A-4 / A-7 Question

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:


They did get downtown initially, but after the first couple of SAM
experiences, they didn't get back to the area. They wouldn't have made
a good Weasel.

Even with a F100/F110 ? I assume given it size it would also be down to a
lack of internal space to put all the electronic gear etc ?


The endurance and range, along with the ordinance carrying capability
did, however make them an excellent SAR airplane. They assumed the
Sandy mission for North Vietnam strikes very soon after arrival in
theater. That didn't take a two seat airplane when the A-1 did it and
didn't require two seats with an A-7 either.

True.

You're unclear here. I assume you mean TWO seat F-16Es instead of Cs?
If, I again assume, that would mean a parallel development to the
F-15E?

I meant the XL as you refer to below.


Clearly without knowing something about what sort of weapons delivery
improvement an F-16E would have over a C, it's difficult to say much.
The CCIP delivery of dumb bombs by the F-16 A or C was always
exceptional--that's what was used on Isirik I believe.

I remember you mentioning this before.

Are you maybe referring to the crank-wing F-16XL? There you would have
gotten more fuel in the big wing for more endurance and more lift
capacity.

It was that side of the equation I was thinking about, I believe the
advertising went something along the lines of, carry the same load twice
the distance when compared to the standard model.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On 08 Oct 2003 06:47:24 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:



Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
Thx,

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

The A-7F, Corasair III, Strikefighter, etc. all included an airframe stretch
and extra fuel in addition to an F100 or F110. The airframe stretch was to
allow the a/c to be supersonic (Mach 1.4 level IIRR), and the extra fuel was
to keep the range/endurance in the same ballpark.

For instance, here's the proposed Corsair III changes, which was designed to
use rebuilt A-7A/A-7B airframes from the Boneyard, although A-7D/Es would be
easier to convert: An F110-GE-100, 16,700 lb. mil and 27,600 lb. A/B; A
constant-section plug of 29.5" to extend the fuselage around the wing root
area; another plug of 7.5" to the aft fuselage to tailor the airframe to the
F110 and its remote accessory gearbox. Rear fuselage canted upwards 5 degrees
to provide ground clearance for the longer tailpipe. A more sharply-pointed
nose cone (see F-8); the original was made blunter to reduce length on
carriers. Internal configuration changed to increase fuel capacity.

The "Strikefighter" was an upgraded A-7D with an F100 vice F110, and was the
design entered in a CAS/BAI contest against the F-16, AV-8B and F-20.

All data above from Dorr's Osprey book "Vought A-7 Corsair II." There are also
various issues of Air International from the '80s which describe the various
proposals in slightly more detail, but I'm too lazy to hunt them up.

Guy

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:46:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
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 ?

The A-7F, Corasair III, Strikefighter, etc. all included an airframe stretch
and extra fuel in addition to an F100 or F110.

Interesting, I didnt know about the F110 being considered for it.

The airframe stretch was to
allow the a/c to be supersonic (Mach 1.4 level IIRR), and the extra fuel was
to keep the range/endurance in the same ballpark.

Any idea of the peformance improvement on the 'lo' part of an attack
mission with the F110/F100 ?


For instance, here's the proposed Corsair III changes, which was designed to
use rebuilt A-7A/A-7B airframes from the Boneyard, although A-7D/Es would be
easier to convert: An F110-GE-100, 16,700 lb. mil and 27,600 lb. A/B; A
constant-section plug of 29.5" to extend the fuselage around the wing root
area; another plug of 7.5" to the aft fuselage to tailor the airframe to the
F110 and its remote accessory gearbox. Rear fuselage canted upwards 5 degrees
to provide ground clearance for the longer tailpipe. A more sharply-pointed
nose cone (see F-8); the original was made blunter to reduce length on
carriers. Internal configuration changed to increase fuel capacity.

Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ?





greg



--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:46:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip

The airframe stretch was to
allow the a/c to be supersonic (Mach 1.4 level IIRR), and the extra fuel was
to keep the range/endurance in the same ballpark.

Any idea of the peformance improvement on the 'lo' part of an attack
mission with the F110/F100 ?

No. It might describe this in one of the AI articles, but I'd have to go digging
through 10 years or so of mags to find the right one, and I'm just feeling too
lazy.

For instance, here's the proposed Corsair III changes, which was designed to
use rebuilt A-7A/A-7B airframes from the Boneyard, although A-7D/Es would be
easier to convert: An F110-GE-100, 16,700 lb. mil and 27,600 lb. A/B; A
constant-section plug of 29.5" to extend the fuselage around the wing root
area; another plug of 7.5" to the aft fuselage to tailor the airframe to the
F110 and its remote accessory gearbox. Rear fuselage canted upwards 5 degrees
to provide ground clearance for the longer tailpipe. A more sharply-pointed
nose cone (see F-8); the original was made blunter to reduce length on
carriers. Internal configuration changed to increase fuel capacity.

Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ?

No, they had the F-18. The stretches were mainly aimed at the ANG and (they hoped)
possible foreign customers.

Guy

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:02:17 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:



No. It might describe this in one of the AI articles, but I'd have to go digging
through 10 years or so of mags to find the right one, and I'm just feeling too
lazy.

No worries :-), I was just curious.


Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ?

No, they had the F-18.

True, but something with 2 maybe 3 times the unrefuelled range carrying the
same a2g load.

The stretches were mainly aimed at the ANG and (they hoped)
possible foreign customers.


Neither the greeks or the portuguese took them up on that.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net
In article ,
says...

It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.



Anyone know what he is talking about ?
I've not heard of any system like this before.

I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.

First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel
version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a
chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost
the
same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The New
York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the
GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took
the
pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again.

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with
afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air
Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that this
was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was never
going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet.



Howdy,

When I was in the A-4 community we had a 20MM Gau pod (I forget the number)
that could be hung on a station - usually the centerline, and was good for
chewing up pretty much anything - the Navy A-7 Squadrons had them also - I
saw them hang one or two around 1982- 1983 and do some gunnery with them -
rarely though.
I was in MAG-42 Det A at Cecil Field (FLying Gators) we had VA-203 next
door. I don't believe they carried much ammo though - perhaps 500 rounds?

I do know they pretty much sucked - they jammed alot and the Red Shirts
hated them... we had three or four - and they sat in storage.

But I never saw a 30mm pod on any aircraft ever......

Helomech