A-7 Corsair and F-8 Crusader

[rickshaw]

Ooooooyeah!! This one, a Blue Vixen radar and Active Skyflash missiles.. Now, where did I hide that old twosair conversion..? 

Radar comparison

AN/APQ-94 or -149
Antenna Diameter - 21 in
Detection Range - 28nm vs. a bomber-size target and
                          11nm vs. a fighter-size target

Blue Fox
Antenna Diameter - 20 in
Detection Range - 44nm "look up"
                          22nm "look down"
                          37 km vs. a fighter-size target
                          95 km vs. a bomber-sze target

Blue Vixen
Antenna Diameter - ??
Detection Range - 110+ km vs. a fighter-size target
                          150 km vs. a bomber-sze target

I'd take the performance claims with a pinch of salt as they come from open sources on the web and the Blue Vixens would definitly depend on having an antenna the same size as fitted to the Harrier FA.2.
                         

[Weaver]

So the "What if" on that one would be your reply to their complaints... "What if you knew what you were talking about?"

[Mossie]

About the radar, the F8U-3 Crusader III mounted Sparrows with an APG-74 radar, I guess that could have been added as an upgrade.  Another possible option for a British Radar and probably more contemporary would be Blue Parrot (Airpass II), it had both air to air and air to ground modes.  I think it's the same diameter as the Lightnings Airpass I, there's plenty of rattle room in the Bucc's nose.  No idea as to how suited to BVR missiles it would be.

[Weaver]

IIRC, they studied putting Sparrow on the Lightning and it was quite difficult, because a CW illuminator would need to be added to the AIRPASS and that was a non-trival exercise.

[rickshaw]

Obviously the AN/APQ-94/149 was capable of guiding SARH missiles - the AIM-9C and the Matra R-530.   Their ranges may have been limited because of the size and power of the radar, though, compared with larger ones, such as the Cyrano II of the Mirage IIIE.

[reddfoxx]

Resurrecting this thread because it seems like the appropriate place for alternate A-7 schemes.  I interned at an Ohio ANG base in the '80s, and they gave me some cool posters, brochures, etc.  Here are a couple of paint schemes that were tested in the early '80s.  They had been flying with a wrap-around Vietnam-style scheme.   As the brochure states:

"Four unique paint schemes were tested against the standard A-7 camouflage pattern.  All aircraft were photographed in flight against a wide variety of backgrounds in varying light conditions using both movie and still color photography.  The results of the test indicate that while there it no such thing as an ideal camouflage for all situations, there are several alternatives clearly superior to the present A-7 scheme.  A flight evaluation of all the paint schemes shown resulted in the recommendation of the two-tone grey pictured above."

That scheme is the "Grey Ghost" that A-7s adopted in the mid-'80s.  One of the other schemes is the European One (Lizard) that is well-known.  Sadly, that picture won't scan well.  Here are the two that might be "new to you:" Light Desert and Dark Desert.

[reddfoxx]

Also, LTV was shopping around the A-7F, of course.  Picked this up at the Dayton Air Fair, probably also in the mid-'80s.

[Aircav]

Been reading a 1964 issue of Flying Review International and it seems the Royal Navy are to get Spey engined two-seat Crusaders as a Sea Vixen replacement, fitted with the same wing as the French version so it'll fit in our small Carriers, plus modified to fit British missiles such as the Redtop and Firestreak and the Royal Air Force the two-seat but with extra fuel in place of the second seat as a Hunter replacement. 

[rickshaw]

Been reading a 1964 issue of Flying Review International and it seems the Royal Navy are to get Spey engined two-seat Crusaders as a Sea Vixen replacement, fitted with the same wing as the French version so it'll fit in our small Carriers, plus modified to fit British missiles such as the Redtop and Firestreak and the Royal Air Force the two-seat but with extra fuel in place of the second seat as a Hunter replacement. 

Like this one?

[Aircav]

Been reading a 1964 issue of Flying Review International and it seems the Royal Navy are to get Spey engined two-seat Crusaders as a Sea Vixen replacement, fitted with the same wing as the French version so it'll fit in our small Carriers, plus modified to fit British missiles such as the Redtop and Firestreak and the Royal Air Force the two-seat but with extra fuel in place of the second seat as a Hunter replacement. 

Like this one?

Could be. 

[reddfoxx]

Argentine A-7, from the FB A-7 fan page:

[zenrat]

Holy thread revival Batman!

I have a Crusader question (and yes, despite being bone idle I have gone back through 11 pages to look for an answer).

I am putting the pylons onto the wings of a Hasegawa F8 and I notice that they are asymmetric.  One pylon is further forwards than the other.  This appears to be deliberate as the hole spacing on the attachment pins is different so each one will fit one side only.

Is this correct, and if so why was it done?
I have looked at loads of pictures but can find none showing this clearly and also no explanations.  I could find only one three view with wing pylons shown and they were drawn symmetrical.

Anyone have an opened Academy F8 they can look at to see if its the same?

Please and Thank You.

[Dizzyfugu]

The Academy instructions for the 1:72 F-8E show a symmetrical position for the underwing pylons.

[Weaver]

Haven't got an Academy one, but I've just had a look at the ones I have got, and the result is.... inconclusive:

Fujimi 1/72nd(ish) F-8E: no pylons.

Revell 1/100th F-8E: both pylons have the same part number, appear identical, and the slots in the wing appear symmetrical.

Esci 1/72nd F-8H: pylons have different part numbers but appear to be identical. However, the holes in the left wing appear to be very slightly further forward than the ones on the right wing. The difference is only about the width of one hole (i.e. about 1mm) and wouldn't be noticeable if one of the holes wasn't sitting right next to a panel line.

[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.