RN Skyhawks

[Weaver]

We had a debate about "toss bombing" tactics when you posted that didn't we?

If we did, then it's not on the build thread and I can't find it elsewhere....

[nighthunter]

Love the idea of turning the Skyhawk into a fighter, did it with an Alternate Universe/Whiff country, a few times. What is that nose for your F.2?

[Scotaidh]

Wow!  Nice work!  I gotta say, though, it kinda looks like the bomb is wearing the aircraft ... Could the A-4 lift that kind of weight?

It's not as heavy as it looks. Red Beard only weighed 1,750lb, the Skyhawk's centreline pylon was rated for 3,500lb and with two tanks it still had 3,000-odd pounds to spare in total.

Remember:

1. The original design of the Skyhawk had it carrying a tac nuke on the centreline, so this is it's original mission, not an ad-hoc adaption,

2. A nuclear bomb is a lightweight shell, mostly full of elaborate, low-density electro-mechanical gubbins, not a solid 'lump' of explosives and steel, so they're often lighter than they look.

I suppose ... though you'd be limited to 2G manouvers.

I'm not any kind of weapons expert, especially nukes, but I do know that uranium and plutonium are (somewhat) heavier than lead, and in my (admittedly limited) experience no military has never been very interested in building light (as in not-heavy) equipment ...

It's just that to me it appears rather as I imagine would look a 4000-pounder under a Spitfire. 

[Weaver]

Here's a pic of a Skyhawk (and an early A-4B at that) carrying a Mk.7 tac nuke, a fission weapon roughly comparable to Red Beard:



Mk.7
Yield: 8 to 61 kt using different 'pits'
Length: 4.62 metres
Diameter: 76 cm
Weight: 1680lb

Red Beard
Yield: 15 to 25 kt
Length: 3.66 metres
Diameter: 71 cm
Weight: 1750lb

Mk.84 LDGP bomb
Yield: 945lb of high explosive
Length: 3.28 metres
Diameter: 46 cm
Weight: 2000lb

You can see from this that:

a) If a Skyhawk can carry a Mk.7, then it can carry a Red Beard,

b) Both tactical nuclear bombs are longer and fatter than the conventional bomb, while being a little lighter.

[PR19_Kit]

I'm not any kind of weapons expert, especially nukes, but I do know that uranium and plutonium are (somewhat) heavier than lead, and in my (admittedly limited) experience no military has never been very interested in building light (as in not-heavy) equipment ...

They're denser than lead, but you don't need much of either to make a (VERY) big bang!

[zenrat]

We had a debate about "toss bombing" tactics when you posted that didn't we?

Maybe
If we did, then it's not on the build thread and I can't find it elsewhere....

Hmmm.  I distinctly remember a thread discussing it any around the same time as you posted your "Nukehawk".
Maybe Chris has adjusted The Matrix since that time.
Or I really do have mad cow disease.

Moo!

[Old Wombat]

We had a debate about "toss bombing" tactics when you posted that didn't we?

Maybe
If we did, then it's not on the build thread and I can't find it elsewhere....

Hmmm.  I distinctly remember a thread discussing it any around the same time as you posted your "Nukehawk".
Maybe Chris has adjusted The Matrix since that time.
Or I really do have mad cow disease.

Moo!

I certainly remember reading such a conversation.

If you do, I do - & I've never been to the UK.

[Captain Canada]

Very cool on all counts !

[rickshaw]

Now,  here is a simpleton's question.  What are the major differences between marks of the Skyhawk?  I mean how does an A-4B differ from an A-4E versus say an A-4M?

[Weaver]

A-4B: J-65 (Sapphire) engine, no intake splitter plates, short tin nose, small canopy, three pylons.

A-4C: A-4B with a longer nose with a very compact radar in it.

A-4E onwards: J-52 engine, longer nose, avionics hump (A4-F original, refitted to many A-4Es eventually) bigger canopy (refit?), five pylons.

A-4M: USMC version of A-4E wih optical Angle Rate Bombing System in nose (same as AV-8B), big canopy, fin top and side-of-nose ECM aerials.

LOADS of avionics differences between sub-types and refits.

Notable foreign variants:

Singapore: A-4B/Cs originally, 30mm ADEN guns in some aircraft, double-bubble canopy trainer completely unlike normal two-seater, re-engined with F-404s eventually to make A-4SU Super Skyhawk.

Israel: "dustbin" tailpipe extension, 30mm DEFA guns in underwing fairings.

New Zealand: APG-66 radar in new nose plus upgraded avionics in "Kahu" upgrade.

Argentina: A-4AR FightingHawk: surplus A-4Ms upgraded with F-16-derived avionics including APG-66 radar.

[rickshaw]

OK, so as I suspected, I can't use an Airfix A-4B to represent an A-4G? 

[Weaver]

Not without a lot of work, no.

The A-4G was based on the A-4F but without the avionics hump, so you want an A-4Eish kit that has the hump as a separate part. IIRC, the Hasegawa one is like that.

[Old Wombat]

OK, so as I suspected, I can't use an Airfix A-4B to represent an A-4G? 

That'd be a "no", mate, & the only A4-E(or F/G) I can find readily available in 1/72 on line is the HobbyBoss one at $52.50 from BNA Models, & I have no idea how accurate that kit is.


My old mate, FAAMAN, over on BtS used to be a Skyhawk basher back in the day, he'd have a fairly good idea of what kits work best.


Of course, if you want to go big (1/48) there are several E/F & E/F/G versions available.

[rickshaw]

OK, so as I suspected, I can't use an Airfix A-4B to represent an A-4G? 

That'd be a "no", mate, & the only A4-E(or F/G) I can find readily available in 1/72 on line is the HobbyBoss one at $52.50 from BNA Models, & I have no idea how accurate that kit is.


My old mate, FAAMAN, over on BtS used to be a Skyhawk basher back in the day, he'd have a fairly good idea of what kits work best.


Of course, if you want to go big (1/48) there are several E/F & E/F/G versions available.

1/48?  Only suitable for conversion to 1/72!  Bah, get thee behind me, satan!   

I understand the Hobbyboss kit has problems with it's slats being closed (a no.no when they are parked apparently).   I have built the Hasegawa/Frog and the Esci/Italeri ones in the past.  I was just checking to see if the Airfix was suitable. 

[Old Wombat]

Yeah, the slats aren't powered, so they fall forward on the ground.

The leading edge slats were designed to drop automatically at the appropriate speed by gravity and air pressure, saving weight and space by omitting actuation motors and switches.

Actually, Ed Heinemann designed a neat little aircraft (just don't tell FAAMAN I said that ).


You'll notice the differences here, I think;

A-4B


A-4G


The A-4G has a different engine, longer, pointier nose, kinked IFR probe, 2 more wing hard-points & a couple of extra antenna fins