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

[redc1c4]

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!"

[Thomas Schoene]

"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)

[John Carrier]

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!"

[Guy Alcala]

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

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[John Carrier]

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
>

[Daryl Hunt]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[Guy Alcala]

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

[John Carrier]

> 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

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[John Carrier]

> 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.

The A-7 was a 60's design. The first proposals were essentially an F-8 with
a modified wing optimized for lifting heavy bomb loads and more pylons.
Navy went out with an A-4 replacement requirement. An emphasis on
range/loiter with greater payload (A-4 Nam load was typically 6xMk82 and CL
tank). Out went the J-57, in went the fan (originally TF-30P6), fuselage
modified to eliminate need for wing incidence system (and its "interesting"
flying qualities).

It was quite good for the Vietnam environment, particularly shipboard where
it did not require tanker support. As DS1 turned out, where air supremacy
was achieved and the AAA threat only existed around specific hard targets,
it was a fine airframe for the theatre ... but it lacked some of the goodies
for the latest ordnance. It's system-supported dumb bombing capability was
only slightly less than the F-18 (a couple additional mils dispersion).

The TA-4 was a superb trainer. The A-4 was a superb, iron sight bomber.
The single seat A-4 was the most enjoyable airplane I've ever flown. That
includes some heavy iron that a lot of folks consider the ultimate rides of
their day.

R / John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> 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.

From the A-7D SAC Chart, Oct 1970:
Empty Weight: 19,733#
Basic Weight: 20,331#
Max Takeoff: 42,000#

Note that: Full internal fuel is 9263#,
Full External fuel is 7848# (4 300 U.S. Gallon cans)
While the weapons loadout charts aren't included, the loads for teh
example missions indicate that each wing pylon was good fpr
2000#. The performace section shows a typical load of 2 M117 750#
(nominal, actual weight was a hair over 800#) each on 4
pylons, or 2 pylons of bombs and 2 tanks.

The '79 Jane's lists lists teh pylon ratings as 3500# each for the
wing outboars, and 2500# each for the 2 pairs of wing inboars, for a
total of 15,000#. Given the SLUF's lack of Excess Power, I doubt that
a load of that size was ever considered.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

<snip>

> From the A-7D SAC Chart, Oct 1970:
> Empty Weight: 19,733#
> Basic Weight: 20,331#
> Max Takeoff: 42,000#
>
> Note that: Full internal fuel is 9263#,
> Full External fuel is 7848# (4 300 U.S. Gallon cans)
> While the weapons loadout charts aren't included, the loads for teh
> example missions indicate that each wing pylon was good fpr
> 2000#. The performace section shows a typical load of 2 M117 750#
> (nominal, actual weight was a hair over 800#) each on 4
> pylons, or 2 pylons of bombs and 2 tanks.

The latter seems to have been typical in SEA. Dorr has photos of 354th TFW A-7Ds
with 8 Mk. 82s in a slant 4 (possibly a clearance issue with the tanks, if not gross
weight) on intermediate pylon MERs plus tanks on the I/Bs; or 6 x CBU-58s, three per
MER (same location as above) plus tanks. One shot shows the slant four Mk.82 load
(probably. It's an end-on in-flight shot where the bomb type is a bit hard to
define, showing a pair of A-7Ds flying on either wing of an F-111 leadship carrying a
full load of 24 bombs), plus probably single MK. 82s on the O/Bs; for a total of 10.
Oddly enough, for an a/c that was used entensively for CSAR Dorr has no shots of
A-7Ds carrying Mk.82 snakes.

[BTW, the weight of M117s seems to have changed quite a bit during production. The
F-105B & D SACs in the D&S volume shows them at 799 lb., while alll later SACs and
other sources show them at 823 lb.]

> The '79 Jane's lists lists teh pylon ratings as 3500# each for the
> wing outboars, and 2500# each for the 2 pairs of wing inboars, for a
> total of 15,000#.

'82-'83 Jane's has it right (per a former A-7 jock I know): 3,500 for the the O/B and
Intermediate pylons, 2,500 for the I/Bs.

> Given the SLUF's lack of Excess Power, I doubt that
> a load of that size was ever considered.

Well, it's credited by Jane's with a t/o roll of 5,600 ft. @ MTOW, but that's
presumably in a far lower drag configuration than wall- -to-wall loaded MERs.
Besides 5,600 feet is 520 feet more than the F-105D requires with 16 x M117s (albeit
less than an F-105G at max. gross), so I think we can safely assume that an A-7D's
t/o from Korat at max. gross would make the F-105D look relatively spritely. In any
case, the A-7 handily met the requirement for doubling the A-4's payload/range.

Guy

[TJ]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.

Guys,
Daryl Hunt is also known as "Dead Meat". Do a search on google groups for
Daryl Hunt or Dead Meat and you'll see the type of nut job that you are
trying to debate with. Don't debate with him and let him get back to finding
his medication.

Some examples of his work:


"Groom lake still has a squadron of the YF-12s. I have no idea why they are
still there and why the get preflighted. I don't even know who actually
controls them. Yet, as of 1991, they were still there. The difference
between the A-12 and YF-12 was the mission. the A-12 was a ground attack
Nuclear Fast Attack (fast ain't even the word here) ....

Whereas, for about a decade, the SR had a mission until it was nuetralized
by a 3 stage SA
missile."

..........

"No, the FB-4 was in the 30s but the Air Force had three designated in
Incirlik Turkey as Strategic Bombers. The FB-111 was not quite online.
When it came online, the FB-4 no longer carried that designator. Are there
pictures of the FB-4 Nuke Carriers? No, they confiscated film frome the
cameras from anyone that anyone came within vision with. Would they be in
the Internet? I doubt it. It's like saying the original C-130 from 1953 is
in original condition as it claims at Wright Pat as it sits with a 1957
radome, 4 AC generators on the Engines and the Gun Mounts under the Carpet.
I remember it as a Spectre Gunship. Yup, history has a tendancy to be
rewritten. When some of us are long gone, there will be no more
recollection of any of this and history will be changed forever once again
with the passing of time."


.........(ON KAL007)


"Okay, since you can't do the story on this one, let me
hit you with the real story, youngster. Not the official one that was put
out to save the Soviet Militaries face and avoid a war. BTW, this happens
more than you will ever know.

The US keeps a geo sat above the Kamchuka Penninsula at
all times. We lost the Sat. During the lag time to get another one in
place, the US had to rely on Aircraft to bridge the gap. YOU, the Soviets
introduced a new 100k+ AM that could knock out the SR-71 so the SR could
only
do a side shoot in inernational waters. We were launching a RC-135 and a
EC-135 to get pictures at very close range. The RC was a Camera Ship
while the EC provided Cover from international Air Space. The EC
operated while the RC was making the camera run. Those two put your defense
fighters on edge. The EC would come in after a routine flight while the
RC came in with cooked engines from running in Mil Power for too long a
time.
The RC carried the same engines that a C-141 Carried so it was more than
just a bit overpowered by that days standards. Ever fly an AC right at Mach
running very close to Zero altitude? When speed and atlitude won't work,
you
bring lots of Gas with you. Fighters can only run for a few minutes at
this type of speed near sea level whereas the Tanker can run much longer.
This means the Tanker is relatively safe if you don't mind riding the
worlds most hairy Carny ride in the World. Heat Seekers can't touch it,
the EC keeps the Radar Missiles at bay and if you use your guns at that
speed, you will fly into your own bullets. A complete NDI of the RC plus
all 4 engine changeout on return was considered a routine mission. This
mission didn't last very long as a new Sat was readied and launched to
replace
the malfunctioned Sat. During this time, the KAL was shot down by an over
zealous pilot. Never did understand why since these types of games were
played
by both sides on a daily basis in that part of the world. Your T-95 Bear
was very good at it also. None of this was ever done "Officially" by
either side."



TJ

[Daryl Hunt]

"TJ" > wrote in message
...

Hey TJ. Haven't seen you for quite a bit. Guess you only come out when
your buddies are spewing ****. Where are all the good trolls these days.