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-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!" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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!" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
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 |