Daryl Hunt
October 10th 03, 02:06 AM
Errons Mother wrote:
> Erron's dad wrote:
>
> (snipage occurs, fore and aft)
>
> > RTO, you may wish to address this one. Regardless of Nosehairs status,
your
> > bunches last little tiff about the A-7 showed that you will almost
always
> > take the opposite no matter what the truths are. And thank you for
xposting
> > into and AF area where almost all of us know the Short Ugly Little
Feller
> > (cleaned up). And even when give the operational facts, your bunch
> > continues to troll along. Sounds like Nosehair just might have a
point.
>
> your original claim:
>
> 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.
>
> what they said in RAM:
>
> "Thomas Schoene":
> 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.
>
> "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.
>
> "Guy Alcala":
> 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.
>
>
>
> kindly point out to me the parts that agree with and/or support
> your original claim.... i can't seem to find any.
Of course not. Then again, I once was in a band with a drummer that was
army. His MOS was Computer Technician. In the AF, Navy or Marines, He
would have repaired the equipment from top to bottom. But the Army's idea
was for him to pull the black boxes and send them to someone else. Everyone
in the AF or Navy could do that job without the fancy title and with no
training. It only required him to look a the pictures and to pull the
appropriate black box and push in another one. No wonder you can't
understand.
> Erron's dad wrote:
>
> (snipage occurs, fore and aft)
>
> > RTO, you may wish to address this one. Regardless of Nosehairs status,
your
> > bunches last little tiff about the A-7 showed that you will almost
always
> > take the opposite no matter what the truths are. And thank you for
xposting
> > into and AF area where almost all of us know the Short Ugly Little
Feller
> > (cleaned up). And even when give the operational facts, your bunch
> > continues to troll along. Sounds like Nosehair just might have a
point.
>
> your original claim:
>
> 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.
>
> what they said in RAM:
>
> "Thomas Schoene":
> 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.
>
> "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.
>
> "Guy Alcala":
> 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.
>
>
>
> kindly point out to me the parts that agree with and/or support
> your original claim.... i can't seem to find any.
Of course not. Then again, I once was in a band with a drummer that was
army. His MOS was Computer Technician. In the AF, Navy or Marines, He
would have repaired the equipment from top to bottom. But the Army's idea
was for him to pull the black boxes and send them to someone else. Everyone
in the AF or Navy could do that job without the fancy title and with no
training. It only required him to look a the pictures and to pull the
appropriate black box and push in another one. No wonder you can't
understand.