A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A-4 / A-7 Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 8th 03, 03:28 AM
Tank Fixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A-4 / A-7 Question

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.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Ads
  #2  
Old October 8th 03, 04:02 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)


  #3  
Old October 8th 03, 07:28 AM
Tank Fixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et,
lid says...
"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.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html



Thanks, I had heard of the F16 experiment but never one on the A-4 or A-7


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
  #4  
Old October 8th 03, 07:47 AM
MLenoch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
Thx,
VL
  #5  
Old October 8th 03, 01:03 PM
C Knowles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

At least one is at the Edwards AFB museum.
Curt

"MLenoch" wrote in message
...


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



  #6  
Old October 8th 03, 04:06 PM
GregD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I believe one is at WPABF - USAF Museum, and the other is at the Hill
AFB museum in Utah.

GregD

(MLenoch) wrote in message ...
Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?

  #7  
Old October 8th 03, 06:59 PM
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


The A-7 could have perhaps gotten F-18 thrust ... that's different in many
respects from F-18 performance.

The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
aircraft.

R / John


  #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.



  #10  
Old October 8th 03, 08:46 PM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 04:51 PM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
A question on Airworthiness Inspection Dave S Home Built 1 August 10th 04 05:07 AM
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question jlauer Home Built 7 November 16th 03 01:51 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 01:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.