Ran Skyhawk Alternatives

[Zen]

Technical problems. try this again.

35,000ton CV study

[B777LR]

How about a SAAB 105?  

[GTX]

Maybe a little too much on the non-warlike side.  Unless of course one modifies it substantially and adopts some of the proposed Saab XT/XH mods or even Saab Sk 60C changes..

Regards,

Greg

[Archibald]

Anybody ever thought of a supersonic Skyhawk ? In other words : what changes would be needed to change the A-4 into a supersonic machine ?

- Maybe add "souris"  into the intakes

- afterburner sounds obvious

- more pointed nose

- fuselage stretch for more fuel / counterbalance weight of A.B

Was the wing thin enough for supersonic speeds ?

Hmm a supersonic / two-seat / AMRAAM-armed Skyhawk would look very good...

Of course all these changes would add weight. But the basic Scooter was so light you can certainly stay within Melbourne carrier  limits...  

[elmayerle]

Anybody ever thought of a supersonic Skyhawk ? In other words : what changes would be needed to change the A-4 into a supersonic machine ?

- Maybe add "souris"  into the intakes

- afterburner sounds obvious

- more pointed nose

- fuselage stretch for more fuel / counterbalance weight of A.B

Was the wing thin enough for supersonic speeds ?

Hmm a supersonic / two-seat / AMRAAM-armed Skyhawk would look very good...

Of course all these changes would add weight. But the basic Scooter was so light you can certainly stay within Melbourne carrier  limits...  

The most interesting challenge in making a supersonic Skyhawk is getting the right area rule so that it can go supersonic.  Variable inlets and afterburner are fine, but you're going to get way too much drag if you don't have the right area-ruled structure.  Actually, if you stay under Mach 1.8, you can probably use a sharper-edged version of the existing intakes as you don't really need the variable feature - as aircraft like the F-100, F-16, and F-18 have proven.

[B777LR]

Did the A-4 even go supersonic in a dive?

Anyhow, imagine a Skyhawk with the Blue Fox radar from the Sea Harrier. This would make it possible to carry AMRAAMS 

Reheated engine of course.

Slight fuselage stretch = more fuel for the afterburner, plus space for the afterburner.

Original "flat" top skyhawks. No bulges for ECM, ETC...

If a second pilot be accomodated, then fit him like a SR-71, not like the singapore A-4s, too much drag here ^_^

[MAD]

Does anyone have the aircraft weight capacity (maximum weight of a given aircraft) that the Majestic Class Light Fleet Aircraft Carrier could handle?

Does anyone have the weight of the British Blackburn P.139 AEW design project?

Does anyone know of a good web site about the Blackburn P.139 project, which includes drawings/artist work etc....

Regards

[MAD]

Although I do not think of it capability as being able to replace the Skyhawk
I have had a crack at doing a Navalised carrier-based variant of the Fiat G.91 R

This is only my second drawing – so no colour or markings – sorry!

But I still think a North American FJ-4 Fury, with an Avon engine and an F-86D radar nose (but with 2 x 30mm DEFA cannons would be far superior to a navalized G.91 R

M.A.D

[elmayerle]

One question, why re-engine the FJ-4 with an Avon when it was already doing quite well with a Sapphire (J65)?  I could see that for commonality if you were already flying Avon-Sabres; other wise, why make the change.  Actually, if you're going with a cannon-armed radar nose, use the one from the F-86K as a starting point, enlarging it to meet the airflow requirements of the Avon or Sapphire, and fit your choice of cannon.

[MAD]

One question, why re-engine the FJ-4 with an Avon when it was already doing quite well with a Sapphire (J65)?  I could see that for commonality if you were already flying Avon-Sabres; other wise, why make the change.  Actually, if you're going with a cannon-armed radar nose, use the one from the F-86K as a starting point, enlarging it to meet the airflow requirements of the Avon or Sapphire, and fit your choice of cannon.

Yes you are quit right about my want of commonality with the RAAF's Avon-powered CA-27/30 Sabre and Canberra's (and the Avon-powered Valiant heavy bombers that I would have liked to have seen in RAAF service - if I had my choice!)
It would also add ease of transition to the Avon-powered variant of the Mirage III or J-35 Draken, which would replace the CA-27/30 Sabre – If I had my choice!!
I also see your point about the F-86K. I have always wondered why the RAAF never utilized the Hughes radar and fire-control system on its CA-27/30's

M.A.D