The A4 Skyhawk
Informatics Holdings Ltd
interested in it any more judging by the publications on the book shops
and this newsgroup.
best regards
--
Mr Constantine Ng
Informatics Holdings Ltd
Informatics Building
5 International Business Park
Singapore 2260
Tel : [65]-5680829 Fax : [65]-5625596
Email : info...@singnet.com.sg
Constantine Ng
Ever since i read about it, i have been mesmerised by its history, it
unique design, its combat record in the Middle East and South East Asia.
i have read about its sterling service in Israeli and Marines units, its
Aggressor duties, and still on active duty in many squadrons worldwide
including a sizeable force here in Singapore.
what i am keen to know is
1. how well can the A4 perform in an air-to-air role ? has anybody ever
tested the A4 using air-to-air ordnance married to appropriate avionics ?
I hear the New Zealanders have done it, giving their A4Ks near F16
performance overall (not speed of course).
2. can the A4 take on a MIG23, 25 or 29 and still survive ?
3. in the attack role, how does it compare with present day
mudmovers ? i have read the A6 vs A/F18 comparisons, so is an A4/A6/A7
comparison valid ? a more general question might be, given todays combat
envrionments, can the A4 still do the job effectively ?
4. what has happened to the many A4s in the US Navy & Marine inventory ?
I hope the 2 services do not scrap them, it will be such a sorry waste.
keep them flying, its a survivor and a beautiful airplane.
comments & views anyone ??
Constantine Ng
con...@teleview.com.sg
Singapore.
Ken Koller
Informatics Holdings Ltd <info...@merlion.singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>Hi, anyone keen to discuss the venerable lovely A4 Skyhawk ? no one seems
>interested in it any more judging by the publications on the book shops
>and this newsgroup.
>
>best regards
>
>--
>Mr Constantine Ng
>Email : info...@singnet.com.sg
One of the best airplanes ever built in my opinion. Amazing to see 25
year old airplanes performing the high stress mission of acm agressor.
One thing I've always loved is the funky paint jobs that they throw on
those a/c's. I'm not sure how many, if any at all are still flying. I
know VFC-13 at NAS Miramar had then two years ago, but last I saw they
were flying F/A-18s.
-------------------------------------------
Ken Koller
Reporter/Photographer - The Daily Collegian
California State University, Fresno
"Actually, I am a lab mouse on stilts"
maverick
Yeah I like the A-4 as well, have just built Hasegawa 1/32 scale OA-4M of VF-126
aggressors at Miramar. all over green with light brown crazy paving web.
Onto the real ones, I believe the following are still operational.
US NAVY
VFC-12 Oceana, VA A-4F, TA-4J
VFC-13 Miramar, CA A-4F, TA-4J
VF-43 Oceana, VA A-4E, A-4F
VF-45 Key West, FL A-4E, TA-4J
VF-126 Miramar, CA A-4E, A-4F, TA-4J
VT-7 Meridian, MS TA-4J
VT-21 Kingsville, TX TA-4J
VT-22 Kingsville, TX TA-4J
VT-24 Chase Field, TX TA-4J
VA-25 Chase Field, TX TA-4J
VC-1 Barbers Point, HI A-4E, TA-4J
VC-5 Cubi Point, RP A-4E
VC-8 Roosevelt Roads, PR TA-4J
VC-10 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba TA-4J
VX-5 China Lake, CA TA-4J
NARU Dallas, TX A-4M
NFWS Miramar, CA A-4F
NTPS Patuxent River, MD TA-4J
NAWC/WD China Lake, CA NTA-4J
US Marine Corps
VMA-124 Memphis, TN A-4M, TA-4F
VMA-131 Willow Grove, PA A-4M
VMA-133 Alameda, Ca A-4M
VMA-322 South Weymouth, MA A-4M
MALS-42 Alameda, CA TA-4F, TA-4J
MALS-49 Willow Grove, PA TA-4J
Ken Koller
maverick <mave...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <D7412...@CSUFresno.EDU>, kj...@mondrian.CSUFresno.EDU (Ken Koller) says:
>Onto the real ones, I believe the following are still operational.
>
>US NAVY
>
>VFC-12 Oceana, VA A-4F, TA-4J
>VFC-13 Miramar, CA A-4F, TA-4J
>VF-43 Oceana, VA A-4E, A-4F
>VF-45 Key West, FL A-4E, TA-4J
>VF-126 Miramar, CA A-4E, A-4F, TA-4J
>VT-7 Meridian, MS TA-4J
>VT-21 Kingsville, TX TA-4J
>VT-22 Kingsville, TX TA-4J
>VT-24 Chase Field, TX TA-4J
>VA-25 Chase Field, TX TA-4J
>VC-1 Barbers Point, HI A-4E, TA-4J
>VC-5 Cubi Point, RP A-4E
>VC-8 Roosevelt Roads, PR TA-4J
>VC-10 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba TA-4J
>VX-5 China Lake, CA TA-4J
>NARU Dallas, TX A-4M
>NFWS Miramar, CA A-4F
>NTPS Patuxent River, MD TA-4J
>NAWC/WD China Lake, CA NTA-4J
What is a NTA-4J?
>US Marine Corps
>
>VMA-124 Memphis, TN A-4M, TA-4F
>VMA-131 Willow Grove, PA A-4M
>VMA-133 Alameda, Ca A-4M
>VMA-322 South Weymouth, MA A-4M
>MALS-42 Alameda, CA TA-4F, TA-4J
>MALS-49 Willow Grove, PA TA-4J
maverick
Unfortunately do not know current whereabouts of VC-5
NTA-4J should be NTA-4E, it is
Two seater modified for special permanent duties with the former NWC, at China Lake,
probably no longer in service, serial BuA. 152102
Colin
John Mosbarger
Well, VC-5 used to be based in Atsugi, Japan, with detachments at Naha,
Okinawa, and Cubi Pt. Guess? Must have consolidated in Japan.
John
--
John Mosbarger
McMinnville, OR
jo...@hp-mcm.mcm.hp.com
Marclaw
pature by the F18. However it is subsinic and had nowhere near the
avionics package the A6 had even back in 66.
It was a good turning aircraft but even for its day but an f14 can out
turn it.
Andrew Toppan
: 2. can the A4 take on a MIG23, 25 or 29 and still survive ?
No.
: i have read the A6 vs A/F18 comparisons, so is an A4/A6/A7
: comparison valid ?
A-4 vs A-6 wouldn't make any sense...A-4 is a light attack plane, A-6
is a heavy attack plane....entirely different. A-4 vs A-7 vs FA-18
might work....
: 4. what has happened to the many A4s in the US Navy & Marine inventory ?
: I hope the 2 services do not scrap them, it will be such a sorry waste.
: keep them flying, its a survivor and a beautiful airplane.
The TA-4s are still around....most others have been sold or stored at
AMARC (Davis Monthan AFB).
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Andrew Toppan
: >VFC-12 Oceana, VA A-4F, TA-4J
: >VFC-13 Miramar, CA A-4F, TA-4J
Switched to FA-18
: >VT-24 Chase Field, TX TA-4J
: >VA-25 Chase Field, TX TA-4J
Both gone.
: >VC-1 Barbers Point, HI A-4E, TA-4J
: >VC-5 Cubi Point, RP A-4E
: Cubi closed awhile back, where has VC-5 moved to?
VC-1 and VC-5 are gone.
: >VC-10 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba TA-4J
Gone.
: >VX-5 China Lake, CA TA-4J
Gone
: What is a NTA-4J?
Some test variant...
: >VMA-133 Alameda, Ca A-4M
: >VMA-322 South Weymouth, MA A-4M
Gone (2+ years ago)
PS Bowen
In the Marine Corps the A4 was put to pasture by the AV-8B.
Wonderful airplane to fly.
Jeff Crowell
: >On 17 Apr 1995, Marclaw wrote:
: > The A4 aka Kiddie car was a great ground attack aircraft which was put to
: > pature by the F18. However it is subsinic and had nowhere near the
: > avionics package the A6 had even back in 66.
: > It was a good turning aircraft but even for its day but an f14 can out
: > turn it.
: PS Bowen (psb...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: In the Marine Corps the A4 was put to pasture by the AV-8B.
: Wonderful airplane to fly.
FWIW, the Scooter was retired from frontline Navy service long before the
F-18 arrived on the scene. The A-7 was the main replacement in the Fleet.
As Mr. Bowen says, the A-4 was truly a joy to fly. Some airplanes gave you
the impression you were driving a truck--you had to herd them in the
direction you wanted to go. The A-4 was like a good sports car--just think
about it, and you were there.
The roll rate could really water your eyes... 720 degrees/sec. Talk about
tumbling your internal gyros! A favorite trick of the instructors in
Advanced Jet was to get the aircraft up to about 375-400 knots, where it was
_really_ responsive, then call your attention to some (imaginary) point of
interest off on one wing or the other, then smack the stick over, full
deflection the other way. The result was the airplane would rotate around
you (sort of like the way the ice in your drink glass stays stationary
while you twist the glass--like that Newton guy some college boy was talking
about a while back, yeah, that's it) and the side of the canopy would rise
up and smack you in the forehead. That came to a stop after a student got
knocked unconscious... I never had it happen to me, I was a pretty tight fit
in the office at 6-2/210 and a 44 coat size. I sort of wedged in there
between the canopy frame rails, so I rolled with the plane! 8-)
Jeff
--
###################################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# DMD Process Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
###################################################################
Try to look unimportant. They may be low on ammo.
Murphy's Laws of Combat
Andrew Muir
> was Fallon, NV, but there was a CVW there at the time) to do some work on their
> TACTS range (actually, USAF calls them something else, can't remember what though -
> ACMR maybe?). Anyway, while there the Topgun instructors took on some F16's to
> give the USAF guys some dissimilar ACM training. Afterwords, the F16 guys were
> heard to say "I never thought that little A4 could turn like that!" A surprising
> number of F16's (perhaps all?) were beaten by the A4. Of course, out-of-plane
> (no, that's plane in the geometrical sense, they were still in the cockpits,
> silly :-) ) manuevers help alot. Also goes to show that it is pilot skill and
> not the hardware that counts. ^^^^^^^^^^^
a few years ago, I read an article in Smithsonian Air & Space that
further Illustrated this point of Pilot skill. The artlicle was on the
Arizona ANG, which at the time was the ANG A-7 training wing. Anyway
the AzANG pilots would fairly regularlly tangle with the new eagle drivers
out of Luke, and would usually toast the eagles. Of course the A-7 pilots
usually had over 1,000 hrs of jet time, and many were Vietnam vets, while the
pilots out of Luke were fresh from UPT. Still, kind of reminds you
of Finnish pilots and Brewster Buffalos.
************************************************************
* Comanche * Aircraft Structures Design Engineer *
* Andrew Muir * At Large (Currently at Boeing Wichita) *
************************************************************
Jerry Prather
: The A4 aka Kiddie car was a great ground attack aircraft which was put to
: pature by the F18. However it is subsinic and had nowhere near the
: avionics package the A6 had even back in 66.
: It was a good turning aircraft but even for its day but an f14 can out
: turn it.
But there were some missions where it could be a good friend. On our 1966
deployment to WestPac, the USS YORKTOWN (CVS-10) had a detachment of four
Marine A-4s equipped with Sidewinders. No, they weren't going up against
F-14s or even F-4s, but they would probably done pretty well against the
odd-ball attack of NVA aircraft back then. It felt good having them aboard.
Thanks, guys!
--
Jerry Prather pra...@infi.net
Dan Knaus
>
>The A4 aka Kiddie car was a great ground attack aircraft which was put to
>pature by the F18. However it is subsinic and had nowhere near the
>avionics package the A6 had even back in 66.
>It was a good turning aircraft but even for its day but an f14 can out
>turn it.
Not so sure about the F14 outturning the A4 but ***DANGER***DANGER***DANGER***
Will Robinson!!!! SEA STORY APPROACHING!! SEA STORY APPROACHING!!!!! (You have
been warned!)
While at Topgun, we went to Hill AFB, outside of Salt Lake City (normal location
was Fallon, NV, but there was a CVW there at the time) to do some work on their
TACTS range (actually, USAF calls them something else, can't remember what though -
ACMR maybe?). Anyway, while there the Topgun instructors took on some F16's to
give the USAF guys some dissimilar ACM training. Afterwords, the F16 guys were
heard to say "I never thought that little A4 could turn like that!" A surprising
number of F16's (perhaps all?) were beaten by the A4. Of course, out-of-plane
(no, that's plane in the geometrical sense, they were still in the cockpits,
silly :-) ) manuevers help alot. Also goes to show that it is pilot skill and
not the hardware that counts.
ALL CLEAR
Dan
DDTSM
Tax Day in the USA. Why does God only ask for 10% but the US government _demands_ 28%?
David Hall
: In article <D75Jn...@CSUFresno.EDU>, kj...@mondrian.CSUFresno.EDU (Ken Koller) says:
: >>US NAVY
: >>VX-5 China Lake, CA TA-4J
: NTA-4J should be NTA-4E, it is
: Two seater modified for special permanent duties with the former NWC, at China Lake,
: probably no longer in service, serial BuA. 152102
I would have to second the motion that this plane is no longer in service.
I grew up at NWC and lived underneath the landing pattern (insert image of
kid sitting on roof watching the planes fly over for hours on end). And
it's been a *LONG* time since I've seen an A-4 out there. Like, I'm
guessing 87ish. Maybe earlier.
I'm not sure if the A-4 on the traffic circle is a two seater or not.....
-Dave
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| David Hall (DaveMan) | "They are *not* pommels and you |
| (405)447-2557 | *don't* steer with them!" |
| deh...@harikari.ucs.uoknor.edu | - Kristin Hall |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
Tony Pritchard
<bu...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
> The A-4 can certainly put the weapons on target as well
> as any of the other aircraft, but it can't carry as many weapons. The A-4
> only has 3 mounting points to carry weapons and extra fuel.
Five. Two under each wing, and one under the fuselage, at least on the A-4K.
Tony Pritchard
Lower Hutt, New Zealand
bu...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
> 1. how well can the A4 perform in an air-to-air role ? has anybody ever
> tested the A4 using air-to-air ordnance married to appropriate avionics ?
> I hear the New Zealanders have done it, giving their A4Ks near F16
> performance overall (not speed of course).
I'm not sure if that's quite true, but the RNZAF A-4's are
probably the most advanced A-4's flying today. They've had extensive upgrades
including a "glass" cockpit with HOTAS and improved avionics. Even without
the upgrades, the A-4's could still use Sidewinders (I don't think RNZAF
uses any other kind of air-air missile).
> 2. can the A4 take on a MIG23, 25 or 29 and still survive ?
Under the right conditions, a WW1 biplane could take out a
Mig-29 and still survive.
> 3. in the attack role, how does it compare with present day
> mudmovers ? i have read the A6 vs A/F18 comparisons, so is an A4/A6/A7
> comparison valid ? a more general question might be, given todays combat
> envrionments, can the A4 still do the job effectively ?
The A-4 has a considerably smaller weapon load compared to an
A-7, F/A-18 or A-6. The A-4 can certainly put the weapons on target as well
as any of the other aircraft, but it can't carry as many weapons. The A-4
only has 3 mounting points to carry weapons and extra fuel. The A-6 normally
has 4 (but there are two more points near the wingtips that can carry 1
Sidewinder each), the A-7 has 6 (counting the "cheek" mounts for 1 AAM each)
and the F/A-18 has 9 (counting the belly point and conformal missile points
on the main fuselage).
> 4. what has happened to the many A4s in the US Navy & Marine inventory ?
> I hope the 2 services do not scrap them, it will be such a sorry waste.
> keep them flying, its a survivor and a beautiful airplane.
The last squadren of A-4's in US service were retired this year.
It was an agressor squadren called "The Diamondbacks" but I can't remember
if it was US Navy or Marines. There may still be a mixed Navy squadren of
A-4's and helicopters in Florida, which is/was part of the USN's Electronic
Warfare training group. Their job is/was to simulate attacks against Navy
ships. The RNZAF 6 Squadren performs a similar role in Australia (Australia
pays for 200 hours of flying time per year and RNZAF 6 Squadren simulates
attacks against Australian aircraft and ships).
Garet...@cc.monash.edu.au
DOD# 251 '84 VF 750 Closet Ducatisto
Disclaimer: I'm just a jay walker on the Information Superhighway!
Mike Campbell
> 1. how well can the A4 perform in an air-to-air role ? has anybody ever
> tested the A4 using air-to-air ordnance married to appropriate avionics ?
> I hear the New Zealanders have done it, giving their A4Ks near F16
> performance overall (not speed of course).
The upgrade for the RNZAF Skyhawks (Project Kahu) was principally to
improve their air-to-ground/sea capabilities. They can and do carry
AIM-9's (L??), but their main role is anti-shipping & strike.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Campbell, + Four hostile newspapers are more to
Blenheim, + be feared than a thousand bayonets.
New Zealand +
mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz + -Napoleon
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charles W. Stewart Jr.
> >>>Onto the real ones, I believe the following are still operational.
> >>>
> >>>VMA-124 Memphis, TN A-4M, TA-4F
> >>>VMA-131 Willow Grove, PA A-4M
> >>>VMA-322 South Weymouth, MA A-4M
> >>>MALS-49 Willow Grove, PA TA-4J
Does anyone know what became of the A-4 squadron at Willow Grove? All
of the A-4's have been retired from Naval/Marine Corps. service. What
does MALS stand for (the A-4 squadron at Willow Grove used to have a
VMA designation)? Thanks for any info.
Chip
Informatics Holdings Ltd
: In article <1995Apr1...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>,
: <bu...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
: >
: > The A-4 can certainly put the weapons on target as well
: > as any of the other aircraft, but it can't carry as many weapons. The A-4
: > only has 3 mounting points to carry weapons and extra fuel.
: Five. Two under each wing, and one under the fuselage, at least on the A-4K.
: Tony Pritchard
: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
--
Mr Constantine Ng
Director of Development
Informatics Holdings Ltd
Informatics Building, 5 International Business Park
Singapore 2260, Republic of Singapore.
Tel : [65]-5680829 Fax : [65]-5625596
Email : info...@singnet.com.sg
From Constantine Ng : from what i know, the A4 had 5 hardpoints from the
A4E model onwards.
JOHN WEISS
MM> Onto the real ones, I believe the following are still operational.
MM> VFC-12 Oceana, VA A-4F, TA-4J
VFC-13 Miramar, CA A-4F, TA-4J
VF-43 Oceana, VA A-4E, A-4F
VF-45 Key West, FL A-4E, TA-4J
VF-126 Miramar, CA A-4E, A-4F, TA-4J
All decommissioned, I believe.
MM> VT-24 Chase Field, TX TA-4J
VT-25 Chase Field, TX TA-4J
VC-1 Barbers Point, HI A-4E, TA-4J
VC-5 Cubi Point, RP A-4E
MM> VX-5 China Lake, CA TA-4J
NARU Dallas, TX A-4M
Gone.
I believe all the USMC A-4s are gone, too.
John Weiss, aka
john....@ctbbs.sccsi.com
or
jwe...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us
* RM 1.3 02116 *
Anthony de Vries
> con...@temasek.teleview.com.sg (Constantine Ng) writes:
>
> > 1. how well can the A4 perform in an air-to-air role ? has anybody ever
> > tested the A4 using air-to-air ordnance married to appropriate avionics ?
> > I hear the New Zealanders have done it, giving their A4Ks near F16
> > performance overall (not speed of course).
>
> probably the most advanced A-4's flying today. They've had extensive upgrades
> including a "glass" cockpit with HOTAS and improved avionics. Even without
> the upgrades, the A-4's could still use Sidewinders (I don't think RNZAF
> uses any other kind of air-air missile).
>
a. it's very small, so it's hard to spot.
b. the engine may use a lot of fuel, but it will also react very much faster than newer engines. With such a small airframe, you'll have some pretty good handling. The TOPGUN A-4's had a somewhat bigger engine, and they have a trust to weight ratio > 1.
I don't think it can beat a F-16, but it certainly can take care of a lot of other planes.
> > 2. can the A4 take on a MIG23, 25 or 29 and still survive ?
>
> Under the right conditions, a WW1 biplane could take out a
> Mig-29 and still survive.
>
The Mig-25 is easy. It has only speed! If it is stupid enough to close on a A-4, it will be shot down by it. The 25 is only a interceptor, it turns like shit.
I think it could handle the 23 quite good. I think the Mig-23 is somewhat comparable to the F-14 in dogfigthing capacity. The Mig-29 is really in the F-16 class. The A-4 can't compete with those.
That is offcourse discounting all other factors like pilotskill, element of surprise etc.
> > 3. in the attack role, how does it compare with present day
> > mudmovers ? i have read the A6 vs A/F18 comparisons, so is an A4/A6/A7
> > comparison valid ? a more general question might be, given todays combat
> > envrionments, can the A4 still do the job effectively ?
>
> The A-4 has a considerably smaller weapon load compared to an
> A-7, F/A-18 or A-6. The A-4 can certainly put the weapons on target as well
> as any of the other aircraft, but it can't carry as many weapons. The A-4
> only has 3 mounting points to carry weapons and extra fuel. The A-6 normally
> has 4 (but there are two more points near the wingtips that can carry 1
> Sidewinder each), the A-7 has 6 (counting the "cheek" mounts for 1 AAM each)
> and the F/A-18 has 9 (counting the belly point and conformal missile points
> on the main fuselage).
Completely wrong!
Weapon load is a bit lower yes, about 12000 lbs I think, but it has 5 (!) hardpoints.
Three of them are strong enough to take a MER with Mk-82's, or those big standard NAVY fuel tanks, you also see under A-6 and A-7, the other two can take a TER with Mk-82's.
A-6 has 5 hardpoints capable of those heavy loads. (so MER with Mk-82's or big fuel tank. ) (Often the centreline one has a fuel tank on it, you forgot to count that one.) Never seen any A-6 carrying Sidewinders.
A-7 has 6 hardpoints (NOT counting the cheek mounts for a AAM!!!). Two of them only will take max a TER with Mk-82's. Because the other two are quit close to each other, it can limit some load due to space requirements.
FA-18 has 5 hardpoints capable of those heavy loads. (so MER with Mk-82's or big fuel tank.) (Also almost always a fueltank on the centreline). Other points, like the conformal missile points, and near wingtip, can only carry (light) missiles. No way you can use those in the attack role.
To give a more complete picture:
The AV-8B has 5 Hardpoints capable of carrying a TER with Mk-82's (And two smaller ones, who can take about half the lbs.) (The middle one will only take two Mk-82's due to space requirements to the ground.
Typical Attack role will be CAS. The A-4 can do a great job there. It may take a little less weapons, but the aircraft is far more smaller, far less expensive, and very uncomplicated. It's great to have as CAS aircraft to be dispersed in the countryside. (For those who can't afford the AV-8B.)
Biggets reason to use the A-7 is it's greater range, due to a slowreacting, but very economical engine.
A-6 and FA-18 can take a little more load than the A-4 but are far bigger and expensive. Those aircraft are more suited to do longer range interdiction.
When CAS is all you need, than a A-4 is great. But don't try to do any deep interdiction with it.
>
> > 4. what has happened to the many A4s in the US Navy & Marine inventory ?
> > I hope the 2 services do not scrap them, it will be such a sorry waste.
> > keep them flying, its a survivor and a beautiful airplane.
Anthony.
PS Bowen
> Does anyone know what became of the A-4 squadron at Willow Grove? All
> of the A-4's have been retired from Naval/Marine Corps. service. What
> does MALS stand for (the A-4 squadron at Willow Grove used to have a
> VMA designation)? Thanks for any info.
MALS is for Marine Air Logistics Squadron. They are the group
level maintenance squadron. Used to be called HM&S in the early 80's.
PS Bowen
>
> FA-18 has 5 hardpoints capable of those heavy loads. (so MER with Mk-82's or big fuel tank.) (Also almost always a fueltank on the centreline). Other points, like the conformal missile points, and near wingtip, can only carry (light) missiles. No way you can use those in the attack role.
>
> To give a more complete picture:
> The AV-8B has 5 Hardpoints capable of carrying a TER with Mk-82's (And two smaller ones, who can take about half the lbs.) (The middle one will only take two Mk-82's due to space requirements to the ground.
Just a little nitpick. The Harrier has a total of 7 hardpoints: 3
on each wing and one under the center fuselage. British Harriers (the
versions comparable to the AV-8B) have 2 additional hardpoints on the
outrigger assemblies.
The outside stations can carry a 500lb bomb, rockeye or
sidewinders. The inner four stations can all carry ITERS with up to 3
weapons on each ITER. Due to fin limitations, the inboard stations
equipped with ITERS can only carry 2 high drag weapons (the inner most
ITER point left blank). Outrigger stations are designed to carry
sidewinders without reducing weapon load. The center station under the
fuselage is only used to carry a DECM pod (when they fly with them).
I believe that there are tests to see whether the Harrier can
have wingtip mounted sidewinders. The aircraft should be cleared to carry
the AMRAAM (the radar Harriers II+) within the next couple of years.
> Typical Attack role will be CAS. The A-4 can do a great job there. It may take a little less weapons, but the aircraft is far more smaller, far less expensive, and very uncomplicated. It's great to have as CAS aircraft to be dispersed in the countryside. (For those who can't afford the AV-8B.)
> Biggets reason to use the A-7 is it's greater range, due to a slowreacting, but very economical engine.
> A-6 and FA-18 can take a little more load than the A-4 but are far bigger and expensive. Those aircraft are more suited to do longer range interdiction.
>
> When CAS is all you need, than a A-4 is great. But don't try to do any deep interdiction with it.
> >
> > > 4. what has happened to the many A4s in the US Navy & Marine inventory ?
> > > I hope the 2 services do not scrap them, it will be such a sorry waste.
> > > keep them flying, its a survivor and a beautiful airplane.
The Marine Corps went to the Harrier to replace the A-4 due to
the Harrier's unique deployability. The aircraft can use LHD's and LHA's
to go with the amphib ready group, and can use two lane roads, abandoned
or damaged airfields and even pads as bases for CAS.
In Desert Storm, using Tanigibe air facility (for helos and
Harriers only) just behind the lines in Saudi, Harriers could release
ordnance, land at Tanigibe, refuel and rearm, and be back on station for
their next release 35 mins later. Most other allied aircraft were only
half way home from their first trip to the target...
Jeff Crowell
: Of course most A4's have few and at least very old avionics. Still it has
: some good air-to-air characteristics.
: a. it's very small, so it's hard to spot.
This is true, and a major advantage.
: b. the engine may use a lot of fuel, but it will also react very much
: faster than newer engines.
This is not correct. The engine is quite large in diameter, and reacts
very slowly at low power settings. Off-idle response is pretty good, but no
better than more-modern engines. Lack of an afterburner hinders energy
addition/recovery.
: With such a small airframe, you'll have some
: pretty good handling.
Roll rate is as fast as anything out there. Pitch rate is good, but not
outstanding.
: The TOPGUN A-4's had a somewhat bigger engine, and they have a trust to
: weight ratio > 1.
Ummm, I believe you are mistaken here. The engines in the Top Gun A-4's, at
least when I was there, were rated at approx 8200 lbs thrust, and the dry
weight of the aircraft (no pilot, no ordnance, no fuel) was around 11-12,000
pounds. T/W is nowhere near 1:1, even just before you turn into a glider
pilot!
But I always did put a lot of trust in Scooters when I was flying them. ;-)
: I don't think it can beat a F-16, but it certainly can take care of a lot
: of other planes.
Depends on the pilots and the circumstances. Always. Regardless of the
aircraft types involved.
: > > 2. can the A4 take on a MIG23, 25 or 29 and still survive ?
: >
: > Under the right conditions, a WW1 biplane could take out a
: > Mig-29 and still survive.
: >
: The Mig-25 is easy. It has only speed! If it is stupid enough to close on
: a A-4, it will be shot down by it. The 25 is only a interceptor, it turns
: like shit.
: I think it could handle the 23 quite good. I think the Mig-23 is somewhat
: comparable to the F-14 in dogfigthing capacity. The Mig-29 is really in
: the F-16 class. The A-4 can't compete with those.
You are over-generalizing.
: Typical Attack role will be CAS. The A-4 can do a great job there. It may
: take a little less weapons, but the aircraft is far more smaller, far less
: expensive, and very uncomplicated. It's great to have as CAS aircraft to be
: dispersed in the countryside. (For those who can't afford the AV-8B.)
Except you need that long runway... let me inform you that an 8000-foot
runway is not too much if you need to abort a takeoff with any sort of load
anywhere near rejection speed. Hard to disperse thru the countryside.
Light, you can get into and out of 4500 feet, but not with any meaningful
ordnance load onboard.
The A-4 has very short legs, regardless of loadout. The turbojet engine is
relatively thirsty, and internal fuel is only about 3500-4000 lbs. The
small wing makes taking off with max loads something of an adventure. The
narrow landing gear track and stilty gear struts make crosswind takeoffs and
landings a real high-pucker factor evolution. Aboard a carrier, there is
rarely any crosswind... not so on land bases.
Jeff
--
###################################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# DMD Process Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
###################################################################
The only acceptable substitute for brains is silence.
Jenn Scott
>Path:
>ns1.potsdam.edu!ub!news.kei.com!newshost.marcam.co
Just a little background info on the A4 Skyhawk. The A4 was put on the back
burner in favor of the A6 during the Vietnam war. But the A4 has one of the
most distingushed records of any aircraft ever to be in the US arsenal. It
had a high success rate on its missions, and there were rarely any loses.
The fact that the New Zealanders still use this old piece of hardware is a
testament to how great it really is.
JOHN WEISS
IL> Hi, anyone keen to discuss the venerable lovely A4 Skyhawk ? no
IL> one seems interested in it any more judging by the publications on
IL> the book shops and this newsgroup.
Too much Hornet hype...
I have over 1700 hours in the A-4, and almost as many in the A-6, so
I'm not overwhelmed by supersonic lawn darts.
Where to start?
John Weiss, aka
Subhendu Kumar Misra
:Just a little background info on the A4 Skyhawk. The A4 was put on the back
:most distingushed records of any aircraft ever to be in the US arsenal. It
:had a high success rate on its missions, and there were rarely any loses.
:The fact that the New Zealanders still use this old piece of hardware is a
:testament to how great it really is.
Who are the New Zealanders going to fight? Are they afraid of an
invasion from Antartica? What is thier threat perception?
This isn't a flame for the Zealanders out there, just curious..
-- SKM
JOHN WEISS
JP> But there were some missions where it could be a good friend. On
JP> our 1966 deployment to WestPac, the USS YORKTOWN (CVS-10) had a
JP> detachment of four Marine A-4s equipped with Sidewinders. No, they
JP> weren't going up against F-14s or even F-4s, but they would
JP> probably done pretty well against the odd-ball attack of NVA
JP> aircraft back then. It felt good having them aboard.
If the F-4's radar was inop (a common occurrence), the A-4 would give
it a good fight! Smaller size, better close-in maneuverability, and
smokeless engine gave it a good advantage in a visual fight.
Jacob M Mcguire
Skyhawk by Anthony de Vr...@ifm.liu
> No crosswind on carriers? I don't think so. The carrier will only turn
> so much that it has say some 30 knots over the deck. That doesn't
mean > that it will have to go strait into the wind, and thus also
doesn't mean
> that it doesn't have crosswind.
I would tend to think that a carrier doing flight ops would
steam directly into the wind, first because every little bit
of speed helps, and secondly, why would you complicate the
already difficult task of landing on a carrier when you don't
have to?
+-------------------------------------+---------------------+
| Raise the speed limit to 100 mph; | Jake McGuire |
| Think of it as evolution in action. | jm...@andrew.cmu.edu |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------+
Benjamin H Schapiro
For straight deck carriers (pre 50s generally) the carrier took up a heading
that put the wind to the left ( for carriers with the island on the
starboard side) to keep the turbulence from the island from fouling the
approach area.
For angle deck carriers the same is true, but even with the wind's heading
in line with the approach the forward motion of the ship produces an
apparent cross wind as the landing area constantly moves to the right.
Ben Schapiro
Ben Schapiro scha...@notis.com
Brian varine
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Jacob M Mcguire wrote:
> Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.military: 25-Apr-95 Re: The A4
> Skyhawk by Anthony de Vr...@ifm.liu
> > No crosswind on carriers? I don't think so. The carrier will only turn
> > so much that it has say some 30 knots over the deck. That doesn't
> mean > that it will have to go strait into the wind, and thus also
> doesn't mean
> > that it doesn't have crosswind.
>
> I would tend to think that a carrier doing flight ops would
> steam directly into the wind, first because every little bit
> of speed helps, and secondly, why would you complicate the
> already difficult task of landing on a carrier when you don't
> have to?
They do steam into the wind. The problem is that the wind changes
direction very quickly, add into that turbulence from the Island and
stack gasses (If it's a oil burner).
Anthony de Vries
>> Except you need that long runway... let me inform you that an 8000-foot
> runway is not too much if you need to abort a takeoff with any sort of load
> anywhere near rejection speed. Hard to disperse thru the countryside.
> Light, you can get into and out of 4500 feet, but not with any meaningful
> ordnance load onboard.
>
Offcourse with full load it would be more, but your 8000-foot runway seems a bit extreem.
> The A-4 has very short legs, regardless of loadout. The turbojet engine is
> relatively thirsty, and internal fuel is only about 3500-4000 lbs. The
> small wing makes taking off with max loads something of an adventure. The
> narrow landing gear track and stilty gear struts make crosswind takeoffs and
> landings a real high-pucker factor evolution. Aboard a carrier, there is
> rarely any crosswind... not so on land bases.
>
No crosswind on carriers? I don't think so. The carrier will only turn so much that it has say some 30 knots over the deck. That doesn't mean that it will have to go strait into the wind, and thus also doesn't mean that it doesn't have crosswind.
>
> Jeff
>
Anthony.
James Corley
<jm...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I would tend to think that a carrier doing flight ops would
>steam directly into the wind, first because every little bit
>of speed helps, and secondly, why would you complicate the
>already difficult task of landing on a carrier when you don't
>have to?
>
If you are running dual ops (launch AND recovery) what do you do?
The skipper either has to put the wind down the deck or down the angle.
Down the angle is preferable as I have heard several stories about POed
LSOs vs COs. Therefore every plane has to have some crosswind deck
performance.
Also, the CV cant turn into the wind all the time. Doing so could
benefit the enemies tactical situation. The S3 is the only plane
certified to pull ops with any/no wind, the S3s also launch with
tailwinds. It helps to not turn into the enemy subs.
Jeff Crowell
I wrote:
: >Except you need that long runway... let me inform you that an 8000-foot
: >runway is not too much if you need to abort a takeoff with any sort of
: >load anywhere near rejection speed.
Anthony de Vries (an...@ifm.liu.se) wrote:
: Sure that a A-4 would need so much? It's a NAVY plane, those normally have
: to be able to takeoff or land using only 700 yards. (By that I mean land
: operations, not carrier)
: Of course with full load it would be more, but your 8000-foot runway seems
: a bit extreem.
There are, of course, catapults which can be used on land, and arresting
gear the same, but the intent of the original poster was, I felt, dispersal
of aircraft to (more or less) unprepared fields. I say 'more or less'
because the landing gear of the Skyhawk are _NOT_ suited to unpaved field
surfaces. But a hardtop highway would work.
The NATOPS minimum safe field length for the A-4 is 4500 feet--I know it
because the civ field near Kingsville NAS has a (narrow) 4500-foot field and
it was just legal for emergency use. Now, of course if you have snakes in
the cockpit, you'll take any hard surface you can get, but 4500' is what the
book says, and that's not with ordnance. This does not take into account
the effects of "high-hot-heavy", either. Add either fuel or ordnance, and
you'll need even more takeoff run. Don't have the NATOPS any more, so I
can't say exactly how much... but would YOU begin a takeoff run with a
loaded aircraft in the knowledge that you would not be able to abort the
takeoff and stop in time?
: > The narrow landing gear track and stilty gear struts make crosswind
: > takeoffs and landings a real high-pucker factor evolution. Aboard
: > a carrier, there is rarely any crosswind... not so on land bases.
: No crosswind on carriers? I don't think so. The carrier will only turn so
: much that it has say some 30 knots over the deck. That doesn't mean that
: it will have to go strait into the wind, and thus also doesn't mean that
: it doesn't have crosswind.
The carrier will always maneuver so that the total relative wind (vector
combination of ship's movement and natural wind) is very close to straight
down the deck, unless some tactical situation (a la Taffy 3, and they didn't
land back on) or nautical situation (i.e. lack of seawater in the direction
of the normal fox corpen) precludes it.
FWIW, it was common when the A-4 was in carrier service to have a deck guy
kip up on the upwind wing if you were turning across the wind while
taxiing on deck, if you were light. You could land the plane in a fair
crosswind in land operations, but controllability was less than spectacular
in some situations as you slowed down.
Jeff
--
###################################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# DMD Process Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
###################################################################
Sex without emotion = a river without water.
Tony Pritchard
Subhendu Kumar Misra <mis...@cii3116-07.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> Who are the New Zealanders going to fight? Are they afraid of an
> invasion from Antartica? What is thier threat perception?
>
of any real use playing a specialist role within a larger force. One
squadron of A-4s is currently permanently engaged in an "aggressor" role
for the Australians. The ANZUS treaty was the main basis of our defence
until the Americans got the huff with us and refused to play games any more.
As for invasion - the obvious candidate in the region (with a recent track
record) is Indonesia, but we're not supposed to talk them because they're
such good trading partners. ;-)
Dan Knaus
>> No crosswind on carriers? I don't think so. The carrier will only turn
>> so much that it has say some 30 knots over the deck. That doesn't
>mean > that it will have to go strait into the wind, and thus also
>doesn't mean
>> that it doesn't have crosswind.
>
>steam directly into the wind, first because every little bit
>of speed helps, and secondly, why would you complicate the
>already difficult task of landing on a carrier when you don't
>have to?
>
Lots of editing above (well some. Ok, I deleted 3 lines...).
Anyway, the general plan when landing on a CV/CVN is to have about
25-30kts down the ANGLE, not the axial deck. The angle varies on
different boats, but is around 8-10 degrees. If the winds aren't
right down the angle (and sometimes if they are) the LSO's will
call "port", "axial"(can't remember exact definition, but think it's
down the angle to the centerline of the ship) and "starboard", which
is further to the right than axial. (Note: It is very probable that
I have gotten the definitions of axial and starboard reversed, it's been
a couple of years since I've trapped...)
What makes the landing interesting (among many, many other things) is
that your runway is not only moving away from you, but it is also
sideways to you if you fly up the ship's wake! The approach is actually
started from the right side of the ship and crosses the centerline of
the ship (note that centerline normally refers to the angle's centerline,
which is that 8-10 degrees off of the ship's centerline). There has to
be an element of crab in the approach..
Different winds also affect (effect? never could remember which was
which....) the pattern, how far abeam, when to start the turn from the
180, etc. Add a little darkness, some seas and pitching, a plane that
can't tank and has no ejection seats, no nearby land, and pack of blind,
lying LSO's,.....;-)
Kmart
DDTSM
Matthew Saroff
I have heard that the original navy proposal envisaged a 17000
pound empty wight turboprop capable of about 350kts, and when Ed Heinaman
(sp?) proposed the Skyhawk (500+ kts and less than half the weight), the
navy procurement officer called him a liar.
Is this true?
--
--Matthew Saroff| Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| channel disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
Mutual Improvement
> I have heard that the original navy proposal envisaged a 17000
>pound empty wight turboprop capable of about 350kts, and when Ed Heinaman
>(sp?) proposed the Skyhawk (500+ kts and less than half the weight), the
>navy procurement officer called him a liar.
> Is this true?
i believe so. part of the problem with the navy, was that no one thought
that a fully capable attack a/c, could be built w/o folding wings. ed got
what he did, only [imho] by cutting out a lot of extra gear that other
more capable and heavier a/c would have had.
i also seem to recall that there were some prototypes made at the time the
very first skyhawks came out, that did have turboprops. was the martin
mauler one? or did that a/c lose out to the skyraider?
t.
00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
> In article <3nf2b7$l...@cii3116-07.its.rpi.edu>,
> Subhendu Kumar Misra <mis...@cii3116-07.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Who are the New Zealanders going to fight? Are they afraid of an
>> invasion from Antartica? What is thier threat perception?
>>
> It's more a matter of who we're going to fight *with*. The RNZAF is only
> of any real use playing a specialist role within a larger force. One
> squadron of A-4s is currently permanently engaged in an "aggressor" role
> for the Australians. The ANZUS treaty was the main basis of our defence
> until the Americans got the huff with us and refused to play games any more.
The only "huff" I'm aware of is when the New Zealand govenment declared NZ
to be a nuclear free zone. This would require any USN ships wishing to call
on NZ ports to declare that they were not carrying nuclear weapons. As it
was USN policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nukes (to
complicate the Soviet's targeting problem), the US simply chose not to call
on NZ ports. I don't really see a "huff", just two nations who chose to
follow different policies.
- Grover
Bernard B. Yoo
(stuff deleted)
(Below, "it" refers to A-4, if I'm interpreting the context correctly.)
: : I don't think it can beat a F-16, but it certainly can take care of a lot
: : of other planes.
: Depends on the pilots and the circumstances. Always. Regardless of the
: aircraft types involved.
I think the importance of pilot skill is being overemphasized
here. In a theoretical view, with equal pilots and equal circumstances,
the pilot with the better plane wins. In an actual situation with roughly
equal pilots and each pilot in roughly the same circumstances, the pilot
with a significantly better plane will have a significantly better
chance of winning. Still no guarantees though.
I guess it would be more accurate to say, "Depends on the pilots,
the circumstances, the aircraft, and a lot of other things (many of
which can be lumped together under 'circumstances')."
My opinions, humbly submitted. Comments, clarifications,
corrections appreciated.
--
***********************************************************************
* Bernard B. Yoo * Wiess College *
* ber...@owlnet.rice.edu * 6340 S. Main St. *
* Team Wiess! * Houston, TX 77005 *
***********************************************************************
an12...@anon.penet.fi
>:Just a little background info on the A4 Skyhawk. The A4 was put on the back
>:burner in favor of the A6 during the Vietnam war. But the A4 has one of the
>:most distingushed records of any aircraft ever to be in the US arsenal. It
>:had a high success rate on its missions, and there were rarely any loses.
>:The fact that the New Zealanders still use this old piece of hardware is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>:testament to how great it really is.
>
>invasion from Antartica? What is thier threat perception?
>
>
>-- SKM
After the NZ disaccomadated the USN by declaring themselves a
Nuclear-free zone, they became a small weak country
with no big-brother (just like Pakistan is every time its
master does not need it). In the mid '80s French SEALs
bombed a Greanpeace ship in NZ waters but were caught.
With no big-brother to protect them, the NZ had to
squirm and hand back the French terrorists scot-free
under pressure from the nuclear-armed French Navy. *
NZ has no enemies per se, until they wipe out the
remaining aborigines and need more land. Then they
could go after and colonize Indonesia, Malaysia or
Philippines (Australia is too strong and too white).
"Might Makes Right - Hindustan#1"
* Moral of the story: One either needs a friendly lion (powerful faculty
member) or Nukes (a really outstanding thesis).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
jc...@hoasys.isd1.tafensw.edu.au
> In article <1995Apr1...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, bu...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> con...@temasek.teleview.com.sg (Constantine Ng) writes:
>>
>> > 1. how well can the A4 perform in an air-to-air role ? has anybody ever
>> > tested the A4 using air-to-air ordnance married to appropriate avionics ?
>> > I hear the New Zealanders have done it, giving their A4Ks near F16
>> > performance overall (not speed of course).
>>
>> I'm not sure if that's quite true, but the RNZAF A-4's are
>> probably the most advanced A-4's flying today. They've had extensive upgrades
>> including a "glass" cockpit with HOTAS and improved avionics. Even without
>> the upgrades, the A-4's could still use Sidewinders (I don't think RNZAF
>> uses any other kind of air-air missile).
>
> Biggets reason to use the A-7 is it's greater range, due to a slowreacting, but very economical engine.
> A-6 and FA-18 can take a little more load than the A-4 but are far bigger and expensive. Those aircraft are more suited to do longer range interdiction.
>
> When CAS is all you need, than a A-4 is great. But don't try to do any deep interdiction with it.
>>
>> > 4. what has happened to the many A4s in the US Navy & Marine inventory ?
>> > I hope the 2 services do not scrap them, it will be such a sorry waste.
>> > keep them flying, its a survivor and a beautiful airplane.
>
>
> Anthony.
>
The Argentinans use A4s against the British in the Falklands (c1982)if my memory
serves me right, not with any great success I might add, the brits were using
Harriers, they lost 2 supposedly in a mid air collision, the Argentinians lost
a good deal more A4s in 'Death Ally' (Argentinian description of the falkland
sound.) I think the Americans supplied the Brits with a more modern air to
air missle, which helped greatly.
IMHO this was one of the most difficult logistical war ever fought, 8000 miles
from the UK.
The Vulcan Black buck raids were also somthing special.
John Cook.
RENABORNEY
He was in the midst of a weight reduction study. The results showed that
for certain airframe items that for every pound you saved in the them, the
net savings was around 10 pounds (ie: in supporting structure). He as once
quoted along the lines that he built a fuel tank shaped like a wing,
attached an engine to it and added a saddle for the jockey...
> Turboprop attack aircraft
The AM Mauler was the loser in the competition win the AD Skyraider. I
think the AD was powered by a R3350 (same as B29), while the AM had a
R4360. There was a famous photo of a Mauler carrying three torpedoes, a
dozen 5"
HVARs and a shitload of a bombs. Unfortunately, its handling left a lot to
be desired and less than 150 were made. The turbo job was the A2D
Skyshark.
Tony Pritchard
<00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu> wrote:
> In article <D7M13...@actrix.gen.nz>, to...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Tony Pritchard) writes:
> > In article <3nf2b7$l...@cii3116-07.its.rpi.edu>,
> > Subhendu Kumar Misra <mis...@cii3116-07.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> invasion from Antartica? What is thier threat perception?
> >>
> > of any real use playing a specialist role within a larger force. One
> > squadron of A-4s is currently permanently engaged in an "aggressor" role
> > for the Australians. The ANZUS treaty was the main basis of our defence
> > until the Americans got the huff with us and refused to play games any more.
>
> The only "huff" I'm aware of is when the New Zealand govenment declared NZ
> to be a nuclear free zone. This would require any USN ships wishing to call
> on NZ ports to declare that they were not carrying nuclear weapons. As it
> was USN policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nukes (to
> complicate the Soviet's targeting problem), the US simply chose not to call
> on NZ ports. I don't really see a "huff", just two nations who chose to
> follow different policies.
>
> - Grover
I believe that Japan has a similar ban on the importation of nuclear
weapons, but the USN has no problem with visits there. So the US total
boycott of NZ had to have some rather more complicated motive than a
simple difference in policies.
(Sorry, this is getting a long way from Skyhawks.)
- Tony Pritchard
Constantine Ng
: In article <3mgve7$n...@temasek.teleview.com.sg> con...@temasek.teleview.com.sg writes:
: > 1. how well can the A4 perform in an air-to-air role ? has anybody ever
: > tested the A4 using air-to-air ordnance married to appropriate avionics ?
: > I hear the New Zealanders have done it, giving their A4Ks near F16
: > performance overall (not speed of course).
: The upgrade for the RNZAF Skyhawks (Project Kahu) was principally to
: improve their air-to-ground/sea capabilities. They can and do carry
: AIM-9's (L??), but their main role is anti-shipping & strike.
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: Mike Campbell, + Four hostile newspapers are more to
: Blenheim, + be feared than a thousand bayonets.
: New Zealand +
: mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz + -Napoleon
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:
Hi Mike, Constantine here;
as i understand it, Project Kahu was a major nav/attack avionics refit.
so how did it finally perform in its intended role ?
was there any consideration for upgrading to a bigger thrust engine ? The
original A4K had a J52-P8A with 9,300lb s.t.
the A4M (US Marines), A4N (Israel) and A4SU (Singapore) used the
following engines : A4M/N = J52-P-408A (11,200lb s.t.)
A4SU = F404-GE-100D (10,800lb s.t.)
has the A4K been used in ACM training (as in the now almost totally
disbanded US Aggressors squadrons) ?
any idea of the future of the A4Ks ? further enhancements / upgrades ?
keen to know if they are to serve the RNZAF well into the 1990s, perhaps
beyond year 2000 ?? moot point.
Constantine Ng
: On 21 Apr 1995, Anthony de Vries wrote:
: >
: > FA-18 has 5 hardpoints capable of those heavy loads. (so MER with Mk-82's or big fuel tank.) (Also almost always a fueltank on the centreline). Other points, like the conformal missile points, and near wingtip, can only carry (light) missiles. No way
: >
: > To give a more complete picture:
: > The AV-8B has 5 Hardpoints capable of carrying a TER with Mk-82's (And two smaller ones, who can take about half the lbs.) (The middle one will only take two Mk-82's due to space requirements to the ground.
: Just a little nitpick. The Harrier has a total of 7 hardpoints: 3
: on each wing and one under the center fuselage. British Harriers (the
: versions comparable to the AV-8B) have 2 additional hardpoints on the
: outrigger assemblies.
: The outside stations can carry a 500lb bomb, rockeye or
: sidewinders. The inner four stations can all carry ITERS with up to 3
: weapons on each ITER. Due to fin limitations, the inboard stations
: equipped with ITERS can only carry 2 high drag weapons (the inner most
: ITER point left blank). Outrigger stations are designed to carry
: sidewinders without reducing weapon load. The center station under the
: fuselage is only used to carry a DECM pod (when they fly with them).
: I believe that there are tests to see whether the Harrier can
: have wingtip mounted sidewinders. The aircraft should be cleared to carry
: the AMRAAM (the radar Harriers II+) within the next couple of years.
:
: > Typical Attack role will be CAS. The A-4 can do a great job there. It may take a little less weapons, but the aircraft is far more smaller, far less expensive, and very uncomplicated. It's great to have as CAS aircraft to be dispersed in the country
side. (For those who can't afford the AV-8B.)
: > Biggets reason to use the A-7 is it's greater range, due to a slowreacting, but very economical engine.
: > A-6 and FA-18 can take a little more load than the A-4 but are far bigger and expensive. Those aircraft are more suited to do longer range interdiction.
: >
: > When CAS is all you need, than a A-4 is great. But don't try to do any deep interdiction with it.
: > >
: > > > 4. what has happened to the many A4s in the US Navy & Marine inventory ?
: > > > I hope the 2 services do not scrap them, it will be such a sorry waste.
: > > > keep them flying, its a survivor and a beautiful airplane.
: The Marine Corps went to the Harrier to replace the A-4 due to
: the Harrier's unique deployability. The aircraft can use LHD's and LHA's
: to go with the amphib ready group, and can use two lane roads, abandoned
: or damaged airfields and even pads as bases for CAS.
: In Desert Storm, using Tanigibe air facility (for helos and
: Harriers only) just behind the lines in Saudi, Harriers could release
: ordnance, land at Tanigibe, refuel and rearm, and be back on station for
: their next release 35 mins later. Most other allied aircraft were only
: half way home from their first trip to the target...
From Constantine Ng :
Anybody know how did the Kuwaiti Skyhawks & pilots aquit themselves in the
opening hours of Desert Storm ?
I assume that with their late model A4KU and well trained pilots, they
were able to put on a good show and generally able to play a significant
role ? i hear (perhaps not true) that the pilots had to be restrained from
carrying out daring missions in the defence of their nation, very much in
the spirit of the Israelis during the '67 & '73 Mid-East conflicts.
Constantine Ng
: IL> Hi, anyone keen to discuss the venerable lovely A4 Skyhawk ? no
: IL> one seems interested in it any more judging by the publications on
: IL> the book shops and this newsgroup.
: Too much Hornet hype...
: I have over 1700 hours in the A-4, and almost as many in the A-6, so
: I'm not overwhelmed by supersonic lawn darts.
: Where to start?
: John Weiss, aka
: * RM 1.3 02116 *
John, since I posted 4 questions on the A4, there has been quite a fair
bit of exchange over the last 2 weeks in this group. i must admit i learnt
a lot about other people's views. like you, i'm in love with the A4
"Scooter".
so tell us John, what's it like to ride to battle in the A4 ?
there is this strange thought in me, imagining myself as one hotshot
pilot taking the A4 to its extreme in air-to-air dogfights a la Aggressor
squadrons.
there is another bit that wants to take the A4 low down near ground
level, just like the Israli pilot that chased an enemy aircraft through a
wadi in the desert, jinking to avoid the sheer walls but yet keeping the
enemy in sight before shooting him down.
am i over glamorising the little craft when most of the time it performed
fairly mundane mud moving task ? wouldn't be mundane or thankless to the
troops on the ground praying for really close air support i would think !!
be hearing from you and anyone else !! many thanks in advance !!
Constantine Ng
: : Anthony de Vries (an...@ifm.liu.se) wrote:
: : Of course most A4's have few and at least very old avionics. Still it has
: : some good air-to-air characteristics.
: : a. it's very small, so it's hard to spot.
: This is true, and a major advantage.
: : b. the engine may use a lot of fuel, but it will also react very much
: : faster than newer engines.
: This is not correct. The engine is quite large in diameter, and reacts
: very slowly at low power settings. Off-idle response is pretty good, but no
: better than more-modern engines. Lack of an afterburner hinders energy
: addition/recovery.
: : With such a small airframe, you'll have some
: : pretty good handling.
: Roll rate is as fast as anything out there. Pitch rate is good, but not
: outstanding.
: : The TOPGUN A-4's had a somewhat bigger engine, and they have a trust to
: : weight ratio > 1.
: Ummm, I believe you are mistaken here. The engines in the Top Gun A-4's, at
: least when I was there, were rated at approx 8200 lbs thrust, and the dry
: weight of the aircraft (no pilot, no ordnance, no fuel) was around 11-12,000
: pounds. T/W is nowhere near 1:1, even just before you turn into a glider
: pilot!
: But I always did put a lot of trust in Scooters when I was flying them. ;-)
From Constantine Ng :
i think this bit about engines has to be discussed in context. I
understand the A4 has used a series of engines from the J65 to J52 with
thrust ranging from 8,200/8,400 to 9,300 to 11,200. I read that some Top
Gun A4s used the J52-P8 (9,300lb) and the J52-408 (11,200). Singapore's
A4SU (based on A4B/4C airframes) uses the F404-GE-100D (10,800lb). so
depending on which aircraft & engine model, the T/W can exceed 1.
: : I don't think it can beat a F-16, but it certainly can take care of a lot
: : of other planes.
: Depends on the pilots and the circumstances. Always. Regardless of the
: aircraft types involved.
: : > > 2. can the A4 take on a MIG23, 25 or 29 and still survive ?
: : >
: : > Under the right conditions, a WW1 biplane could take out a
: : > Mig-29 and still survive.
: : >
: : The Mig-25 is easy. It has only speed! If it is stupid enough to close on
: : a A-4, it will be shot down by it. The 25 is only a interceptor, it turns
: : like shit.
: : I think it could handle the 23 quite good. I think the Mig-23 is somewhat
: : comparable to the F-14 in dogfigthing capacity. The Mig-29 is really in
: : the F-16 class. The A-4 can't compete with those.
: You are over-generalizing.
From Constantine Ng : i tend to agree. pilot skills and circumstances
dictate the outcomes. i suppose those endless hours the Top Gun people
spent in taking the A4 to the limit will give some conclusions to the
above, assuming they had actual or very well simulated Mig23, 25 & 29
aircraft and flown to their limits because in combat i would think any
pilot will fly to the limit, in order to survive.
any views from the Top Gun(ners) ??
: : Typical Attack role will be CAS. The A-4 can do a great job there. It may
: : take a little less weapons, but the aircraft is far more smaller, far less
: : expensive, and very uncomplicated. It's great to have as CAS aircraft to be
: : dispersed in the countryside. (For those who can't afford the AV-8B.)
From Constantine Ng :
aside from being from different generations, i suppose when hitting the
target area (getting in & out safely yet scoring hits), the A4 and the
AV8B are comparable ??
: Except you need that long runway... let me inform you that an 8000-foot
: runway is not too much if you need to abort a takeoff with any sort of load
: anywhere near rejection speed. Hard to disperse thru the countryside.
: Light, you can get into and out of 4500 feet, but not with any meaningful
: ordnance load onboard.
: The A-4 has very short legs, regardless of loadout. The turbojet engine is
: relatively thirsty, and internal fuel is only about 3500-4000 lbs. The
: small wing makes taking off with max loads something of an adventure. The
: narrow landing gear track and stilty gear struts make crosswind takeoffs and
: landings a real high-pucker factor evolution. Aboard a carrier, there is
: rarely any crosswind... not so on land bases.
: Jeff
: --
: ###################################################################
: # #
: # Jeff Crowell | | #
: # jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
: # _________|__( )__|_________ #
: # DMD Process Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
: # (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
: # O x x O #
: # #
: ###################################################################
: The only acceptable substitute for brains is silence.
Constantine Ng
: JP> But there were some missions where it could be a good friend. On
: John Weiss, aka
: * RM 1.3 02116 *
From Constantine Ng : did any of those A4s actually tangled with a MIG ?
at that time when Top Gun was in its infancy (correct me if i'm wrong), i
thought equipping with Sidewinders must mean that the A4 would do well in
the dog-fight role (with great confidence too !!). from what i read there
have been very few recorded cases of A4s shooting down enemy craft using
Sidewinders. (one case using Zuni rockets, another using cannons). anyone
any ideas ??
Constantine Ng
the original navy proposal envisaged a 17000 : pound empty wight turboprop
capable of about 350kts, and when Ed Heinaman : (sp?) proposed the Skyhawk
(500+ kts and less than half the weight), the : navy procurement officer
called him a liar. : Is this true?
: -- : --Matthew Saroff| Standard
Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for : _____ | No one else, I don't even
Speak for me. All my : / o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I
channel : ______|_____|_____| channel disavow all knowledge of my
activities. ;-) : uuu U uuu | : | In fact, all my personalities and
channeled spirits : Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with
garlic & butter...) :
From Constantine Ng :
===================
This is getting interesting. we are going back to the birth of the
Skyhawk. would Mr Peter Kilduff please begin work on the 2nd edition of
your great-to-read book "Douglas A4 Skyhawk" published in 1983 by Osprey
Publishing, UK ? A lot has happened to the A4 since then.
Richard Stewart
jc...@hoasys.isd1.tafensw.edu.au says...
>The Argentinans use A4s against the British in the Falklands (c1982)if
my memory
>serves me right, not with any great success I might add, the brits were
using
The ineffectiveness of the Skyhawks was partly due to the fact they were
using retarded 500lb bombs. The pilots were releasing the bombs so low
the bombs didn't fall far enough to arm. Several British ships were hit
by bombs, that didn't detonate. I think later in the war they started to
realise and the british lost a couple more ships (Atlantic Conveyor? and
a couple of frigates if I remember right)
>Harriers, they lost 2 supposedly in a mid air collision, the
Argentinians lost
>a good deal more A4s in 'Death Ally' (Argentinian description of the
falkland
>sound.) I think the Americans supplied the Brits with a more modern air
to
>air missle, which helped greatly.
>
>IMHO this was one of the most difficult logistical war ever fought, 8000
miles
>from the UK.
What about the air strikes from MAINLAND Argentina, damn.
>
>The Vulcan Black buck raids were also somthing special.
>
>John Cook
Richard Stewart
ste...@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au
Frank Bigham
---
===============================================================================
| | _ _ _ _ _ |
| Frank Bigham | ||// \\// ||// ||_|| ||_ ||_ || \\ |
| Lockheed Martin Information Systems | |_\\_//\\_||\\ || || ||_ ||_ ||_// |
| Orlando, FL | _ _ ____ |
| (407) 826-3745 | ||\\//|| //_\\ ||_\\ || || ||\\ || |
| big...@escmail.orl.mmc.com | || \/ ||// \\|| \\ || || || \\|| |
===============================================================================
+ Appropriate disclaimers separating my comments +
+ from Lockheed Martin are attached in any available space. +
===============================================================================
Bill Horne
Anthony de Vries <an...@ifm.liu.se> wrote:
>
>No crosswind on carriers? I don't think so. The carrier will
>only turn so much that it has say some 30 knots over the deck.
>That doesn't mean that it will have to go strait into the wind,
>and thus also doesn't mean that it doesn't have crosswind.
Sorry, Anthony, but that's one of the good things about carrier
flying. Little or no crosswind. I have a few less than two hundred
carrier landings, but I never saw the ship attempt a recovery headed
out of the wind. I have occasionally seen the recovery interupted
to allow the ship to alter heading to compensate for a change in
the wind.
Since the angled deck landing area is not parallel to the ships
fore and aft axis, some crosswind is unavoidable at times. When
there is ambient wind, the CO will use it to best advantage, and
try to create an effective wind that is down the angle. With
the right combination of ambient wind and ships speed, this can
be done. When there is little or no wind, then all wind over
the deck must be provided by the ship. The created wind will be
straight down the axial deck and the landing pilot will have a
slight crosswind from the right. This situation is compounded
by the ship's exhaust stack gas which will create some turbulence
on short final.
There is another good reason for turning into the wind. It saves
fuel. Unless the ship is in transit from one place to another,
it spends a lot of time steaming in holding patterns. It just makes
good sense to turn into the wind, and save fuel that would be
required to overcome the forces of nature if headed out of the wind.
Yet another reason is liability. If the CO fails to provide optimum
landing conditions, then he must share the blame in the event of
an accident. Can you imagine, "Well, I gave him an unnecessary
crosswind because I wanted a better view of the sunset?" In
practice, the CO provides the best possible conditions for
recovering aircraft, and then immediately begins complaining about
the slow speed of the recovery and the lack of "sea room" on the
chosen heading.
Thirty knots is actually a little too much for recovering aircraft.
It can be done, but conditions are better at about twenty to
twenty-five knots. With thirty knots, the ship is creating too
much turbulence, and the power required to stay on glide slope
is greater. It makes for a more trying situation for the pilot.
I have heard of a ship doing a recovery while backing down in order
to reduce the wind over the deck. For the A-3, a minimum of
seventeen knots was required. I can't give numbers for current
aircraft.
--
| Bill Horne |
| Tandem Computers Incorporated Internet: bho...@mpd.tandem.com|
| 9390 Research Blvd.; Bldg II Suite 400 Fax: (512) 795-2149 |
|_Austin, Texas 78759_____________________Phone: (512) 795-2112__________|
Paul Jonathan Adam
> using retarded 500lb bombs. The pilots were releasing the bombs so low
> the bombs didn't fall far enough to arm. Several British ships were hit
> by bombs, that didn't detonate. I think later in the war they started to
> realise and the british lost a couple more ships (Atlantic Conveyor? and
> a couple of frigates if I remember right)
Atlantic Conveyor was lost to AM39 Exocets. The Argentinians were gutsy as
hell - to keep coming back in the face of those losses shows real courage - and
one ship (HMS Ardent, I think) was lost because a 1000lb bomb lodged inside
her and detonated while being defused. We lost Coventry and Antelope to
air-dropped bombs too, and many others had a half-ton of HE punch through
both sides of the hull.
> >Harriers, they lost 2 supposedly in a mid air collision, the Argentinians lost
> >a good deal more A4s in 'Death Ally' (Argentinian description of the
> > falkland sound.) I think the Americans supplied the Brits with a more modern air
> >to air missle, which helped greatly.
We called San Carlos Water "Bomb Alley" for similar reasons.. We lost about four or
five Harriers to accidents, mechanical failure and ground fire: no figures to hand on
Argentinian losses but they were heavy.
The Americans supplied us with enough AIM-9L all-aspect missiles that we could take
a hundred to the Falklands, and add a resupply later, without touching our NATO stock
in case the Russians invaded while we were distracted :-) They also let us use Ascension
Island, without which the whole campaign would have come unravelled. Thank you,
America: some of us haven't forgotten. (Sorry, Argentina, too, but that's another matter...)
> >IMHO this was one of the most difficult logistical war ever fought, 8000
> miles
> >from the UK.
>
> What about the air strikes from MAINLAND Argentina, damn.
Not that big a deal, unfortunately - like Germans hitting Britain in 1940 in fuel terms.
Okay, the Mirages/Skyhawks werre at the edge of their endurance and didn't have tanker
support...limited time-on-target. But they were basically just flights at the further edge of
combat radius (in range terms, anyway).
> >The Vulcan Black buck raids were also somthing special.
Not bad - at least we used the Vulcan before we scrapped it :-(
--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Jerry Prather
: Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.military: 25-Apr-95 Re: The A4
: Skyhawk by Anthony de Vr...@ifm.liu
: mean > that it will have to go strait into the wind, and thus also
: doesn't mean
: > that it doesn't have crosswind.
: I would tend to think that a carrier doing flight ops would
: steam directly into the wind, first because every little bit
: of speed helps, and secondly, why would you complicate the
: already difficult task of landing on a carrier when you don't
: have to?
Having been an OOD (the guy who points the ship in the direction it should
go in the instantaneous mode), I can tell you with certainty that Fox Corpen
(flight ops course) was ideally with the wind 12 degrees to port. This is
right down the angle deck. If you were on the MIDWAY or the YORKTOWN like I
was, there were no catapaults on the angle. Therefore, A-4s (and everything
else) took off with a 12 degree crosswind (when there was enough wind to
obtain that). Landings were optimized, not takeoffs (again when there was
sufficient wind). I can't tell you how many times I steamed the ship in a
360 degree circle looking for the predicted wind, but never found anything
worth aiming at.
(BTW, no A-4s normally on either ship while I was aboard, but the YORKTOWN
did carry a four plane Marine detachment of A-4s equipped with Sidewinders
to act as Combat Air Patrol for the CVS.)
--
Jerry Prather pra...@infi.net
Matthew Saroff
: the pilot with the better plane wins. In an actual situation with roughly
: equal pilots and each pilot in roughly the same circumstances, the pilot
: with a significantly better plane will have a significantly better
: chance of winning. Still no guarantees though.
: I guess it would be more accurate to say, "Depends on the pilots,
: the circumstances, the aircraft, and a lot of other things (many of
: which can be lumped together under 'circumstances')."
If you read any book by an Ace, you see that most of the kills
consist of, "I came up behind him, and he didn't know anything until my
bullets were hitting his plane." The studies that lead to dissimilar
combat training (top gun, etc.) came to the same conclusion.
The important thing then in situational awareness. There are
some thinks, like HUDs, that can improve situational awareness to some
degree by keeping the pilot's eyes looking out, but it is primarily a
function of training and tactics.
One of the reasons that the Luftwaffe was so effective during the
early stages of WWII was that their tactics were developed for more
modern aricraft during the Spanish Civil War. The French and the British
were using tactics developed during WWI, like close formation flying,
that did not work with the fast prop planes of the era.
Samuel P. Johnson
> In article <3ni6p7$6...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>,
> Anthony de Vries <an...@ifm.liu.se> wrote:
{snip}
> Since the angled deck landing area is not parallel to the ships
> fore and aft axis, some crosswind is unavoidable at times. When
> there is ambient wind, the CO will use it to best advantage, and
> try to create an effective wind that is down the angle. With
> the right combination of ambient wind and ships speed, this can
> be done. When there is little or no wind, then all wind over
> the deck must be provided by the ship. The created wind will be
> straight down the axial deck and the landing pilot will have a
> slight crosswind from the right. This situation is compounded
> by the ship's exhaust stack gas which will create some turbulence
> on short final.
Really? Stack gas? I would have thought it was the turbulence of air
around the actual island not the stack gas.
Just a thought from a snipe.
ex-EM2'
CV-62
Sam
Samuel P. Johnson
joh...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA
Not Insane
Dan Knaus
>> the deck must be provided by the ship. The created wind will be
>> straight down the axial deck and the landing pilot will have a
>> slight crosswind from the right. This situation is compounded
>> by the ship's exhaust stack gas which will create some turbulence
>> on short final.
>
>Really? Stack gas? I would have thought it was the turbulence of air
>around the actual island not the stack gas.
There is the "Burble" that is caused by the air flowing over the
flight deck, over the stern, hits the water aft of the carrier,
and basically "bounces" up again, into the flight paths of the
landing aircraft. It effects (affects? never could remember
which to use....) different aircraft differently - the E2 feels
it a lot because of the slow approach speed and large wing area,
whereas the Hornets don't feel it quite as much since they are
just the opposite. That, and they have Mode I ;-)
Kmart
CATCC: "602, final lockon, call your needles"
602: "602, negative needles"
CATCC: "Roger, downgrade to Mode III"
602 (after few moments of puzzled silence):"Ahhh, Approach, we're
not equipped for that."
602: Laughter from the back end along with oral Kangaroo Court Chits
(note: Mode III is a GCA talkdown)
Earl K. Dille
although it could do a few things the Skyraider couldn't do. It was HEAVY.
--
| Earl K. Dille |
| |
| e.d...@ieee.org |
Anthony de Vries
> From Constantine Ng :
> aside from being from different generations, i suppose when hitting the
> target area (getting in & out safely yet scoring hits), the A4 and the
> AV8B are comparable ??
>
Anthony.
Mohamed Fadzil
>
>
>After the NZ disaccomadated the USN by declaring themselves a
>Nuclear-free zone, they became a small weak country
>with no big-brother (just like Pakistan is every time its
>master does not need it). In the mid '80s French SEALs
>bombed a Greanpeace ship in NZ waters but were caught.
>With no big-brother to protect them, the NZ had to
>squirm and hand back the French terrorists scot-free
>under pressure from the nuclear-armed French Navy. *
>
>NZ has no enemies per se, until they wipe out the
>remaining aborigines and need more land. Then they
>could go after and colonize Indonesia, Malaysia or
????? Go ahead make our day!
btw, why anonymous?
>Philippines (Australia is too strong and too white).
nfc
>
> "Might Makes Right - Hindustan#1"
what a joke!
2Lt Allan D TenBruggencate
> > Anthony de Vries <an...@ifm.liu.se> wrote:
> {snip}
> > slight crosswind from the right. This situation is compounded
> > by the ship's exhaust stack gas which will create some turbulence
> > on short final.
I sure hope you're talking about a diesel powered carrier. Frankly,
I wouldn't want to even try to land on a nuke-powered carrier that's
emitting "stack gas".
Just a thought.
Allan
ca...@comet.ucar.edu
In article <3ob48v$8...@cs6.rmc.ca>, <tenb...@s17.rmc.ca> writes:
> > >slight crosswind from the right. This situation is compounded
> > >by the ship's exhaust stack gas which will create some
> > >turbulence on short final.
> I sure hope you're talking about a diesel powered carrier.
> Frankly, I wouldn't want to even try to land on a nuke-powered
> carrier that's emitting "stack gas".
I trust you meant :-) on this one, Allan. Actually, we'll call that
whole area the "island" and it serves to create rather strong wind
currents (vortices) that swirl aft towards the approaching aircraft.
The exhaust from the heavy bunker-c oil fired boilers on the older
carriers don't really produce enough velocity to bother an
inbound...however, the vortices produced by the island when there is
20-25 kts of wind across the deck is significant...and compounded by
the light weight of the "scooter".
Carl Whitehurst
"All opinions expressed are entirely my own and do not reflect the
opinions of NCAR/UCAR."
Ken Koller
>> aside from being from different generations, i suppose when hitting the
>> target area (getting in & out safely yet scoring hits), the A4 and the
>> AV8B are comparable ??
>>
>
>Anthony.
>
Ken Koller
Reporter/Photographer - The Daily Collegian
California State University, Fresno
kj...@lennon.pub.csufresno.edu
"Actually, I am a lab mouse on stilts"
Informatics Holdings Ltd
: > From Constantine Ng :
: > aside from being from different generations, i suppose when hitting the
: > target area (getting in & out safely yet scoring hits), the A4 and the
: > AV8B are comparable ??
: >
:
: Anthony.
Would you know how well the AV8B performs in the air-to-air combat role ?
I believe as an A4 replacement, the AV8 serves in the close air support
role ? I understand the basic Harrier/AV8 airframe performed very
successfully as the Sea Harrier in the Falklands conflict in the
air-to-air role.
Mr Constantine Ng
Director of Development
Informatics Holdings Ltd
Informatics Building, 5 International Business Park
Singapore 2260, Republic of Singapore.
Tel : [65]-5680829 Fax : [65]-5625596
Email : info...@singnet.com.sg
Informatics Holdings Ltd
: In article <3nf2b7$l...@cii3116-07.its.rpi.edu>,
: Subhendu Kumar Misra <mis...@cii3116-07.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
: >
: > Who are the New Zealanders going to fight? Are they afraid of an
: > invasion from Antartica? What is thier threat perception?
: >
: It's more a matter of who we're going to fight *with*. The RNZAF is only
: of any real use playing a specialist role within a larger force. One
: squadron of A-4s is currently permanently engaged in an "aggressor" role
: for the Australians. The ANZUS treaty was the main basis of our defence
: As for invasion - the obvious candidate in the region (with a recent track
: record) is Indonesia, but we're not supposed to talk them because they're
: such good trading partners. ;-)
: Tony Pritchard
: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
Personal opinion here :
My view is that the Indonesians are more concerned about their economic
development than to have designs on ANZ. Within Asean, they have proved
to be a friendly and helpful neighbour.
Back to Skyhawks, would you know the kind of Aggressor tactics being used
by the NZ Skyhawks ? Are they similar to the US Airforce and Navy ones ?
Does the RNZAF view the air threat as being ex-Soviet bloc type aircraft
such as the MIGs and Sukhois ? Does the RNZAF plan to acquire more
Skyhawks and perhaps think about re-engining them ? My view is that
reengining with a higher rated powerplant will add more useful years.
As a general question to all : are the Aggressor squardrons in US service
still around in the light of the collapse of the Sov U ? I hear the
number of squardrons have been reduced and they are being standardized on
F16Ns.
I can't comment on reducing the number of sqaurdrons as this is obviously
based on the overall training needs but standardizing on F16Ns seems not a
good idea. Potential adversaries will use all kinds of aircraft; US,
European, Sov U, Chinese. I reckon economics of maintenance is at play
here, but is the threat simulation using F16Ns providing a good enough
training for possible combat ?
If aircrew do not know enough about the varied potential adversaries, how
will they be able to perform well and survive ?
Informatics Holdings Ltd
: PS Bowen (psb...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: : On 21 Apr 1995, Anthony de Vries wrote:
: : >
: : > FA-18 has 5 hardpoints capable of those heavy loads. (so MER with Mk-82's or big fuel tank.) (Also almost always a fueltank on the centreline). Other points, like the conformal missile points, and near wingtip, can only carry (light) missiles. No wa
y
: : >
: : > To give a more complete picture:
: : > The AV-8B has 5 Hardpoints capable of carrying a TER with Mk-82's (And two smaller ones, who can take about half the lbs.) (The middle one will only take two Mk-82's due to space requirements to the ground.
: : Just a little nitpick. The Harrier has a total of 7 hardpoints: 3
: : on each wing and one under the center fuselage. British Harriers (the
: : versions comparable to the AV-8B) have 2 additional hardpoints on the
: : outrigger assemblies.
: : The outside stations can carry a 500lb bomb, rockeye or
: : sidewinders. The inner four stations can all carry ITERS with up to 3
: : weapons on each ITER. Due to fin limitations, the inboard stations
: : equipped with ITERS can only carry 2 high drag weapons (the inner most
: : ITER point left blank). Outrigger stations are designed to carry
: : sidewinders without reducing weapon load. The center station under the
: : fuselage is only used to carry a DECM pod (when they fly with them).
: : I believe that there are tests to see whether the Harrier can
: : have wingtip mounted sidewinders. The aircraft should be cleared to carry
: : the AMRAAM (the radar Harriers II+) within the next couple of years.
: :
: : > Typical Attack role will be CAS. The A-4 can do a great job there. It may take a little less weapons, but the aircraft is far more smaller, far less expensive, and very uncomplicated. It's great to have as CAS aircraft to be dispersed in the count
ry
: side. (For those who can't afford the AV-8B.)
: : > Biggets reason to use the A-7 is it's greater range, due to a slowreacting, but very economical engine.
: : > A-6 and FA-18 can take a little more load than the A-4 but are far bigger and expensive. Those aircraft are more suited to do longer range interdiction.
: : >
: : > When CAS is all you need, than a A-4 is great. But don't try to do any deep interdiction with it.
: : > >
: : > > > 4. what has happened to the many A4s in the US Navy & Marine inventory ?
: : > > > I hope the 2 services do not scrap them, it will be such a sorry waste.
: : > > > keep them flying, its a survivor and a beautiful airplane.
: : The Marine Corps went to the Harrier to replace the A-4 due to
: : the Harrier's unique deployability. The aircraft can use LHD's and LHA's
: : to go with the amphib ready group, and can use two lane roads, abandoned
: : or damaged airfields and even pads as bases for CAS.
: : In Desert Storm, using Tanigibe air facility (for helos and
: : Harriers only) just behind the lines in Saudi, Harriers could release
: : ordnance, land at Tanigibe, refuel and rearm, and be back on station for
: : their next release 35 mins later. Most other allied aircraft were only
: : half way home from their first trip to the target...
: From Constantine Ng :
: Anybody know how did the Kuwaiti Skyhawks & pilots aquit themselves in the
: opening hours of Desert Storm ?
: I assume that with their late model A4KU and well trained pilots, they
: were able to put on a good show and generally able to play a significant
: role ? i hear (perhaps not true) that the pilots had to be restrained from
: carrying out daring missions in the defence of their nation, very much in
: the spirit of the Israelis during the '67 & '73 Mid-East conflicts.
I hear the Kuwaiti Skyhawks are back in action. I thought Kuwait bought
FA18s to replace the Skyhawks ??
--
Jeff Crowell
(snip)
: ...however, the vortices produced by the island when there is
: 20-25 kts of wind across the deck is significant...and compounded by
: the light weight of the "scooter".
------sea story alert--------
Roger the above! This was reinforced to me in the following way:
I was cross-countrying in my trusty war machine, stooging along at FL310
(which you could only attain after burning off some of your fuel) somewhere
over west Texas, knocking down .72 Mach and feelin' froggy (this was before
the time that a commercial DC-9 passed me like I was standing still, which
was deflating, to say the least! 8-) ), when ATC called up and said the
aircraft ahead of me had reported "very light chop" at my altitude. I
rogered and continued on my merry way.
About ten minutes later I was treated to the worst turbulence I ever
experienced, about 30 seconds' worth; it was so bad I couldn't read the
instruments. Banged my head against the canopy, that sort of thing. A real
butt-clencher. Came out the other side and got the ol' heart going again,
then called up Center:
"Albuquerque Center, this is Navy 229."
"Go ahead, 229." (high-altitude jet-route controllers are wonderfully
informal (usually).
"Center, this is 229. I just went through some real heavy turbulence
here. What was the aircraft type that reported 'very light chop'?"
"Uh, wait one, 229." pause "That was reported by a 747."
"Roger. I'm an Alpha-four and it was anything but light for me!"
Musta been a slow night... Guess he had me on the speaker or something,
because I could hear a lot of laughter in the background when he called back
and rogered.
This was in 1984, and the aircraft I was flying had (repaired) Vietnam
battle damage... you could see the different paint colors when you stuck
your head up in the hellhole during the preflight.
Jeff
--
###################################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# DMD Process Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
###################################################################
YOU KNOW YOU'RE A REDNECK IF...
You can burp and say your name at the same time
Earl K. Dille
boilers or nuclear reactors, both generating steam for the turbines. The
turbines could drive the screws either through reduction gears or electric
drives. Early carriers like the Langley may have been coal-fired.
PS Bowen
> Anthony de Vries (an...@ifm.liu.se) wrote:
> : In article <3nlv37$m...@temasek.teleview.com.sg>, con...@temasek.teleview.com.sg > : addition/recovery.
> : > From Constantine Ng :
> : > aside from being from different generations, i suppose when hitting the
> : > target area (getting in & out safely yet scoring hits), the A4 and the
> : > AV8B are comparable ??
> : >
> : Aboout the same speed, size and weaponload. I think the avionics in the AV-8B allow it to throw more accurate.
> :
> : Anthony.
>
> Would you know how well the AV8B performs in the air-to-air combat role ?
> I believe as an A4 replacement, the AV8 serves in the close air support
> role ? I understand the basic Harrier/AV8 airframe performed very
> successfully as the Sea Harrier in the Falklands conflict in the
> air-to-air role.
The new AV-8B II+ (Radar Night Attack) aircraft do quite well in
the air-air combat role. The improved 408 Pegasus engine gives a lot more
thrust for turning, and the radar really improves SA for the pilots (a
major weakness in air-air before). The day attack Harriers are going to
be remanufactured into the radar versions, and the AMRAAM for the Harrier
should be online in a couple of years.
At higher altitudes the Harriers are'nt going to perform well
turning (designed for flex-based CAS), but lower in the Harrier's own
environment, they'll do ok, and with the AMRAAM they'll have a stick that
will force the F-15's etc to respect them.
00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
> I don't recall ever hearing of a diesel powered carrier. Either oil-fired
> boilers or nuclear reactors, both generating steam for the turbines. The
> turbines could drive the screws either through reduction gears or electric
> drives. Early carriers like the Langley may have been coal-fired.
I think the origional poster was referring to diesel _fuel_. Diesel
Fuel, Marine (DFM) is used by the USN, & I believe by NATO and other
allied navies as well.
There were two reciprocating engined _paddle-wheeled_ aircraft carriers
used by the USN in WWII for training on the Great Lakes, USS Wolverine
(IX-64) and USS Sable (IX-81).
- Grover
Anthony de Vries
>
> Would you know how well the AV8B performs in the air-to-air combat role ?
> I believe as an A4 replacement, the AV8 serves in the close air support
> role ? I understand the basic Harrier/AV8 airframe performed very
> successfully as the Sea Harrier in the Falklands conflict in the
> air-to-air role.
>
The original baisc Harrier/AV-8A airframe is the RAF gr3 harrier.
(Low placed cockpit, lousy backwards vision, only used as a attack aircraft.)
This one won't do very good in air-to-air. It doesn't even have a radar.
I think none are in service anymore.
From that came the FRS-1 Sea Harrier. Higher placed cockpit, radar, better
manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
(new FRS-2 have a better radar, and capability to carry AMRAAM)
When the first squadron was complete they flew training against a range of other craft.
The harriers achieved the better kill ratios. (some 2:1 against the F-15 and F-16)
But I must say this information comes from a rather harrier biased book. Also because
there was no trainer for the Harrier, all pilots had to have at least 1000 (?) hours
in other jets before being allowed to fly the plane.
So all Harrier pilots were rather experienced.
These were the harriers flown in Falklands, and they did rather well.
The Harrier is good manouverable, but can't do sustained high G-turns like a F-15. It
bleeds energy rather quickly. But that vectoring thrust, can give you the edge.
Viffing manouvers have gone quite a way since the Falklands.
(It was actually the US Marines, who developed it)
Later the Harrier gr5/AV-8B was developed. It has a 40% bigger wing, more thrust etc.
It has longer range than the Sea Harier, but is slower (Mach 1.1)
It's more biased to the bombing role. Still it's very manouverable, and viffing is a
real art nowadays.
It's not a fighter, and you won't use it as such. Still, because of Viffing it will
be very able to defend itselves. I haven't seen any kill ratios for the AV-8B, but I think against a F-16 it would fly 1:1
The AV-8B harriers are not fighters like a F-15 or F-16. Still because of their unique
vectoring engine, it will be very able to defend itselves.
Don't think fighter pilots would like to fly against the Harrier.
Hope this helps a little. It's very hard to get information on the fighter
capabilities of the Harrier. Most of my information comes from a book called:
Sea Harrier, I don't know the name of the author.
Any corrections, remarks or extra information are welcome,
Anthony.
Richard Stewart
>
>In article <3o9o4h$q...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
info...@merlion.singnet.com.sg (Informatics Holdings Ltd) writes:
>>
>> Would you know how well the AV8B performs in the air-to-air
combat role ?
>> I believe as an A4 replacement, the AV8 serves in the close air
support
>> role ? I understand the basic Harrier/AV8 airframe performed
very
>> successfully as the Sea Harrier in the Falklands conflict in the
>> air-to-air role.
>>
>That a bit more difficult ot answer.
>
>The original baisc Harrier/AV-8A airframe is the RAF gr3 harrier.
>(Low placed cockpit, lousy backwards vision, only used as a attack
aircraft.)
>This one won't do very good in air-to-air. It doesn't even have a
radar.
>I think none are in service anymore.
>
>From that came the FRS-1 Sea Harrier. Higher placed cockpit,
radar, better
>manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
Are You Sure? I have no figures but I'm pretty sure it's subsonic
>(new FRS-2 have a better radar, and capability to carry AMRAAM)
>When the first squadron was complete they flew training against a
range of other craft.
>The harriers achieved the better kill ratios. (some 2:1 against
the F-15 and F-16)
>But I must say this information comes from a rather harrier biased
book. Also because
>there was no trainer for the Harrier,
There is a two seat Harrier. It's got a longer nose, and an
extension out the back to help balance? the aircraft
Richard Stewart
PS Bowen
> In article <3o9o4h$q...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, info...@merlion.singnet.com.sg (Informatics Holdings Ltd) writes:
> >
> > Would you know how well the AV8B performs in the air-to-air combat role ?
> > I believe as an A4 replacement, the AV8 serves in the close air support
> > role ? I understand the basic Harrier/AV8 airframe performed very
> > successfully as the Sea Harrier in the Falklands conflict in the
> > air-to-air role.
> >
> That a bit more difficult ot answer.
>
> The original baisc Harrier/AV-8A airframe is the RAF gr3 harrier.
> (Low placed cockpit, lousy backwards vision, only used as a attack aircraft.)
> This one won't do very good in air-to-air. It doesn't even have a radar.
> I think none are in service anymore.
>
> From that came the FRS-1 Sea Harrier. Higher placed cockpit, radar, better
> manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
> When the first squadron was complete they flew training against a range of other craft.
> The harriers achieved the better kill ratios. (some 2:1 against the F-15 and F-16)
> But I must say this information comes from a rather harrier biased book. Also because
> So all Harrier pilots were rather experienced.
>
> These were the harriers flown in Falklands, and they did rather well.
> The Harrier is good manouverable, but can't do sustained high G-turns like a F-15. It
> bleeds energy rather quickly. But that vectoring thrust, can give you the edge.
> Viffing manouvers have gone quite a way since the Falklands.
> (It was actually the US Marines, who developed it)
>
> Later the Harrier gr5/AV-8B was developed. It has a 40% bigger wing, more thrust etc.
> It has longer range than the Sea Harier, but is slower (Mach 1.1)
> It's more biased to the bombing role. Still it's very manouverable, and viffing is a
> real art nowadays.
>
> It's not a fighter, and you won't use it as such. Still, because of Viffing it will
> be very able to defend itselves. I haven't seen any kill ratios for the AV-8B, but I think against a F-16 it would fly 1:1
>
> The AV-8B harriers are not fighters like a F-15 or F-16. Still because of their unique
> vectoring engine, it will be very able to defend itselves.
>
> Don't think fighter pilots would like to fly against the Harrier.
>
> Hope this helps a little. It's very hard to get information on the fighter
> capabilities of the Harrier. Most of my information comes from a book called:
> Sea Harrier, I don't know the name of the author.
I'm a Harrier pilot with a tour as an instructor in the Harrier
training squadron (VMAT-203) at MCAS Cherry Pt. The AV-8B was NOT
designed as a fighter, but as an attack aircraft. Huge intakes limit its
speed (550kts--though you can get mach in a dive), a big wing optimized
for AG weapons compromises some turning ability. The Night Attack and II+
versions (F-18 radar and night attack) have better engines and 100% LERX
that give them much better sustained turn ability. With the new radar
versions, the aircraft should get cleared soon to carry the AMRAAM.
Again, however, the airplane is optimized for
flex-based/quick-reaction CAS. Unlike most F-16/F-18 squadrons/pilots, we
train with CAS and not ACM as our first priority.
There is no doubt that F-18's/F-16's/F-15's and other frontline
fighters will out turn the AV-8, but ACM is a lot more than BFM (basic
fighter manuevers) including things like: who sees the other guy first.
In my experience in large Nellis exercises and two Cope Thunders, the
Harriers as strikers always shot down as many or more of the enemy than
they shot of us. In one v one, an F-16/F-18 with comparable pilot, should
win most every time.
As far as VIFFING, its a magic move. Use of the nozzles can get
better instantaneous turn rates, will allow you to point the nose, can
make it bad for another fighter in horizontal or vertical scissors, and
can be used for big decelerations (to force overshoots), BUT--WHEN you
use the nozzles you lose a lot of energy, and the AV-8B doesn't get
energy back as well as many other aircraft. If you VIFF and you catch the
other guy off-guard, great. But if it doesn't work, you can be slow and
out of options quickly. Pilots that have fought a lot against Harriers
don't let the Harriers get them into a position where they will get
surprised.
Hope this helps.
JS
I had the opportunity to get drunk with Lt. Comm. "Sharkey" Ward
of the Royal Navy. Some of the stories he told me about the
Faulklnads were, shall we say, amazing. I did some research and
he and his stories are for real.
He flew the Harrier. His point is ... you don't have to go fast ..
all you have to do is to see the bad guy and aim your ordinance at
him. The Harrier, when configured, is like a floating missile
platform in the air. No aircraft can out turn it and you can lock
onto someone quite easily. So .. would you want to go "fighter"
vs Harrier. Not likely.
Ward thought the F-14 was the *most* impressive A/C because of the
radar and the Phoenix missile system, for what its worth
Cheers
Anthony de Vries
> In article <3ov88q$g...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>, an...@ifm.liu.se says...
> radar, better
> >manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
>
>
> >(new FRS-2 have a better radar, and capability to carry AMRAAM)
> >When the first squadron was complete they flew training against a
> range of other craft.
> >The harriers achieved the better kill ratios. (some 2:1 against
> the F-15 and F-16)
> >But I must say this information comes from a rather harrier biased
> book. Also because
> >there was no trainer for the Harrier,
>
> There is a two seat Harrier. It's got a longer nose, and an
> extension out the back to help balance? the aircraft
>
I know, but it wasn't developed at that time. So at that time, they didn't have a traniner.
> Richard Stewart
>
Anthony.
Thomas Christopher Cato
In a previous article, an...@ifm.liu.se (Anthony de Vries) says:
>In article <1995May12.2...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>, ste...@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Richard Stewart) writes:
>> In article <3ov88q$g...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>, an...@ifm.liu.se says...
>> > >From that came the FRS-1 Sea Harrier. Higher placed cockpit,
>> radar, better
>> >manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
>>
>> Are You Sure? I have no figures but I'm pretty sure it's subsonic
>>
>Yep, I'm sure it's supersonic.
I thought the YaK-141 was to be the first operational supersonic VTOL?
It was also my understanding that until recently, non-afterburning
aircraft weren't able to make it supersonic? Perhaps Mach 1.3 is it max
design speed? Then again I could just be wrong! Where did you get this
info?
Chris
--
Chris Cato "Assumption is the mother of
tc...@bgnet.bgsu.edu all fuck ups." - from
"Let me have music dying, and I seek Pricilla, Queen of the Desert
No more delight." - Keats
Paul Jonathan Adam
> >> radar, better
> >> >manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
> >>
> >> Are You Sure? I have no figures but I'm pretty sure it's subsonic
> >>
> >Yep, I'm sure it's supersonic.
> I thought the YaK-141 was to be the first operational supersonic VTOL?
> It was also my understanding that until recently, non-afterburning
> aircraft weren't able to make it supersonic? Perhaps Mach 1.3 is it max
> design speed? Then again I could just be wrong! Where did you get this
> info?
Mach 1.3 is redline limiting-Mach for the Harrier: you need a dive and
a following wind. All Harriers are fine and wonderful aircraft, but
the sound barrier is safe from them in level flight :-)
Matthew Saroff
: I thought the YaK-141 was to be the first operational supersonic VTOL?
: It was also my understanding that until recently, non-afterburning
: aircraft weren't able to make it supersonic? Perhaps Mach 1.3 is it max
: design speed? Then again I could just be wrong! Where did you get this
: info?
Hi,
The Yak-141 really isn't operational. They only made 2 prototypes.
The French made the supersonic Mirage III-V in the late 60s.
--
-- Matthew Saroff| Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: marijuana, cocaine, cia
plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to: msa...@moose.erie.net.
Informatics Holdings Ltd
Just out of curiosity, the USMC operateed the A4 Skyhawk and now the AV8B.
Have they tried a one-on-one between these 2 aircraft ? anyone knows ?
thank you.
PS Bowen
--
Anthony de Vries
>
> In a previous article, an...@ifm.liu.se (Anthony de Vries) says:
>
> >In article <1995May12.2...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>, ste...@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Richard Stewart) writes:
> >> In article <3ov88q$g...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>, an...@ifm.liu.se says...
> >> radar, better
> >> >manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
> >>
> >>
> >Yep, I'm sure it's supersonic.
>
> It was also my understanding that until recently, non-afterburning
> aircraft weren't able to make it supersonic? Perhaps Mach 1.3 is it max
> design speed? Then again I could just be wrong! Where did you get this
> info?
>
>
I think the book was called SeaHarrier. Don't remember the author.
I'll try to find the figures.
Give me a few days...
Anthony.
agr...@opie.bgsu.edu
> Thomas Christopher Cato (tc...@bgnet.bgsu.edu) wrote:
>
> : It was also my understanding that until recently, non-afterburning
> : aircraft weren't able to make it supersonic? Perhaps Mach 1.3 is it max
> : design speed? Then again I could just be wrong! Where did you get this
> : info?
>
> The Yak-141 really isn't operational. They only made 2 prototypes.
> The French made the supersonic Mirage III-V in the late 60s.
Please enligthen. Was it Mirage fitted with extra lifting fans?
Than there were bunch of soviet "verticals" in mid 60, based on airframes of
MiG-21 and what was thought back than MiG-23. Both (in theory) were capable of
supersonic flight. (MiG-21 had nonretractible undercarriage, but airframe is
potent of supersonic flight). None became operational, though. Did french get
their Mirage III-V in to service?
Later there was VSTOL version of Flagon (Su-15). Not operational, though.
Alexei
Thierry Hubert Arlandis
>Please enligthen. Was it Mirage fitted with extra lifting fans?
>Than there were bunch of soviet "verticals" in mid 60, based on airframes of
>MiG-21 and what was thought back than MiG-23. Both (in theory) were capable of
>supersonic flight. (MiG-21 had nonretractible undercarriage, but airframe is
>potent of supersonic flight). None became operational, though. Did french get
>their Mirage III-V in to service?
>Later there was VSTOL version of Flagon (Su-15). Not operational, though.
Before the Mirage III V there was the Balzac which was basically a
prototype of the III V. It had lifting fans, at least 2 but I'm not
sure. The reason was it didn't get into service was very simple : too
expensive, these lift fans are just dead weight ...etc
Additionally there was this thing called the SNECMA Coleoptere, which was
taking off vertically on its tail. The wing was actually a cylinder of
fairly big diameter with the fuselage 'inside'. I know one prototype
crashed but I'm pretty sure that it was supersonic, maybe as fast as Mach
2.
Thierry
MR J GERBER
>From: th...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Thierry Hubert Arlandis)
>Subject: Re: First operational supersonic VTOL a/c
>Date: 26 May 1995 18:36:38 -0700
>Thierry
The initial prototypes of the plane thaat led to the Kestrel and Harrier
were in fact supersonic, if my memory serves me right.
Jake
Nick Challoner
> The initial prototypes of the plane thaat led to the Kestrel and Harrier
> were in fact supersonic, if my memory serves me right.
> Jake
The prototype of the Kestrel/Harrier family was something called the
"flying bedsted", errr...basically cos it looked like one! It's proper
name was the "Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig". It was most certainly
*not* supersonic :-)
It was produced by Rolls-Royce to test the vectored thrust principle
on the R-R Pegasus engine as employed on the Kestrel/Harrier.
...Nick.
Nick Challoner (Online Analyst) PGP public key available
Home: ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk +44 (0)121 604 0176
Work: ni...@compman.demon.co.uk +44 (0)121 706 6000
Web: http://www.easynet.co.uk/compman.htm
Ken Duffey
> The prototype of the Kestrel/Harrier family was something called the
> "flying bedsted", errr...basically cos it looked like one! It's proper
> name was the "Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig". It was most certainly
> *not* supersonic :-)
>
> It was produced by Rolls-Royce to test the vectored thrust principle
> on the R-R Pegasus engine as employed on the Kestrel/Harrier.
>
>
Sorry Nick, your`e way out. The RR Thrust Measuring Rig was built to test
the principles of lift engines and their controls. It consisted of (I think)
a RR Derwent or Nene mounted vertically in a rig with compressor bleeds to
puffer pipes about all four axies - the `Flying Bedstead`
It lead eventually to the Short SC1 which had four RR lift engines in the
centre fuselage plus another in the tail for forward thrust. The Short SC1
made a series of successful VTOL demos - although it once crashed at Farnborough
when the mesh covering the top intake got clogged with grass that it had sucked
in !! The aircraft is now at the Science Museum collection at Wroughton.
The whole concept of lift plus cruise engines was pursued by RR and culminated
in the French aircraft called the Balzac. Detractors of the lift/cruise system
point out that the aircraft, having made a vertical take-off, then has to carry
the lift engines around with it until they are needed again.
The Harrier uses the single-engined vectored thrust principle where all the
thrust from the engine is vectored downwards for VTO, and aft for conventional
flight. It can also do V/STOL - something that the many lift/cruise designs
could not.
The prototype of the Harrier was the P1127 which was developed into the Kestrel/
AV-6 and thence into the Harrier/Harrier II/AV-8 series.
There was a proposed SUPERSONIC development of the P1127 - the P1154 which was
to have entered service with the Royal Air Force AND the Royal Navy but was
cancelled in (I think) 1964 ?
BTW the Harriers Pegasus engine is a Bristol design - RR only got involved
when they acquired Bristol Aero Engines.
I can`t think of any OPERATIONAL supersonic V/STOL aircraft, although there
were many designs in the 60`s - the P1154, the VFW VJ-101, the VAK-91 ? etc.
I hope this throws some light into the discussion.
Cheers
Ken Duffey - Speaking for myself as always.
chuck kuhlman
been clocked by NATO at >m1.1.
I'm not sure about the number for this yak, but it was initially deployed on the Kiev.
Nick Challoner
> Sorry Nick, your`e way out. The RR Thrust Measuring Rig was built to test
> the principles of lift engines and their controls.
Yeah i was wasn't i? you only have to look at it with those pipes
extending out from the fuselage (and i use the term loosely :-) to see
that vectored thrust is not one of its aims.
> It consisted of (I think)
> a RR Derwent or Nene mounted vertically in a rig with compressor bleeds to
> puffer pipes about all four axies - the `Flying Bedstead`
Two Nenes mounted *horizontally*
> The whole concept of lift plus cruise engines was pursued by RR and culminated
> in the French aircraft called the Balzac. Detractors of the lift/cruise system
> point out that the aircraft, having made a vertical take-off, then has to carry
> the lift engines around with it until they are needed again.
It really is an inefficient system - especially when compared with the
simplicity of the Pegasus/Harrier combo. If i remember rightly the
Balzac had four lift jets - what a weight!
> There was a proposed SUPERSONIC development of the P1127 - the P1154 which was
> to have entered service with the Royal Air Force AND the Royal Navy but was
> cancelled in (I think) 1964 ?
1965, and the RN had to wait over 10 years to get VSTOL aircraft.
> BTW the Harriers Pegasus engine is a Bristol design - RR only got involved
> when they acquired Bristol Aero Engines.
Sure - it made them see sense at last :-)
> I can`t think of any OPERATIONAL supersonic V/STOL aircraft, although there
> were many designs in the 60`s - the P1154, the VFW VJ-101, the VAK-91 ? etc.
I think the nearest we have come so far is the Yak-141, but that's had
its plug pulled. We'll have to wait and see if the JAST project (now
incorporating the ASTOVL project in which BAe and RR are involved)
reaches production.
TK (Tsuyoshi Kawahito)
In article <3p7dsg$5...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>, an...@ifm.liu.se says...
>
>In article <1995May12.2...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
ste...@ccadfa.cc.adfa
>.oz.au (Richard Stewart) writes:
>> In article <3ov88q$g...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>, an...@ifm.liu.se says...
>> > >From that came the FRS-1 Sea Harrier. Higher placed cockpit,
>> radar, better
>> >manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
>>
>> Are You Sure? I have no figures but I'm pretty sure it's subsonic
>>
>Yep, I'm sure it's supersonic.
Hmm, I'd like to know where you're getting this data. I'm pretty
sure all versions of Harriers except the new FRS-2 Sea Harriers
are subsonic, with max speed of about Mach 0.96.
>> There is a two seat Harrier. It's got a longer nose, and an
>> extension out the back to help balance? the aircraft
>>
>
>I know, but it wasn't developed at that time. So at that time, they didn't
have
>a traniner.
There were always been trainers for Harriers, at least for RAF.
Harrier T.Mk.2 is a two-seat trainer for for the original Harrier
GR.Mk.1, there's also T.Mk.4, which is a trainer for GR.Mk.3.
However, I don't think they made trainer for any Sea Harriers...
TK
--
Nick Challoner
> Hmm, I'd like to know where you're getting this data. I'm pretty
> sure all versions of Harriers except the new FRS-2 Sea Harriers
> are subsonic, with max speed of about Mach 0.96.
Sea Harriers FRS2's (which have now been re-named Sea Harrier F/A2's
to bring them in line with the F/A18 style designator) are also
subsonic. They have a much improved radar (which requires a longer
nose) and a slightly lengthened fuselage to help keep the c-of-g
within limits and also holds more avionics and fuel.
> There were always been trainers for Harriers, at least for RAF.
> Harrier T.Mk.2 is a two-seat trainer for for the original Harrier
> GR.Mk.1, there's also T.Mk.4, which is a trainer for GR.Mk.3.
> However, I don't think they made trainer for any Sea Harriers...
They didn't. The RN mainly use ex-RAF twin seaters re-named Harrier
T8's. I think at least some of the training is also carried out by the
RAF's Harrier conversion unit, 20(R) Sqn.
...Nick.
--
Nick Challoner Home: ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk
Work: ni...@compman.demon.co.uk http://www.easynet.co.uk/compman.htm
"I've seen slavery and I've seen Jimi Hendrix perform, that just about
covers it all" - Nora Rose Moore, Grandmother of Jimi Hendrix.
Pete Bowen
>Hi there!
>In article <3p7dsg$5...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>, an...@ifm.liu.se says...
>>
>>In article <1995May12.2...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
>ste...@ccadfa.cc.adfa
>>.oz.au (Richard Stewart) writes:
>>> In article <3ov88q$g...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>, an...@ifm.liu.se says...
>>> > >From that came the FRS-1 Sea Harrier. Higher placed cockpit,
>>> radar, better
>>> >manouverability. Speed max Mach 1.3
>>>
>>> Are You Sure? I have no figures but I'm pretty sure it's subsonic
>>>
>>Yep, I'm sure it's supersonic.
>Hmm, I'd like to know where you're getting this data. I'm pretty
>sure all versions of Harriers except the new FRS-2 Sea Harriers
>are subsonic, with max speed of about Mach 0.96.
Harriers are properly called transonic. You can take even the AV-8B
(slower than the Sea Harrier or AV-8A) supersonic, but you're not
supposed to, and it's tough to do.
Mike Stannard
>AFAIK there are no trainer variant Sea Harriers: aircrew use RAF two-seaters
>to learn flight control, and a different aircraft I cannot remember for
>avionics familiarisation.
3 Hawker hunter T8's - fitted with Sea Harrier radar (and redesignated
T8M's) - flew with 899 squadron. These have been retired with the
advent of Sea Harrier FA.2 and as far as I can tell, have not been
replaced.
One is to be found with Pheonix Aviation at Bruntlingthorpe - of the
other 2, I don't know.