Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nightvision

I remember a bit on TV with a pilot telling about how they fixed the lack of night vision / radar capabilities by wiring one of the rockets that did have it so, that, until firing it, they could use its night vision / radar. I'm pretty sure he was talking about either the A-10 or the A-6. If anyone can find anything on that, it might be worth adding it to the article.

They didn't have to "wire" the missile. The AGM-65 with imagining infrared was used as a "Poor Man's FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed)" during DESERT STORM. It wasn't a fix, it was a stop gap.

Deployments

I am certain that the A-10 has not been deployed to Iraq since the initial invasion in 2003 and maybe a few months after that. They have been doing all of their work in Afghanistan but not Iraq in the last few years. Does anyone have any resources that would back this up. Deployment info is tough to get on the web. Cheers--Looper5920 04:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The A-10 is still being used in Iraq... very often too! Drew1369 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A-10s Stall - they don't come to a halt in mid-air :-)

The Trivia section is a little misleading to someone who is unfamiliar with aircraft. Aircraft don't come to a standstill in midair ... they stall :-) This is due to the Stall Speed of the aircraft. An A-10 would stall at about 80-90Kts, depending on the weight and configuration of the flaps. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaps_%28aircraft%29 . The only aircraft that can hover in mid-air are the Harrier and the V-22 Osprey :-).

• Yea poor wording. The main point is about the recoil offsetting the thrust. -Fnlayson 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A related legend (I can't verify it) is that there's a pod-mounted 30mm cannon that they tried on the A-10 in addition to the main gun. One was mounted under each wing and it fired at the same time as the main gun. Allegedly, the recoil from three such cannon firing simultaneously caused the A-10 to immediately stall.

Updated A-10 to be unveiled today

August 18, 2006

Related links 917th Wing/47th Fighter Squadron: www.917wg.afrc.af.mil. Hill Air Force Base, Utah: www.hill.af.mil/main/index.html.

A-10 data sheet at Air Force Web site: www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=70. By John Andrew Prime jprime@gannett.com The A-10, the tough little ground-attack fighter that struck hard in combat in the Persian Gulf and other trouble hot spots this decade and last, will soon get a much-needed upgrade.

Over the next six years, all 356 airplanes in the inventory will be upgraded to the new mark, getting "glass cockpits" that do away with old analog instruments, and gaining state-of-the-art computer and control systems that will allow them to use the most modern and "smart" weapons.

The new A-10C will be unveiled today at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, while the type will first fly Nov. 4 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., according to a release from the Air Force.

"The new designation from A-10A to A-10C represents the largest and most sophisticated modification in the 30-year history of the close air support fighter," the Air Force release said.

Since the local 47th Fighter Squadron trains pilots and isn't a frontline fighting unit any longer, its 21 airplanes will likely be among the last to get the upgrades. But the thought of supercharging the airplanes excites fliers here.

"The most intriguing part is the incorporation of the latest technology, going from instruments of the 1960s and 1970s to something more state-of-the-art," said Col. Ozzie Gorbitz, commander of the 917th Operations Group, part of the Air Force Reserve's 917th Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base.

"The glass in the cockpit and getting rid of round dials will allow us to take advantage of data that's coming through the new targeting pods, and fully integrate these. Overall, we'll have a more capable airframe and will be able to better prosecute the war on terror."

An industry team led by Lockheed Martin developed the upgrades after a request for changes from Air Combat Command. Changes consist of a new cockpit instrument panel with two 5-inch-square multifunction color displays and a new stick-type grip and right throttle to provide fingertip control of aircraft systems and targeting pod functions, the Air Force said.

In addition, six pylon upgrades will allow the new A-10 to employ such advanced weapons as the Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAM, and the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser, WCMD, in addition to current weapons in its arsenal: the Maverick missile, a 30-mm Gatling gun, and laser-guided bombs.

Finally, a new computer called the central interface control unit will manage the airplane's avionics and the integrated Digital Stores Management System, or DSMS, that controls weapons.

Gorbitz, who previously was with the 47th Fighter Squadron and has close to 1,500 flight hours in the A-10, has seen the new cockpit configuration at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.

That will be the prime training location for the A-10C, he said.

"Pilots coming here who have follow-on assignments to the A-10C will continue to train in our A-10s and then will receive 'top-off' training in the A-10C, most likely at Davis Monthan," he said. "We will continue to train A-10 pilots going to units who do not yet have the A-10C."

Whispering death redux

I removed the entire section (again) and will continue to do so until someone provides a credible verifiable reference. There is nothing whispering about Corsair, Beaufighter, F-111, A-10, or wherever else your fancy takes you. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

Anyone who wants to re-add a claim along the lines of "The real reason" is politely requested to cite a reference. Personal knowledge is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Thanks. - Rogerborg 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Il-2

"The first production A-10 flew in October 1975, and deliveries to the Air Force commenced in March 1976. The A-10A is almost an exact counterpart to the Il-2 Stormovik. The first squadron to use the A-10 went operational in October 1977. "

Huh? Out of place, to say the least.

• Yep, out of place. The Il-2 is mentioned in the first paragraph in the Origins section already. -Fnlayson 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'll remove that sentence since it is covered earlier. -Fnlayson 21:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Upgrade

This link may be of some interest concerning the A 10 upgrade:

• EIFELTIMES, Online-Paper at Spangdahlem Airbase (PDF; 2,89 MB) --Pm 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wing tips

The A-10's downturned wing tips can be seen on close inspection of the first image (1975 one). Just wondering, how long must a wing tip before it is considered a winglet? -Fnlayson 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a source which refers to the A-10's wing tips as "Hoerner wingtips", a word which is listed (but not defined) in the Wing tip article (right above the "winglets" entry). From the pictures, the Warthog's tips look to be no more that 18 inches long, if even a foot. I think most winglets are longer than that, but again that's also just a guess from the pics. Maybe someone with more direct knowledge can help us here. - BillCJ 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the A-10's upward-curling wingtips are Hoerner wingtips. They're intended to reduce induced drag by throwing the tip vortex outward and upward; droop tips are curved down, rather than up, and do mostly the same thing (as well as reduce the ground effect). They are useful Winglets are just like the name suggests — little wings appended upwards or downwards from the wingtips. Unlike the "curled" wingtips, they aren't used to reduce drag but rather to generate a thrust component from the vortex's movement over the airfoil. They are useful on aircraft that routinely fly at high altitude and or at large angles of attack. Askari Mark | Talk 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, as I grow older my "brain farts" are becoming more common. The A-10 has drooping wingtips, not Hoerners; they curl down on the A-10, not up. Sorry for the error, I should know better. Guess I need to eat more seafood. :( Askari Mark Talk 19:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the function of winglets is just the opposite: that they are there to prevent the formation of drag-inducing wingtip vortices. The air is moving more rapidly over the top of the wing than the bottom, so when the air that moves out over the top of the wing meets the air moving out under the bottom it "curls" over, producing a vortex. Wingtip vortices have the same low-pressure center found in tornadoes and the eye of hurricanes, and this low-pressure zone induces drag through suction.--Molon Labe 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wingtip device; it states that wingtip devices increase the lift generated at the wingtip, and reduce the lift-induced drag caused by wingtip vortices, improving lift-to-drag ratio. Turning to Wingtip vortices we find the statement "air flows from below the wing and out around the tip to the top of the wing in a circular fashion. This leakage will raise the pressure on top of the wing and lower the overall lift that the wing can produce. It also produces an emergent flow pattern with low pressure in the center surrounded by fast moving air with curved streamlines." So my description of how the drag is induced is incorrect; the drag is presumably not from any suction effect from the low-pressure zone in the center of the vortex, but rather from high-pressure air spilling over the end of the wing to the upper surface, spoiling the lift-inducing low pressure zone above the wing. I also forgot that wingtip vortices curl upward not downward. My bad. --Molon Labe 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheeler-Sack?

Last I knew, there were some A-10s being flown out of Wheeler-Sack near Fort Drum, yet I don't see any mention of it. Is it not a current positioning? I haven't been down that way much recently, so it's quite possible that they've moved them elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RussNelson (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Gun/landing gear

Unusual feature mentioned at GAU-8_Avenger -- the front landing gear are offset to accomodate the large main gun. Is the A-10 the only aircraft that has this feature? And which side?

The gun is offset to port (with the firing barrel, at the starboard-most position, being on the centre line). Presumably then the nosewheel is offset to starboard.

It is true that the gun makes the nosewheel offset to the right [1], and it is also true that it makes the aircraft taxi differently, but I doubt that anyone has bothered to write it down anywhere else (Saying this as a former A-10 mechanic) Guy G Sotomayor, III 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no, NO! The GUN isn't offset, the NOSE GEAR is offset. The gun is on the centerline of the aircraft. Look at the flamin' pictures! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.22.31 (talk • contribs).

Actually, the gun is slightly to the left. It's setup up so tht the firing barrel is on the aircraft centerline while it fires, then the barrel rotates back to the left, as stated above. It's very hard to see this in the pics of the nose in the article. However, if you loosk at this carefully, you can see in the drawing of the underside that the gun is offest to the left. - BillCJ 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The German Alpha Jet's landing gear are slightly offset and so is the belly mounted gun to accomodate each other ... although that gun actually fires from behind the landing gear. Its quite odd really.

Battlefiled repairs

http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/ This site shows some A-10's that took amazing damage and made it back to base, to be repaired and returned to battle. Especially incredible is the plane with the entire leading edge of its right wing gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Aviation Week had a nice article about this; I put in a reference to it. Paul Koning 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Friendly Fire Incidents

While the statement of Friendly Fire incidents is true, I don't think this belongs in this page in this manner. Something under the guise of "The A-10 has been involved in several prominent friendly fire incidents" and provide references would be sufficient.BQZip01 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like it is the same as reporting accidents with airliners. Got to cover the bad and good. The incidents could be moved out of that secion and just included in the service history chronologically. What do others think on this? -Fnlayson 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • All I'm saying is that it seems out of place and is of almost no note with regards to the aircraft. In war, people die, sometimes through friendly fire. Every weapon system has this problem in war. However, the weapon of choice need not be skewered (I don't see any notes like this on the Maverick page, M-16 page, grenade pages, etc.). That said, the incident and all particulars could (and possibly should) be included in the friendly fire page or its own page (should size warrant it). Heck, I don't care if someone starts a page for the PEOPLE responsible, but don't lambaste an inanimate object.BQZip01 20:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand it is a weapon and can be used in the wrong way. I don't haev any better ideas. I'll go along with anything reasonable here. -Fnlayson 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I say we delete it. It is trivial that it was an A-10 that was used and the aircraft and its facts should simply be what they are: facts. If an A-10 was used for something unique or of particular note (such as shooting down a airliner on a diplomatic mission), then it should be included, but these incidents are only noteworthy in the fact that they made page 6 of the New York Times and then were, quick frankly, forgotten. I say remove the note altogether or add it for every weapon system that has caused friendly fire casualties. Thoughts? BQZip01 02:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it. Here's a copy of it.

"Friendly fire" incidents

A-10 pilots have been involved in a number of notorious "friendly fire" incidents. In the Gulf War of 1991 an A-10 attacked two British Army Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles (out of 37 parked up), killing nine soldiers.

During the Iraq War of 2003, two British Scimitar armored reconnaissance vehicles were attacked by an A-10, killing L/Cpl Matty Hull and wounding five comrades.[2] The A-10's gun camera footage of this attack was recently [3]. The A-10 was also involved in a friendly fire incident with a U.S. Marine Amphibious Assault Vehicle at the Battle of Nasiriyah during the opening stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

On Monday September 4, 2006, Canadian soldier and former Olympian Pte. Mark Anthony Graham, a member of 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment, was killed and more than thirty others wounded after a strafing run from two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts in Afghanistan.[4]

Someone can see what we were discussing there for reference. I turned the Refs into just links here. -Fnlayson 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

citation for percentage of mavericks fired

Is on this page http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=70

in the background section near bottom of page, if anyone wants/knows how to add.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.239.2 (talk • contribs)

• Got it. Thanks for the help! -Fnlayson 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re KC's flight

The article says "...destroyed its hydraulic system, disabling the plane's stabilizer and flight controls". That's not really correct. Hydraulic failure doesn't disable flight controls, because of the reversion modes. It disables the hydraulic boost (servo) systems. So the flight controls become a lot harder to operate, and as the manual says "a single engine manual reversion approach ...should be attempted only under ideal conditions". (The press article referenced doesn't say "single engine" but it does say "damaged engine" -- same sort of thing I would think.) But the controls are still there. Paul Koning 21:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. So what's a good word to replace disabling; damaging, crippling or ?. -Fnlayson 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How about "dramatically increasing the amount of force needed to operate the controls."? BQZip01 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think most of this should be explained in the earlier paragraph where it says The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost.. -Fnlayson 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent point. I added some description and reworded the KC paragraph to refer to that. Paul Koning 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. -Fnlayson 14:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation in Criticisms section

Hey guys, there is currently little to NO citation in the criticism's section, we need to back up these claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TehPhil (talk • contribs)

• There's no references in the section, an unreferenced section tag is probably in order. -Fnlayson 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GAU-8 Firepower

“Although the A-10 can carry a considerable weight of disposable stores, its primary built-in weapon is the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun.... The massive shells and high muzzle velocity allow the Thunderbolt II to destroy heavily armored main battle tanks with as few as six direct hits.” I've heard stuff like this before, but it seems suspicious. Consider therse quotes from other wikipedia articles:

“M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well, the armor thickness believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA. The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2. The M1A1/M1A2 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120 mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles.”

“Armor penetration: 69mm at 500 meters; 38mm at 1000 meters” (GAU-8)

“A2 (and up) version is protected against 30 mm AP and RPGs” (Bradleys)

If an M1 can survive it's own gun, how could a mere 30mm AP round have any effect? If a 30mm AP round can penetrate 69mm of armor, six rounds should only penetrate 414mm of armor if they all land in exactly the same place, which is already very unlikely. MBTs are also much more heavily armored than M2A2s. Puck01 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

To what degree Hans-Ulrich Rudel's "input was used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft", as stated in his bio? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the section "After the War", (WWII). The ability of the Junkers 87 G-1 and G-2 Stuka to destroy tanks with their underwing 37mm guns was a factor in making the 30mm GAU-8 gun the main anti-tank weapon on the A-10. This is stated in the book "Warthog". Also in the Six-Day War 1967; Israeli aircraft destroyed a great many tanks with their 30mm guns. In the article on Junker 87; it states Rudel's book "Stuka Pilot" was required reading by the people associated with the A-X project that became the A-10. The Stuka destroyed a lot more tanks with their guns than did the, (article metioned), IL-2 and/or A-1 Skyraider aircraft. The IL-2 had a 23mm gun, while the A-1 had 20mm guns. The A-10 article should really metion the JU-87 G-1/G-2 Stuka and Rudel. I had added them, but they were removed.74.77.1.31 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

• That book needs to be added as a reference for the Rudel paragraph. Is "Warthog" the full title? Everything I'm finding has A-10 in the title. What year was it published? -Fnlayson 03:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found that information in Boyd the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Check the citations in Ju-87 it is the second one I believe.--LWF 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of the book is "Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War" by William Smallwood, 1993. It has a page on the JU-87G, Rudel, and Israeli aircraft destroying tanks with their 30mm guns in 1967. It is obvious that the JU-87G, not the IL-2 nor the A-1, was the aircraft that led to the GAU-8 and making it the main anti-tank weapon of the A-10, and led to the A-10 becoming: "The aircraft that was built around the gun".204.80.61.110Bennett Turk

• Thanks. I just added a reference for the Boyd book. -Fnlayson 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.[5] -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)

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 [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.144.210 (talk • contribs)

• Don't copy and paste whole articles. That's a copyright violation. Here's Boeing's release on this Boeing Awarded $2 Billion A-10 Wing Contract. That's already mentioned in the article too. -Fnlayson 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)