|
|
Under the designation Northrop YA-9A, the company built two prototypes of a single-seat close-support aircraft as the company's submission for the competitive development phase of the USAF's A-X close-support aircraft competition. A cantilever high-wing monoplane, powered by two 2722kg thrust Avco Lycoming ALF 502 turbofan engines, the first of the prototypes made its maiden flight on 30 May 1972. In competitive evaluation the YA-9A lost out to the YA-10A by Fairchild Republic.
| CREW | 1 |
| ENGINE | 2 x Lycoming F-102-LD-100, 33.4kN |
| WEIGHTS |
| Take-off weight | 18160 kg | 40036 lb |
| Empty weight | 10318 kg | 22747 lb |
| DIMENSIONS |
| Wingspan | 17.7 m | 58 ft 1 in |
| Length | 16.3 m | 53 ft 6 in |
| Height | 5.2 m | 17 ft 1 in |
| Wing area | 54.9 m2 | 590.94 sq ft |
| PERFORMANCE |
| Max. speed | 740 km/h | 460 mph |
| Cruise speed | 740 km/h | 460 mph |
| Range w/max.fuel | 4800 km | 2983 miles |
| ARMAMENT | 1 x 30mm machine-guns, 7264kg of bombs and missiles |
| Mark Lorenz, Aquaristicny(@)aol.com, 15.11.2008 Gerald, The Soviets sure agreed with your opinion of the A-9, as I am sure you know, Sukhoi used its layout at the basis for the Su-25 Frogfoot. | | SMSgt Mac, smsgtmac((@))gmail.com, 29.10.2008 Mr Beam, I've often wondered the same the same thing, because what I know about the project reflects pretty much what you typed. My father was the A-9 Lycoming Rep on the A-X program and after spending six months with the A-9 on the hammerhead with engines running waiting for the A-10 to get fixed he was so soured in the DoD he never worked on another military program again. I joined the AF while he was at Eddy doing the A-X flyoff. Over my AF career I spent more than half of it in flight and operational test running into people who worked the program. I made a point of asking them about the program at every opportunity. The maintainers and FT engineers all liked the A-9 better, and the pilots said one 'flew like a Ford' and the other 'flew like a Chevy', although one was uncomfortable with the way the A-9 could sideslip into a target instead of banking if desired. The A-10 is awesome in its environment, and though the A-9 approached the CAS problem from a different angle it probably would have been just as awesome. Having finished a good book early this year that I consider the 95% definitive work on the A-10, called "WARTHOG and the Close Air Support Debate", I do believe now that the A-10 was the only plane of the two that could have survived the political battles both within and without the AF to survive. Politics can be rougher than war. eh? You and I may be the last people who remember that the A-9 had engine lubrication challenges in the first contractor flight test phase of the project but never busted a mission and went on to fly a perfect second evaluation phase 'for score'... while the A-10 seemed to break down if anybody looked sideways at it. -Best | | Gerald Beam, gwbeam1(@)excite.com, 02.01.2008 I was an enlisted airman flying photo chase against the two prototypes of the A-9 and the A-10 during the A-X Test Program. The A-9 was a more dependable aircraft and, in my opinion as well as others, the superior plane. When the decision was made to go with the Fairchild program we were told it was because they (Fairchild) needed the contract worse than Northrup which alredy had the F-5. I have followed the successes of the A -10 and often wonder what could have been if the A-9 were chosen. |
|
Do you have any comments about this aircraft ?
|
| |