A-7 Corsair and F-8 Crusader

[KJ_Lesnick]

Pyro-Manic

KJ_Lesnick: The Super Crusader was only built in prototype form - production versions could have had wing pylons.

Understood.  Would it have had the same capacity as the original Crusader?


KJ

[jcf]

Jon: I meant moving the belly Sparrow up to the side of the fuselage next to one of the existing ones. So you'd have two on each side. It would require some modifications to the fuselage, but I'm sure it could be done. As to space for a Vulcan, the F-4E's gun was mounted pretty much externally as far as I can see - only the ammo drum and feed are inside the fuselage. I'm sure a production version of the Super Crusader could incorporate a gun, if it was required.

I doubt that 'twinning' the troughs would work for internal arrangement/structural and, most importantly, aerodynamic reasons.

Mounting the Vulcan on the F-4 required a new nose section that increased the overall length of the aircraft by around 4 feet 8 inches, and the addition of a new fuel tank in the tail to balance the weight of the gun and ammo system.

The F8U-3 airframe design simply did not have the 'room to grow' that made the F-4 such a successful design and didn't have the room to accommodate fuselage mounted guns and missiles, its an 'either or' situation.

If you want a gun armed Super Crusader then the best bet is fuselage guns and pylon mounted missiles.

Jon

PS doesn't this whole discussion actually belong in the Crusader thread?

[Weaver]

Here's a gun option: go GSh-23-style. Forget the Vulcan (too big, too space inefficient) and use a Mk.11: that wierd two-barrelled, eight-chamber revolver gun that IRL was only used in the Mk.4 gunpod. Fit it in a MiG-23-style external blister behind the nosegear bay, with space-efficient ammo boxes above it. The latter would probably displace some avionics, so re-site them in a dorsal blister or underneath the cockpit when you jack the latter up, Sea-Harrier style, to give better vision and a larger radome.... The F-8U-3 was widely felt to be ultimately capable of Mach 3 and was only limited to Mach 2.2 to avoid engine and kintetic heating damage. Since there's performance there that can't be used, you might as well trade some of it (in increased drag) for better vision.

Like this (apologies for nicking your picture, Jon):

[jcf]

Like this (apologies for nicking your picture, Jon):

Cool notions.

Its not my picture, its from the Vought Heritage site:

http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/

http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/html/down.html

Jon

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Dragging this thread, kicking and screaming, back to simply painting the A-7 in somebody elses' colours. Thinking that if some A-4 and/or F-5A/E operators had a little more money to spend, then nations like Norway, Holland, Brazil, Malaysia, New Zealand and the aforementioned RAAF could have been using - or even could STILL be using - the A-7.

Hmmmm upgraded A-7N's in multiple grey camo, toting Penguin missiles and/or AGM-65's/AGM-88's etc, looking for Soviet warships in the Arctic circle......

Ian

[GTX]

Dragging this thread, kicking and screaming, back to simply painting the A-7 in somebody elses' colours. Thinking that if some A-4 and/or F-5A/E operators had a little more money to spend, then nations like Norway, Holland, Brazil, Malaysia, New Zealand and the aforementioned RAAF could have been using - or even could STILL be using - the A-7.

Hmmmm upgraded A-7N's in multiple grey camo, toting Penguin missiles and/or AGM-65's/AGM-88's etc, looking for Soviet warships in the Arctic circle......

Ian

Actually, given some versions of the A-7 had the TF30, one could imagine the RAAF or RAN purchasing some for commonality with the F-111 - maybe as an alternative to the A-4s?

Regards,

Greg

[Mossie]

Ian I picked up a Hobby Boss TA-7C a few months back & thought it might make a good Buccaneer replacement.  Seeing Weavers pic of a twin tub F-8 kind of justified my idea for a dedicated two seater combat version of the A-7.  My premise was the usual cack handed MoD procurement policy, a decision would be made to comitt to the Queen Elizabeth class & the Audacious class would plod on, with aircraft being procured in preparation for the new carriers.  The CVA's would then be cancelled at a late stage & either sold or scrapped.  The A-7's would then be pushed on a less than happy RAF in a similar way to the Bucc's.  My idea was either for wraparound, or Granby style Desert Pink.

I bought the kit immediately before Telford, hoping it to be a quick build to get an extra model on display, that was the reason for the RAF procuring them.  I then realised it was a bit more detailed than I thought & would take too long to finish, so the idea went on the back burner.  From the back story, I could imagine the UK licence building the two seater, then flogging a handful to Commonweatlh countries or those countries were HMG still had some post-colonial influence.  India, Saudi Arabia, Oman, maybe Ecuador or Chile?

For a more in depth change to a Corsair, I did some profiles for A-7's with side intakes a little while back.  I got the idea from a box art of one the Hobby Boss A-7 kits, there's a shot where you can see down the intake & it reveals a less chunky looking aircraft.  I took the idea and ran with it, some of the repaints could just as easily be put onto a standard A-7:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,18174.0/highlight,corsair+difference.html

[Jschmus]

Dragging this thread, kicking and screaming, back to simply painting the A-7 in somebody elses' colours. Thinking that if some A-4 and/or F-5A/E operators had a little more money to spend, then nations like Norway, Holland, Brazil, Malaysia, New Zealand and the aforementioned RAAF could have been using - or even could STILL be using - the A-7.

Hmmmm upgraded A-7N's in multiple grey camo, toting Penguin missiles and/or AGM-65's/AGM-88's etc, looking for Soviet warships in the Arctic circle......

Ian

Actually, given some versions of the A-7 had the TF30, one could imagine the RAAF or RAN purchasing some for commonality with the F-111 - maybe as an alternative to the A-4s?

Regards,

Greg

That adds another dimension to the whiff.  Suppose they did buy the TF30-engined Corsairs, then decide to upgrade to the TF41.  They could then extend the re-engining program to the Pigs, with afterburners, of course.

[Weaver]

Ian I picked up a Hobby Boss TA-7C a few months back & thought it might make a good Buccaneer replacement.  Seeing Weavers pic of a twin tub F-8 kind of justified my idea for a dedicated two seater combat version of the A-7. 

Eh? Where? 

The modified F8U-3 I posted is a single-seater with a big canopy: bit like an F-15.

[Mossie]

Ah, my mistake, Pyros pic!  Saw your name when quoting the RN twin tub F-8 posted by Pyro, jumped to the conclusion it was your piccy.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Simon
I couldn't see the A-7 as a 'replacement' for the Bucc - the Bucc in RAF service was initially roled as an ultra low level 'instant sunshine' delivery system, then later as an ultra low level ship killer. The A-7 was always a close support aircraft, to the USN it was an A-4 replacement, to the USAF it was a jet powered A-1 if you like.

I'd see RAF ones as working alongside the Jags & Harriers as dedicated close support machines. But a twin-tub would serve very well as a Defence Suppresion/Wild Weasel (UK = Ferrocious Ferret) platform. Wrap-around camo or even the two-tone green Harrier scheme. There's loads of squadron markings on the Modeldecal or Xtradecal sheets you could use. Loadout..... Well there was an 'anti-radiation' version of the Martel, or you could go with AGM-45's or 88's.

Back to you

Ian

[Weaver]

The most likely scenario for a UK A-7 buy would be if the Jaguar went the way of the AFVG and vanished in inter-governmental/inter-service squabbling. part of the motivation for the change in Jaguar priorities from mostly-trainer to mostly-strike was the realisation that NATO's new Flexible Response strategy would need vastly more light strike/CAS aircraft to stop the hoards of Soviet tanks with conventional weapons. The A-7 would be an ideal flying machine for this, although it's total lack of rough-field capability would be a hinderance. Perhaps a UK version would be built locally in a modified version with big low-pressure tires behind bulged doors? Harder to increase the stroke of the oleos though.....

[Mossie]

Sorry, I meant 'replacement' in the loosest possible terms.  The only way I could see the RN replacing their Buccs in 1970's would be one of these bizarre MoD arse about face procurements were they retired a perfectly useful aircraft very early for something shiny, less capable & usually American, the Belfast & Herc come to mind.  Ministers receiving 'consultancy' fees and such.  Admittedly, such shenanigans were largely over by the end of the sixties, but it wouldn't have surprised me.  Not that I'm saying the A-7 is a worse aircraft than the Bucc, just it was lacking the nuke role, which in the seventies timeframe would have been less of a consideration.

I do like the idea of the A-7 as a Jag or Harrier alternative though.  I've always seen the Jag & A-7 complimenting each other, the Jag can deliver (realtively) small payloads quickly, the A-7 can ship sh*tloads of ordanance for it's size but at slower pace.  In that profiles link, I've got a few Jag customers taking my alternative A-7's.

[Weaver]

I doubt that Jags travel much faster than A-7s on a typical mission. The Jag's extra power is almost all due to the Adours' afterburners and is mostly used for a quick burst over the target, or to stand a better chance of evading a fighter. Mind you, if you're making a special UK version of the A-7, there's no reason why you couldn't fit it with a simple ON-OFF afterburner for much the same effect. The wing is bigger and thicker than the Jag so it wouldn't have the same top speed, but it's the acceleration that's more important.

Why couldn't an A-7 carry a nuke? WE177s weighed less than 1000lb: everything British could carry them, including Harrier GR.3s and SHARs.

[Mossie]

Your probaly right about the speed, the Jags afterburner is probably only used for quick dashes to the target.  I guess there's no reason the A-7 couldn't be wired up for sunshine ops?  It's definately capable of taking the weight.  I'm fairly sure that nukes have not been on the A-7's mission list, but I could be very wrong.  Got to admit, I don't know what makes one aircraft nuke capable & another not.