4 ms·
It's loaded weight is around 1/10 that of the A-10, they aren't at all comparable aircraft. The derided elsewhere in this discussion Scorpion sounds like it's
by hga 12y ago
It's loaded weight is around 1/10 that of the A-10, they aren't at all comparable aircraft. The derided elsewhere in this discussion Scorpion sounds like it's maybe 5 times the plane the ARES is, and these things don't scale linearly in terms of effectiveness.
- phkahler 12y ago>> It's loaded weight is around 1/10 that of the A-10, they aren't at all comparable aircraft. If the primary mission is to carry the big gun, then they serve the same purpose. I would bet ARES could have benefited from being a bit larger with better armor, but the price tag was around $1M if I recall correctly, and the small size and composite construction may have given it a smaller radar cross section as well. Part of the weight savings is in the non-hydraulic control surfaces. It's nice that the A-10 could revert to manual control when both hydraulic systems failed, but that raises the question "why have them at all?". Simplicity is has been a major part of designs from Scaled Composites.