5 ms·

Worth observing here that military aircraft having engines with cooling problems and consequent engine life issues is nothing new. The B-29 that dropped the at

by rgmerk 4y ago

Worth observing here that military aircraft having engines with cooling problems and consequent engine life issues is nothing new. The B-29 that dropped the atom bombs in Japan had engines that were apparently so prone to overheating that rather than prioritising gaining altitude after takeoff B-29 pilots had to prioritise gaining airspeed lest the engines catch on fire. The engines also had an extremely short service life, with engines replaced after as little as 75 hours of service [1] Similarly, the Soviet MiG-25 was theoretically capable of well over Mach 3, but was limited to Mach 2.8 to prevent the engines overheating [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

sacnoradhq 4y ago
There was a lot of turn-over (no pun intended) in strategic heavy bombers until the B-52. There were also all sorts of medium-heavy and heavy bombers between the B-17 and the B-52. The MiG-25 had to swap engines after every flight. Meanwhile, the A-10 is and was an amazing design and yet they want to ditch it. The F-22, B-1A/B, B-2, KC-46 were previous boondoggles. And now, ditching the Viper and Hornet for an Jaguar X-type with an unusable motor. MIC loves it: more problems = more $$$
- simplotek 4y ago
  > Meanwhile, the A-10 is and was an amazing design and yet they want to ditch it. I believe the argument that the A-10 is obsolete is the fact that nowadays the US armed forces have at their disposal far more efficient and safe ways to destroy ground targets and conduct close air support missions. The design of something is irrelevant if it's obsolete. I'm sure there were exquisite buggy whips back in the day. Here's an age-old HN post that amusingly enough is a top search hit on Google on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11031662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11031662
- mitthrowaway2 4y ago
  > The MiG-25 had to swap engines after every flight. Only when it was pushed to the edge of its operating limits, if I understand correctly?

by rgmerk 4y ago

sacnoradhq 4y ago

There was a lot of turn-over (no pun intended) in strategic heavy bombers until the B-52. There were also all sorts of medium-heavy and heavy bombers between the B-17 and the B-52. The MiG-25 had to swap engines after every flight. Meanwhile, the A-10 is and was an amazing design and yet they want to ditch it. The F-22, B-1A/B, B-2, KC-46 were previous boondoggles. And now, ditching the Viper and Hornet for an Jaguar X-type with an unusable motor. MIC loves it: more problems = more $$$

simplotek 4y ago
> Meanwhile, the A-10 is and was an amazing design and yet they want to ditch it. I believe the argument that the A-10 is obsolete is the fact that nowadays the US armed forces have at their disposal far more efficient and safe ways to destroy ground targets and conduct close air support missions. The design of something is irrelevant if it's obsolete. I'm sure there were exquisite buggy whips back in the day. Here's an age-old HN post that amusingly enough is a top search hit on Google on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11031662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11031662
mitthrowaway2 4y ago
> The MiG-25 had to swap engines after every flight. Only when it was pushed to the edge of its operating limits, if I understand correctly?