damage model of A-10C II compared to A-10C

[Rongor]

Has anybody flying the A-10C II ever experienced a single engine failure after receiving damage?

I did so back then in the A-10C module. Yet since we got the Tank Killer update I ALWAYS lose both engines, never a single one in case I receive combat damage.

[razo+r]

I've had at least two cases where I got hit with a missile and both times only lost one engine.

[QuiGon]

I'm pretty sure I also experienced single engine failures in the A-10C II, but my memory is a bit blurred in this regard as I constantly switch between the two.

[Dragan]

13 hours ago, Rongor said:

Has anybody flying the A-10C II ever experienced a single engine failure after receiving damage?

I did so back then in the A-10C module. Yet since we got the Tank Killer update I ALWAYS lose both engines, never a single one in case I receive combat damage.

I had a hit from ZSU, I extinguished the right engine of the badly damaged fire and managed to land safely, I didn't even throw away the remaining weapons, for your answer it is ... Yes, it is possible.The A-10 has now made great progress in DCS on all issues of reality  

Edited June 20, 2022 by Dragan

[Rewis.C]

I've seen AKs take out engines and a few 20mm rounds decimate it in 2.7. I haven't had any experience on 2.8 yet but I'm sure one strela will ruin your day almost every time.

[jaylw314]

The engines are vulnerable to any kind of gun fire.  Their position somewhat reduces the chances of getting hit, but once they're hit, it's just like any other turbofan getting hit.

The idea that the A-10 is a flying tank is a bit of a meme.  The PILOT is well protected, but the rest of the plane is (mostly) sheet aluminum.  The systems are well thought-out in terms of redundancy, but that doesn't mean it shrugs off bullets and cannon shells.

[BuzzU]

A titanium hull around the engines would have been good but probably too expensive.

[jaylw314]

6 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

A titanium hull around the engines would have been good but probably too expensive.

LOL, in the words of Scott Manley, "Fly Safe." 

[BuzzU]

[QuiGon]

19 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

The engines are vulnerable to any kind of gun fire.  Their position somewhat reduces the chances of getting hit, but once they're hit, it's just like any other turbofan getting hit.

The idea that the A-10 is a flying tank is a bit of a meme.  The PILOT is well protected, but the rest of the plane is (mostly) sheet aluminum.  The systems are well thought-out in terms of redundancy, but that doesn't mean it shrugs off bullets and cannon shells.

That's not what a real A-10 pilot said, who recieved battle damge to the engine, including engine fire and ripped off fan blades, yet the engine kept on trucking:

 

Edited January 1 by QuiGon

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

That's not what a real A-10 pilot said, who recieved battle damge to the engine, including engine fire and ripped off fan blades, yet the engine kept on trucking:

True, but how does that compare to other aircraft with high-bypass turbofans?  Granted I haven't heard of the USN sending S-3's on missions to get shot at, but there are plenty of cases of airline engines with birdstrikes and damage from debris making it home ok, too

My point was more that the A-10 was designed to survive hits and limp home, rather than being protected from hits.  It's less like an airborne tank than it is an airborne version of the Black Knight from Monty Python's "The Holy Grail."

"Okay, we'll call it a draw"  

[BuzzU]

Not sure the Hog is as tough as the P-47 right now. It should be tougher.

[QuiGon]

19 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

True, but how does that compare to other aircraft with high-bypass turbofans?  Granted I haven't heard of the USN sending S-3's on missions to get shot at, but there are plenty of cases of airline engines with birdstrikes and damage from debris making it home ok, too

But in DCS we don't fly around with high-bypass turbofan powered airliners, so that comparison doesn't say much in regards to DCS, where I would expect the engines of the A-10C to be more damage resistant than those of the other jets we fly in DCS.

[Yurgon]

5 hours ago, QuiGon said:

[...] I would expect the engines of the A-10C to be more damage resistant than those of the other jets we fly in DCS.

Do you have any source to back that up?

To the very best of my knowledge, the engines of the A-10 are as vulnerable as any other jet engine. I think they're not even protected by Kevlar or similar in the cowling (though I might be wrong about that). The one big upside the A-10 has over many other jets is the engine placement, which makes it less likely for both engines to be damaged at the same time.

Plus, as was already pointed out, the overall survivability of the aircraft is a big help of course.

Individually, there's always going to be anecdotal evidence of engines or other components performing well beyond the design limits; IIRC in his book "Low Level Hell" Hugh Mills described flying a severely overloaded OH-6 out of a rice paddy with the engine temps deep in the red, yet the helicopter took him, his crew chief and the crew they'd rescued back to the FOB, where they all marveled how the engine hadn't burned during the flight.

This just doesn't mean that every engine of this kind is always going to survive damage that would have killed any other type of engine.

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

Do you have any source to back that up?

I was just referring to this:

On 1/1/2023 at 5:41 PM, jaylw314 said:

True, but how does that compare to other aircraft with high-bypass turbofans?  Granted I haven't heard of the USN sending S-3's on missions to get shot at, but there are plenty of cases of airline engines with birdstrikes and damage from debris making it home ok, too

and this:

 

[Yurgon]

8 hours ago, QuiGon said:

I was just referring to this:
[...]
and this:
[...]

Yeah I'm sure Kim Campbell is pretty happy about the performance of her battle damaged aircraft. I just don't think that I'd count that as evidence that the A-10's engines in general are less prone to taking battle damage than any other engine.

[Gasman6]

There is always a bias toward survivable damage when it comes to analyzing these things. It's also not a terrible idea to set aside your own pride and self-assurance in your skills, and look at the situation from outside of yourself. Emergency and non-standard operation procedures aren't something people flying for fun typically drill, and the many back-up and safety redundancy systems are probably overlooked by most casual fliers. Moreover, contrary to the propaganda as some have already pointed out, the A-10 is not invulnerable; and there is an obvious self-interest when actual Air Force pilots give you that impression.

Edited January 3 by Gasman6

[ASAP]

The benefit of the engines is that unlike other jets they are not under the pilot or directly next to fuel tanks. If an A-10 engine is burning the pilot can use whatever thrust they are getting to GTF away from the area before they have to worry about shutting it down. In other airplanes a burning engine has a high likelyhood of exploding or melting through control lines/hydraulics, electronics. Most other jet aircraft's bold face have something that say "If your engine is confirmed to be on fire - Eject". Also the placement of the engine above the tail gives it some protection from things like old IR missiles or small arms fire from the surface.

The engine itself is still fairly sensitive to things hitting it. There's just a lower chance of it getting hit and its not an immediate ejection scenario if it does.

[BuzzU]

The biggest problem the Hog has is it's flown low and slow when attacking.