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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A-4 / A-7 Question
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today? Thx, VL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |