A-4 Skyhawk

[elmayerle]

Hmm, I wonder if I should start speculating in more depth on the MiG-24 "Fauxhawk" reverse-engineered variant?  Or would it be the MiG-22?  I'm thinking that timeline-wise, MiG-24 makes more sense.

I had imagined the Soviet 'Hawk would be a Yakovlev product, but whatever works.

Eh, possibly but Yakolev appears to have fallen out of favor with the "powers that be" in the 1960s for the most part.  I went with MiG doing it since there's a lot of similarity to the MiG-21 there.

OTOH, MiG might see it as a tremendous threat to further developments of the MiG-21 so I could see it going either way (perhaps with the "Fauxhawk" taking care of the "mud-moving" chores, Mig-21 development could emphasis air-to-air capabilities?).  Hmm, that suggests a blend of Ye-8, MiG-21bis, and MiG-21-93 to make a strong light fighter contender complemented by a developed "Fauxhawk" for ground attack ops.

For a Soviet Skyhawk, it could be cool to imagine the major structural changes of such a design.
I mean, even if they revers-engineered the Skyhawk, they will probably change a lot of things on it, don't you think??

For my part, I could easily imagine a longer nose (than the A-4B) with either a air-air radar optimized for short range dog-fight or an electro-optic air-to-ground system (just like on the Mig-27 or Su-25).
A-4 with Mig-27 nose, it could be cool!!

The tail could be largely modified too, with a more angled design and a bigger LERX (I don't know how to named that in English: I'm talking about the root extension of the tail we could see on the Mig-23/27 family). A lot of communication and ECM antennas could be fitted on it in a different disposition than on the US A-4.

And for latter variants, powered by RD-33 and RD-93 engines, what about a new air intake, with a more rectangular section?

Maybe they could have redrawn the main gear and their integration in the wings, in order to free some space and put 2 additional hard points at the wing/fuselage junction? Or maybe two wing-tip rail for air-air missiles? As we are talking of a modified design, such heavy modifications could be done, right?
The only 5 pylons of the Skyhawk always stressed me a lot!



And for the Rodina's Fleet lovers, what about such an aircrafts in a naval variant, able to support the Mig-23K for air support and maritime strike??





But I also thought about another way to have a "russianised" Skyhawk: the refit!!
Russian and South-African industrials agreed to develop a refit program for the Mirage F1. What if they did the same for the A-4??
After all, they were (and still are) plenty of second hand A-4 on the export market (Brazil just buy them in such conditions), what if Russian industrials proposed to modernized them with RD-33/93 engines, Russian radar and ECM and new generation weapons??

PD7, I agree, a "russianized" A-4 likely would have a MiG-27 or Su-25 style nose, at least for the dedicated attack version.  I could see a multi-role version with a radar fitted.

I rather doubt they'd redesign the main gear, it's a simple and robust design now, just what they'd need, though I could see some "frontal" versions built with twin main wheels like the variant proposed to the US Army (wouldn't that be a touch or irony!).  I can see a reduced sweep outboard leading edge, perhaps with a slight reduction in slat length, to allow wingtip AA-2/AA-8 rails.  That would at least give you seven hardpoints and the wingtips would be available for specialized pods if needed (special ECM or whatever).

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

though I could see some "frontal" versions built with twin main wheels like the variant proposed to the US Army (wouldn't that be a touch or irony!)

Never heard of that! Do you have any link or info for it??

I can see a reduced sweep outboard leading edge, perhaps with a slight reduction in slat length, to allow wingtip AA-2/AA-8 rails. That would at least give you seven hardpoints and the wingtips would be available for specialized pods if needed (special ECM or whatever).

Yes, it is probably a better and simpler solution

[elmayerle]

PD7, there was a picture in the WAPJ article on the Skyhawk, in a sidebar regarding "what-if" ones that almost made it.  I suspect there're photos elsewhere, too, but I don't have any immediately available nor do I know a site.  I'm sure the knowledgeable around here can point you to a site with photos, I just don't remember one right away.  

The version proposed, demo'd, to the US Army had twin main wheels with a fairing in front of the exposed one when the gear was retracted.  ISTR that JATO bottles were used to achieve short takeoff capabilities.

[GTX]

QUOTE
though I could see some "frontal" versions built with twin main wheels like the variant proposed to the US Army (wouldn't that be a touch or irony!)

Never heard of that! Do you have any link or info for it?? wub.gif

Here you go - some pics of the A4D-2N (A-4C) (there were actually 2 aircraft - BuNos 148490 & 148483) that was trialled by the US Army.  Note the twin main wheels (and crude fairing) and the drag chute (from a A3D Skywarrior):




Another picture giving a better front view may be seen here.

Regards,

Greg

[Daryl J.]

How about a co-developed Skyhawk?  Ed H. needs help right at design time and employs some designwork out to Hawker.       The A-4B gets approved for a role similar to the Harrier GR.1, then GR.3.   Since the airframe already seems ''Hawkerish", one would only have to slightly emphasize that aspect  and add Anglicised lumps, bumps, and bombs.  

I'd like mine in Grey/Temporary White Norwegian RAF markings please.        

[KJ_Lesnick]

Does anybody have any good sketches as to what a single-seat A-4 would look like with a larger cockpit (basically, spacing between the seat, cockpit and rudder-pedals being more like that of a regular fighter, or the T-38 Talon) the pointier nose the later models features, a slightly larger wing and/or a small inboard strake? 

KJ_Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

While I mentioned this in a previous post, however I kind of listed a bunch of ideas. 

I want to devote this thread to the A-4 Mod / A-4 Skyhawk Whiff

I was thinking of "What if" the Skyhawk was designed with a more normal cockpit size:  Distance between the seat and the rudder pedals more like that on a normal jet-fighter, or at least the same spacing as used on each of the T-38 pilot positions.  Getting out of an A-4's cockpit in a hurry I've been told was tough, and it was known for punishing ejections -- not good things.  Also, since the A-4 evolved into the TA-4 it put size restrictions on pilots that didn't previously exist, which automatically precluded some people even people with great skill potentially from becoming US Naval Aviators.  The USAF did not have that problem with it's T-38 Talon.  Of course this is now no longer a problem as the TA-45 Goshawk has replaced the TA-4J Skyhawk.

I'm not exactly sure what the larger cockpit would have on the plane's performance, although it would be logical to conclude that it would probably be better than the TA-4, and would be lighter than that.  Even the TA-4 is able to exceed the performance requirements the US Navy issued for what would become the Skyhawk with the nose-extentions the later models featured.  To my knowledge it would still be below the maximum weight-requirement that the USN requirement entailed as the A-4D was half the weight of the requirement, although I'm not sure.  As I said, later A-4's featured a longer-pointier nose, which was allegedly to house some extra-electronics equipment in them (Anybody actually know what additional systems were added?), this lengthening also reduces drag considerably, so the long-cockpit A-4 as I'm calling it would probably profit from it.   
   
Of course if the regular A-4 featured the longer cockpit, so would the TA-4 "Whiff" Trainer.  Ideally the cockpit size should be centered largely around the T-38.  Or at least, the spacing between the seats and the rudder pedals should be the same for both pilots on the trainer.   

Since the extra weight on the regular production model would affect performance a little, I'm not sure whether the "whiff" should have a slightly more highly-swept inboard wing to add increased area to the wing, and still lower drag, or perhaps a strake to enhance maneuverability in the manner of shedding a vortex over some of the wing.  Or if it should just be left as it is. 

Any ideas? 

KJ_Lesnick

[B777LR]

Hmm, Skyhawk with long thin and pointy nose

[KJ_Lesnick]

What extra equipment was fitted in the longer noses of the A-4C, A-4E, A-4F out of curiousity?

KJ Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm just wondering...
The A-4D originated around a fighter design Douglas built that could be launched from a submarine (Model 640) that impressed a bunch of Admirals.  The USN needed an attack-plane, and allegedly drew the specifications around the Douglas-design.

Was the A-4D developed, and built at an extraordinarily quick rate?  Just curious...

[jcf]

I'm just wondering...
The A-4D originated around a fighter design Douglas built that could be launched from a submarine (Model 640) that impressed a bunch of Admirals.  The USN needed an attack-plane, and allegedly drew the specifications around the Douglas-design.

Was the A-4D developed, and built at an extraordinarily quick rate?  Just curious...

Not really, if the Skyhawk was in fact 'evolved' from the earlier 640 studies, to me the connection is more along the lines of an extension of concepts rather than a one-became-the-other situation. According to Francillon, Heineman and Douglas approached the Navy in January, 1952 with a light-weight fighter concept(no mention of it being the sub-launched fighter), however, as the fighter boys dance-cards were full they instead suggested he apply his design philosophy to the design of a carrier-borne nuclear-strike jet attack bomber. The requirements had already been written and included a top speed of 500mph, combat radius of 345 miles, 2,000lb weapon load and a maximum gross weight not to exceed 30,000lbs. The Skyhawk proposal, delivered two weeks later, beat the sped by 100mph, the range by 115 miles and came in at less than half the weight. Many members of BuAer had their doubts but the project was given the go ahead.

The formal order was made 21 June, 1952; the prototype rolled out in February, 1954 and the XA4D-1 took to the air for the first time
22 June, 1954. The first A4D-1 took to the air on 14 August. The first delivery to the fleet was 26 September, 1956; the receiving unit being VA-72, NAS Quonset Point, Rhode Island. The first USMC birds were deliverd to VMA-224 at MCAS El Toro, California in January 1957.

Four-and-a-half years is impressive but not an exceptionally short design-to-service cycle for the period, and if you factor in the Model 640 studies that began in the late-forties the timescale stretches out to something very typical for the time.

To address your original question, increasing the seat pitch/cockpit length would probably have a negligible effect on external appearance as the rearrangement would mostly be internal. You might see the windscreen moved forward by a couple of inches resulting a slight stretch to the main canopy, but that, most likely, would be about it.

Jon

[KJ_Lesnick]

joncarrfarrelly,

Is it normal that a proposal would take two weeks to draw up?   

[Bryan H.]

Is it normal that a proposal would take two weeks to draw up?   

Not Jon but...

IIRC, the AD/A-1 Skyraider took Heinemann a week to scratch out the rough specifications in the 1940's.  I think his original drawing was done on a paper napkin!  So, I think it's entirely possible that Heinemann could 'whip something up' in only a few weeks. 

I think the mindset of the engineers, contractors and gov't bureaucrats has changed significantly since then.  Everything is planned, designed & concieved by committee for year(s) - the initial proposal is then revised, scrutenized and changed for decades.  Aircraft, tanks & warships where designed, built, tested and fielded in months in WWII; modifications & upgrades were made in the field repair depots and took weeks, factory modifications didn't take much longer.  In the '50's & '60's, armaments were designed, built, tested and fielded in a few (3-5) years.  From the 1970's onward, this timeline has stretched out to decades (think about the F-22, JSF, Rafale or Eurofighter).

Cheers, Bryan 

[jcf]

joncarrfarrelly,

Is it normal that a proposal would take two weeks to draw up?   

Something to bear in mind is that 'proposals' are just that, and are not the actual design.

Jon

[jcf]

Is it normal that a proposal would take two weeks to draw up?   

Not Jon but...

IIRC, the AD/A-1 Skyraider took Heinemann a week to scratch out the rough specifications in the 1940's.  I think his original drawing was done on a paper napkin!  So, I think it's entirely possible that Heinemann could 'whip something up' in only a few weeks. 

Aircraft, tanks & warships where designed, built, tested and fielded in months in WWII; modifications & upgrades were made in the field repair depots and took weeks, factory modifications didn't take much longer. 

Cheers, Bryan 

I'm afraid that's pretty much a myth left over from WWII propaganda.

Jon