a10 warthog for sale on government website

[camshaw]

http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/v ... vertTo=USD

[The Inspector]

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, what exactly are demil code A and Q parts as far as stuff the average person would recognize?

[Ztex]

http://www.dlis.dla.mil/demil/demil_codes.asp

Sounds like standard gubmnet gobbledigook to me.

[jet1]

....in my experience with good ole unkle sammy that means "Mutilation to the point of scrap required worldwide." heck you might buy it and use it against the gubmint imagine the havoc you could do with 1 a10......

[mustangdriver]

Guys, have to say I'm with the government on this one. We are talking about a friggin A-10.

[51fixer]

You don't get the aircraft but can remove and take parts attached to the aircraft that fit in the codes allowed.
You need a ton of insurance to be able to do this.
No. They won't let you take the whole thing and bring back what you don't want.

[EDowning]

Guys, have to say I'm with the government on this one. We are talking about a friggin A-10.

I'm glad the government didn't take your advice about my Skyraider (4 x 20mm and 14 hard points, 12,000 pounds of ord. cap) or Art's Harrier, Colling's F-4 etc.

[Randy Haskin]

Guys, have to say I'm with the government on this one. We are talking about a friggin A-10.

?

There's nothing inherently dangerous or threatening about the Hog. It doesn't have any weapons or avionics. It's no more dangerous than any other warbird that is all ready flying in civil hands. It's the gun, the bombing computer, the bombs, etc, that make any airplane lethal. The airplane itself is just an airplane.

Based on the condition of that airframe, there would be an immense infusion of cubic dollars required to make it do anything. Just look at the F-16 and F-18 that are all ready out there in civil hands -- despite them being some serious thrill machines, so far nobody has stepped up and opened the wallet to pay for that fun. The A-10 is...well...completely boring compared to a Viper or a Hornet. Every A-10 pilot I've known raves about the combat mission, but the airplane itself gets described as a "big Tweet". Not exactly the thrill ride I'd be looking for if I had the money to seek out such a thing.

I just don't see it happening...and if it does, I can't see it being any more of a "threat" than any other airplane.

[12XU2A3X3]

it's not like you could slap a pair 34s in and fly it away. no gau-8; come on.

talk to anybody in a-10 mx and say, hey, so i got this bird, no engines, no gun. yeah, IRAN and go. i think not. it's a hulk.

supposing the resources and funding existed e.g. collings, paul allen, et al. anyone would that kinda cash would never do something to re-mil it.

like anyone regular joe could get it running, fly it, weaponize it and NOT have a WIXer find out... right

[JDK]

In another reference to the Concorde, in the late '70's, a French aeronautical engineer told me a story similar to the one in the earlier post about Concorde tires.

He said that they became aware that the Russians were attempting to steal Concorde plans and so they let the Russians steal plans with a doctored fuel system that would never work, and that that fuel system contributed to at least one crash of the "Concordski".

Does anyone know if this is true or not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu ... e_Concorde

As ever, care is needed in interpreting the data. AFAIK, there's no evidence that the Russian engineers found material that (only may) have been given to them of significant use. There's no evidence that any of the many issues with the Tu 144 were cause by 'porting over' unchecked Concorde papers / materials or ideas.

Much of the resilience of these stories are down to the fact that disinformation was created, industrial espionage did happen (as it does between big multi-nationals as well) and for the 'completeness of the tale' people simply make up a 'punchline/payoff' to polish off / round up the story, despite having no evidence about that part.

Regards,