little wording on why would be good backed by a reference of course. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't received a response from John Horner. It could be that the email address I have for him is no longer valid. I do not personally know him, but obtained his contact info from a "hawg driver" website managed by another A-10 pilot. I will continue my efforts by I can't give an ETA on when I might obtain the source we need. 69.155.191.69 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Stan Hoeppner, St. Louis, MO

[edit] What about the paint job?

The A-10 is the only U.S. military aircraft I can think of that has in the past had such a distinctive paint job? I know that not all A-10's have the maw of teeth, but when I was a kid that was the thing that got me to like the A-10. Do only certain units and flight wings paint the teeth on the front. Does the military allow pilots to paint they're aircraft? Why is the A-10 the only modern aircraft that seems to have custom nose art?--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stall speed / Landing speed

I cannot find stall speed or landing speed values for this aircraft anywhere on the internet. Is this parametr known for this aircraft? Anyone can provide the value and cite the source? --BIS Ondrej (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Found one at http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_052a.html - in the article now --BIS Ondrej (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)