A-7D/E Question (was Why no armor for soldiers ?)

Daryl Hunt wrote:

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

(snipage occurs, fore and aft)

But one has to understand that an A-7 could pick it's own weight up
in ordinance. Empty weight for the A-7E was just over 15,000 lbs
including fuel. Loaded, it was a bit over 30K. If you could sling
it under it, it could lift it. The D and E models (AF and Navy)
were are remarkable Aircraft for it's size. And it carried two
Aim9s as well.


funny, that's not what it says at the Vought web site, but hey,
they only built them, what would they know?

http://www.voughtaircraft.com/

Well, Troll. Since you have no idea how they were actually used, you are
just trolling. Now go back to playing with your little plastic soldiers.

neither you, nor anyone else, can eliminate the laws of physics.

the manufacturer states what the empty, max, and fuel weights were for
the plane. they don't add up to your numbers.

either you, or Vought and the Air Force, are lying. i'll let others
decide which is which on their own

redc1c4,
what say the residents of RAM; is he talking out his ass again?
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

"redc1c4" wrote in message


the manufacturer states what the empty, max, and fuel weights were for
the plane. they don't add up to your numbers.

either you, or Vought and the Air Force, are lying. i'll let others
decide which is which on their own

redc1c4,
what say the residents of RAM; is he talking out his ass again?


In 1982, Jane's had the following figures for the A-7E:

Empty Weight: 19,127 lbs
Max T-O Weight: 42,000 lbs

That's a difference of 22,837lbs, so potential payload did exceed the empty
weight of the aircraft. But that's including pilot, consumables, fuel, and
weapons (including pylons). The maximum external weapon load was stated as
15,000 lbs. That was carried on six underwnig hardpoints (four @ 3500 lbs,
two @ 25000 lbs) and twio fuselage stations @ 500 lbs (for AAMs). Yes, that
adds to 20,000 lbs, but you could not safely load all the stations to their
maximum stressed weights.

Whether that's a realistic load for operational use is of course a different
issue.

--�
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)

The A-7's empty weight was a bit over 20K IIRC, certainly not 15 (even in
the A-7A version ... the E was much heavier). The A-7 never lifted its
empty weight in stores. That would have taken it well over max gross.

R / John

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

(snipage occurs, fore and aft)

But one has to understand that an A-7 could pick it's own weight up
in ordinance. Empty weight for the A-7E was just over 15,000 lbs
including fuel. Loaded, it was a bit over 30K. If you could sling
it under it, it could lift it. The D and E models (AF and Navy)
were are remarkable Aircraft for it's size. And it carried two
Aim9s as well.


funny, that's not what it says at the Vought web site, but hey,
they only built them, what would they know?

http://www.voughtaircraft.com/

Well, Troll. Since you have no idea how they were actually used, you
are
just trolling. Now go back to playing with your little plastic
soldiers.

neither you, nor anyone else, can eliminate the laws of physics.

the manufacturer states what the empty, max, and fuel weights were for
the plane. they don't add up to your numbers.

either you, or Vought and the Air Force, are lying. i'll let others
decide which is which on their own

redc1c4,
what say the residents of RAM; is he talking out his ass again?
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

John Carrier wrote:

The A-7's empty weight was a bit over 20K IIRC, certainly not 15 (even in
the A-7A version ... the E was much heavier). The A-7 never lifted its
empty weight in stores. That would have taken it well over max gross.

Dorr's book lists the A-7A @ 15,037 lb. empty, MTOW 32,500 lb. A-7D is listed
at 19,781 lb. empty, 42,000 lb. MTOW, essentially agreeing with Tom's data from
Jane's. Typical bombload during Vietnam for Navy A-7s was about 6,000 lb.,
although during DS they tended to operate with only 4,000 lb. such as 4 x Mk.
83 1,000 lb. bombs (plus an AIM-9 or two), as they'd removed two pylons to
decrease the drag. USAF A-7Ds tended to operate with 4-6,000 lb. in Vietnam,
plus two tanks and a pod or two if going into a high-threat area. Navy a-87s
in Vietnam tended not to carry tanks (they were closer to the targets) unless
they were acting as buddy tankers, and they had internal ECM so didn't need to
take up a pylon or two with that.

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John Carrier wrote:

The A-7's empty weight was a bit over 20K IIRC, certainly not 15 (even
in
the A-7A version ... the E was much heavier). The A-7 never lifted its
empty weight in stores. That would have taken it well over max gross.

Dorr's book lists the A-7A @ 15,037 lb. empty, MTOW 32,500 lb. A-7D is
listed
at 19,781 lb. empty, 42,000 lb. MTOW, essentially agreeing with Tom's data
from
Jane's. Typical bombload during Vietnam for Navy A-7s was about 6,000
lb.,
although during DS they tended to operate with only 4,000 lb. such as 4 x
Mk.
83 1,000 lb. bombs (plus an AIM-9 or two), as they'd removed two pylons to
decrease the drag. USAF A-7Ds tended to operate with 4-6,000 lb. in
Vietnam,
plus two tanks and a pod or two if going into a high-threat area. Navy
a-87s
in Vietnam tended not to carry tanks (they were closer to the targets)
unless
they were acting as buddy tankers, and they had internal ECM so didn't
need to
take up a pylon or two with that.

The army pukes think they know what things really are but in the end, they
don't know jack. Followed the Sluf for at least a decade. It was sad to
see it fly into Chanute one last time for a Static Display.

From the former operators whom I work with every day. A-7B 19,500 empty,
A-7E 21.500 empty. Typical bomb load off 27C was 8 or 10 Mk82 (depending on
wind ... the cats were short). Otherwise 10-12 Mk82. Preferred was 4-6
Mk83 on the parent racks (no MERs/TERs with weight and drag), rare for the
Navy in Viet Nam. Add 400# for two sidewinders (given the ACM capability of
the SLUF, they would have proven more effective mounted backwards). Tanker
typically 2x300Gal drop + D704 = 6000+ lbs. It would appear that your 6K,
give or take, is the typical operational load.

None of those I talked with (two of with combat experience) thought a field
T/O at max gross of 42K was practical unless the concrete was REAL long and
the day was REAL cold. I don't think A-7D's were launching in SEA at max
gross given the typical wx etc. The airplane was a real pig at 38K or over.

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message


. ..
John Carrier wrote:

The A-7's empty weight was a bit over 20K IIRC, certainly not 15 (even
in
the A-7A version ... the E was much heavier). The A-7 never lifted its
empty weight in stores. That would have taken it well over max gross.

Dorr's book lists the A-7A @ 15,037 lb. empty, MTOW 32,500 lb. A-7D is
listed
at 19,781 lb. empty, 42,000 lb. MTOW, essentially agreeing with Tom's data
from
Jane's. Typical bombload during Vietnam for Navy A-7s was about 6,000
lb.,
although during DS they tended to operate with only 4,000 lb. such as 4 x
Mk.
83 1,000 lb. bombs (plus an AIM-9 or two), as they'd removed two pylons to
decrease the drag. USAF A-7Ds tended to operate with 4-6,000 lb. in
Vietnam,
plus two tanks and a pod or two if going into a high-threat area. Navy
a-87s
in Vietnam tended not to carry tanks (they were closer to the targets)
unless
they were acting as buddy tankers, and they had internal ECM so didn't
need to
take up a pylon or two with that.

Guy

"John Carrier" wrote in message
news
From the former operators whom I work with every day. A-7B 19,500 empty,
A-7E 21.500 empty. Typical bomb load off 27C was 8 or 10 Mk82 (depending
on
wind ... the cats were short). Otherwise 10-12 Mk82. Preferred was 4-6
Mk83 on the parent racks (no MERs/TERs with weight and drag), rare for the
Navy in Viet Nam. Add 400# for two sidewinders (given the ACM capability
of
the SLUF, they would have proven more effective mounted backwards).
Tanker
typically 2x300Gal drop + D704 = 6000+ lbs. It would appear that your 6K,
give or take, is the typical operational load.

None of those I talked with (two of with combat experience) thought a
field
T/O at max gross of 42K was practical unless the concrete was REAL long
and
the day was REAL cold. I don't think A-7D's were launching in SEA at max
gross given the typical wx etc. The airplane was a real pig at 38K or
over.

There is always restrictions on Carrier AC that are not on concrete jumpers.

John Carrier wrote:

From the former operators whom I work with every day. A-7B 19,500 empty,
A-7E 21.500 empty.

Is that empty, which Jane's and Dorr gives, or (more likely) OWE (i.e. ready to
fly in combat, less fuel, ammo, and payload)?

Typical bomb load off 27C was 8 or 10 Mk82 (depending on
wind ... the cats were short). Otherwise 10-12 Mk82.

Yes, agrees with contemporary photos. There weren't many SCB-27C/A-7 cruises,
but there were a few.

Preferred was 4-6
Mk83 on the parent racks (no MERs/TERs with weight and drag), rare for the
Navy in Viet Nam. Add 400# for two sidewinders (given the ACM capability of
the SLUF, they would have proven more effective mounted backwards).

The A-7D with auto-maneuvering flaps wasn't that bad with just parent racks,
according to a friend who flew them in the ANG as well as A-7Es in the navy.
Not in the F-16's league, which he later flew, but he had claimed both F-4 and
(Japanese) F-15 'kills' in the A-7D when the pilots did dumb things. Besides, a
successful AIM-9 shot in Vietnam was usually on someone who didn't see you
coming, or who'd lost sight, and at least the A-7s had a means of discouraging
head-on cannon attacks.

4 x Mk. 83s (or other) on parent racks was fairly common in DS. They'd pulled
an inboard pylon (IIRR) on one side and the intermediate pylon on the other side
to slick them up. I forget the reason for the assymetry, but it probably had
something to do with allowable loads.

Tanker

typically 2x300Gal drop + D704 = 6000+ lbs. It would appear that your 6K,
give or take, is the typical operational load.

None of those I talked with (two of with combat experience) thought a field
T/O at max gross of 42K was practical unless the concrete was REAL long and
the day was REAL cold. I don't think A-7D's were launching in SEA at max
gross given the typical wx etc. The airplane was a real pig at 38K or over.

Entirely reasonable comments.

Guy

There is always restrictions on Carrier AC that are not on concrete
jumpers.

There are conditions when T/O weight and wind + density altitude conspire to
make a very long stretch of concrete seem very short. As the A-7 was not
endowed with prodigious quantities of thrust, a heavy takeoff on a hot day
could be thrilling. Throw in a few thousand feet of field elevation and
you'd best enter your T/O tables in the big thick book.

Max gross is often a structural or wt/balance consideration w/o regard for
T/O issues. I was fortunate to never fly an aircraft that was relatively
underpowered ... a heavy A-7 was.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
There is always restrictions on Carrier AC that are not on concrete
jumpers.

There are conditions when T/O weight and wind + density altitude conspire
to
make a very long stretch of concrete seem very short. As the A-7 was not
endowed with prodigious quantities of thrust, a heavy takeoff on a hot day
could be thrilling. Throw in a few thousand feet of field elevation and
you'd best enter your T/O tables in the big thick book.

Max gross is often a structural or wt/balance consideration w/o regard for
T/O issues. I was fortunate to never fly an aircraft that was relatively
underpowered ... a heavy A-7 was.

But for a 1950s type AC, it was quite handy and cheap. The alternative was
the A-4 for you Navy types and the F-5 for the AF types. I can't speak for
the A-4 but the F-5 made a fanstastic trainer but a really bad weapons
attack platform. Of course, there was the Spad that spanned three wars.