A-7 Corsair and F-8 Crusader

[PR19_Kit]

a) the rocket pack was not only ineffective but actually dangerous in several ways,

Isn't that general idea anyway? 

[Weaver]

a) the rocket pack was not only ineffective but actually dangerous in several ways,

Isn't that general idea anyway? 

Pilots generally prefer their rocket packs to only be dangerous to selected other people (picky I know...).

Having a rocket pack that can jam your own nose gear doors shut is almost as good as the gun on the MiG-27 that can vibrate the nose gear doors open and then shoot them off... 

[PR19_Kit]

a) the rocket pack was not only ineffective but actually dangerous in several ways,

Isn't that general idea anyway? 

Pilots generally prefer their rocket packs to only be dangerous to selected other people (picky I know...).   

Having a rocket pack that can jam your own nose gear doors shut is almost as good as the gun on the MiG-27 that can vibrate the nose gear doors open and then shoot them off... 

I read a story of an FAA pilot who'd done some of the testing on the Sea Vixen rocket packs and he'd said that the glare was so blinding that the only solution was for the pilot to close his eyes tightly before pressing the 'Fire' button.

Which of course did nothing any accuracy that the rockets may have had in the first place. 

I wondered if Lightning pilots had the same problem firing their Microcells, but they were some 6 ft higher I suppose.

[Weaver]

Tommy Thomason's Tailhook Topics blog has a page on F-8 armament HERE but it doesn't answer this question, so I've left a comment asking it (you won't see the comment until he moderates it). I'll let you know if I get a response.

There's some interesting stuff on that page:

a) the rocket pack was not only ineffective but actually dangerous in several ways,

b) the twin Sidewinder pylons were asymmetric because of the need to clear the RAT on one side and the IFR probe on the other.

Well, he's got back to me, and he doesn't know either, although his suspicion is that it's just a mistake by the kit manufacturers.

[Thorvic]

Dug out an Academy kit and they appear to be symmetrical, the holes in the lower wing appear to be in the same position, the Pylons themselves only look to have minute nipples rather than lugs so not easy to tell if off set or not whilst on the sprue. 

[zenrat]

OK, thanks folks.  I'll shave the male parts (ooooh matron!) on one side and align both pylons.
It's odd though.  I can see how they could have identical pylons and cockup the hole spacing on one side of the wing but there is definitely a difference in the pin spacing of the two pylons.  Other than that though they are identical so why have different part numbers and spacings when it doesn't matter which pylon goes on which side?
I'm not using the fuselage hard points due to the following very technical whiff reason - I forgot to drill the holes before closing the fuselage halves.

[reddfoxx]

Reading Mat Garretson's new A-7 book, and he mentions that Canada considered it- but went with the F-5 because they figured that was what the USAF would end up choosing.  Ties into the choice of the Spey for the A-7D, and A-7E.

[sandiego89]

Reading Mat Garretson's new A-7 book, and he mentions that Canada considered it- but went with the F-5 because they figured that was what the USAF would end up choosing.  Ties into the choice of the Spey for the A-7D, and A-7E.

Interesting, had not heard that.  Canada seemed to always favor the twin engined designs due to the vast areas of wilderness.  Think quite a few more nations would have been naturals for the A-7. 

[jcf]

Reading Mat Garretson's new A-7 book, and he mentions that Canada considered it- but went with the F-5 because they figured that was what the USAF would end up choosing.  Ties into the choice of the Spey for the A-7D, and A-7E.

Interesting, had not heard that.  Canada seemed to always favor the twin engined designs due to the vast areas of wilderness.  Think quite a few more nations would have been naturals for the A-7.

Which wasn't really a consideration for an aircraft primarily intended to be used in Europe.
They weren't going to be using it to attack anything/anybody within Canada. 

[scooter]

Interesting, had not heard that.  Canada seemed to always favor the twin engined designs due to the vast areas of wilderness.  Think quite a few more nations would have been naturals for the A-7.

Which wasn't really a consideration for an aircraft primarily intended to be used in Europe.
They weren't going to be using it to attack anything/anybody within Canada. 

You're discounting the polar bear army.

[Zero-Sen]

[Zero-Sen]

[Zero-Sen]

[Dizzyfugu]

This looks sick - but I like it! 

[Zero-Sen]

Thanks Thomas, here is another one...