HOME | DD
Venom800TT — ACAS Drawing
Published: 2012-01-24 13:57:10 +0000 UTC; Views: 1694; Favourites: 13; Downloads: 41
Redirect to original
Description
Finally got around to doing a close air support jet to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II...Has dual 30mm GAU-13 four barrel Gatling guns, twin high bypass turbofans in the 20,000 lbf class, extensive IR and noise suppression, and a two man cockpit. The aircraft is armored to the same level as the A-10 it replaces, while redundancy is increased due to a triple redundant fly-by-light flight control system, along with a dual manual flight control system.
The aircraft is capable of high subsonic speeds while still retaining excellent low speed handling due to it's large supercritical wing. Agility is also comparable to an A-10. Also has improved STOL performance over the A-10 due to larger slotted Fowler type flaps.
The aircraft is similar in size to the A-10 in terms of dimensions and weight. Has a higher internal fuel capacity along with a higher max takeoff weight.
Related content
Comments: 8
Sounds good. As long as it can fly with nearly half of the thing destroyed then its a solid replacement aircraft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It will be capable of flight with up to half of one wing destroyed or one of the V tail halves destroyed. Though, luckily the chances of that happening are slim, since it has all manner of jamming/countermeasures systems.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That would be quite interesting to see. I know the way the original A-10 was set up any losses could be easily compensated for simply by design alone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sturdy construction, good aerodynamics (at slow speeds in the A-10's case), and redundancy is why the A-10 can take so much damage. Also advances in flight control systems even allow for flight with major control surfaces lost as long as there is power to control the plane, even more so than what the A-10 could already take. As long as the plane is designed for the mission it will perform, it generally will be good at it. Unless it is just a bad design to begin with
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sounds pretty good to me. Well, then threes also the issue of people selecting the right tools for the right missions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, that is nice! Is it me or your designs are getting more and more organic?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol, thanks
It is more that I wanted an aircraft with low drag to help reduce noise. I wanted an aircraft quieter than an A-10, so I had to make it rather aerodynamic, yet at the same time I needed a wing suitable for both low and high subsonic flight. Also with my other designs, my quest for reduced radar signature means the planes will tend to look a bit more organic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0