View Single Post
  #9  
Old October 8th 03, 07:31 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:06:11 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On that note, anyone got any idea of how much did the A7s long long legs
reduce by when fitted with the bigger blower ?

I seem to remember Mr Rasimus mentioning something about having worked
alongside A7Ds in the past, if you dont mind me asking Ed, what apart from
adding more grunt, would the F100 have made all that much a difference
given what the A7s were tasked with ?


I have no idea what the F100 fit would have done. I seem to recall
that the airframe was aerodynamically limited as far as max speed.

The real strength of the A-7D was the endurance. While it couldn't go
quite as fast as AF types would have preferred, it carried a
significant load for a long time. The true significance was
demonstrated during Linebacker when they A-7Ds of the 354th TFW out of
Korat would takeoff and fly unrefueled to Route Pack V or VI and
return. The F-4 and supporting F-105G Weasels departed Korat
afterward, tapped an inbound tanker and arrived on target at
approximately the same time. The F-4/F-105Gs then returned to a
post-strike tanker and arrived at Korat shortly before the returning
A-7s.

At issue (from an AF point of view, but not apparently from the USN
operator's perspective) was the ability to recover energy quickly when
placed on the defensive. A SAM break that took you down to very low
altitude, usually with high-G, would squander both kinetic and
potential energy. With AB you could regain both fairly rapidly.
Without AB you were in a precarious situation. The extra thrust of a
more efficient engine might have improved that aspect of A-7 ops.