Sluf videos

[Gums]

Salute!

From Tyler's War Zone blog some Sluf videos.

I can add quite a bit to the narration, but just look at the displays and remember they were there in 1968!! Think we were spoiled? Heh heh.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... air-combat

Gums sends...

[outlaw162]

You can imagine a Guard F-100 unit in the mid 70s getting these fantastic machines, some brand new off the LTV assembly line....because the Reggies didn't want them. What were they thinking?

However, it did take awhile to get over not having an AB and flying an airplane that looked like a large mouth bass.

Re the video: I rarely saw anybody drop off the aiming symbol and use 'slew aiming' as shown in Viz Attack. It was generally all point-blank aiming for minimizing the effect of inertial drift on the Bomb Fall Line after target designation, thus avoiding over control of the somewhat less than fine tuning provided by the 'bullpup-er'. The good bombers knew and attempted to nail manual bomb parameters, while not necessarily being dependent on them for accuracy and the yearly top-guns were generally all point-blankers.

And BTW a guy from Sioux City won low angle 'stroffing' with 98% at Gunsmoke in the 80s against all comers....A-10s included. A great, stable gun platform for A/G or A/A.

And BTW the Navy "E" was appropriated from the USAF "D" contrary to the the drift of the article with all the Navy A-7 pics.

And without having to put it on a boat, you could 'flare' the landing contrary to popular opinion (It HAD to be easier on the equipment, inertial, FLR, etc.):

edit: Trivia question: How can you tell the picture of the Sioux City A-7D shows a flared landing?

[Gums]

Salute!

RE: A-7E...... yep, the Navy liked the "D" so much they bought it and beefed up the nose gear for the cat and added a nuke panel by the NAV/WD panel.

I only used pt blank for first pass, then slewed opposite the drift for next pass(es). That was our technique in 'nam when the wing deployed in '72. After the FAC realized how good we were, they gave "crater width" corrections, heh heh.

I tried the high angle release one day and had a blast. Caught a glint out my right eye and there was the finned nape can flying formation and slowly rolling. After about 5 seconds the thing left me behind - even at full grunt I had more drag that the damned nape can!!

Our Thud guys said we would have had lots less POW's if they had our system in '65 - '68. Wouldn't have had to go back.

Gums sends...

[spazsinbad]

'outlaw162' asked: "edit: Trivia question: How can you tell the picture of the Sioux City A-7D shows a flared landing?"

We don't know the exact moment of touch down however without any tyre smoke visible and with the nosewheel way of the runway it appears the aircraft is aerobraking. I don't know if the A-7 could do that. Anyway if the photo shows the instant of landing then it is not a 'three pointer' thus the nose is kept up for a flared USAF landing. IIRC 'gums' mentioned the flare in one thread? Kiwis used to slightly flare their A-4Ks to reduce landing wear and tear. To each their own. <sigh>

IMAGE: download/file.php?id=33099

[outlaw162]

Gratis, no cost, supplemental, additional, give-away, super-secret hint to the trivia question.

Look at the cant of the main gear tires (oz=tyres?). If it had been 'planted' Navy style what do you think the picture would look like? Once you're manhandled down Navy style on the AOA bracket, you stay down. I understand you don't want to 'float' on a boat or whatever floats one's boat.

Trust me , 1100 hours in the machine and a considerable amount of payed time half asleep in the RSU watching various techniques and cringing at some of the more flamboyant (USAF advisor was flagrant 'Navy' on a 12,000' runway ). Of necessity, the Guard was generally much gentler with their generally older, used (previously owned) bargain equipment than the guys that had the benefit of the true 'showroom' models.....even when the Guard eventually got the 'showroom' models.

Sioux City was the first unit transition course in the A-7 conducted by the ANG TFTS BTW.

That Iowa ANG A-7 was landing at Nellis for Gunsmoke just like this dude:

[spazsinbad]

OK I geddit - both aircraft above are TAKING OFF! Whatever. No answer then to my question: Was the A-7 aerobraked? Trivial I know but without more context JUST a photo does not FLOAT MY BOAT Y'ALL HEAR??????

[outlaw162]

Was the A-7 aerobraked?

yes

[madrat]

The Sluf had an ugly air brake.



I always thought the A-7 would have been a good compliment to the F-8 in French service.

[spazsinbad]

Apologies to 'Gums' but the SLUF looks like & PERFORMED LIKE one BIG SPEED BRAKE! But don't take my word for it.

I'm referring to FLIGHT PERFORMANCE otherwise it was a GREAT PERFORMER as 'Gums' & others attest here & elsewhere.

[Gums]

Salute!

No question, Spaz. The Sluf was a dog when loaded for bear. Clean, or with a few BDU's, was as good or better than the Hun down low, according to those that flew both.

Imagine us at Korat with the 2 x bags and 8 or 10 Mk-82. Our computed takreoff was about 85% of the available runway once temp got above 35 deg C. Figure mid to high 90's fort we Yanks. We had ham hands over rotate and bounce off the overrun, barely clearing the trees across the road that circled the base! So we went to 8 x Mk-82 until it cooled down.

And to let you know, Arnie Clarke and I took off from Pete Field that July with four bags. Our roll was a little over 9000 feet on the 11,000 ft rwy 17R, and that was with the A/C off to get another pound and half of ToP. A few months later we were at Korat and routinely turned off the A/C after running up and waiting for the infamous thrust droop.

Climb when loaded took forever, but we could still get to cruise above 20K easier than the Hun with 4 x mk82 and the big tanks - they had to use burner. Once at 20 - 25K we could cruise easily once "on the step". I wonder if Outlaw ever flew the thing with our combat load and high temp/density altitude.

Oh well, we could do more things and had more gadgets and better accuracy plus fuel figures than any other plane in theater 1972-1975.

Gums sends...

[outlaw162]

Never flew combat like Gums and never flew with those combat loads he mentions.

Tucson was 2600' elev and had a 'few' 100 degree days during the year, not quite Buckley or Peterson or ABQ, but the 12,000 foot runway came in handy. Have been within a couple thousand feet of the end on takeoff in a heavy-weight F-100F, but typical A-7 daily summer training config takeoff rolls used about half the runway or slightly more.

Our standard student training syllabus A-7 'heavy-weight' load was 6 X MK-82 parent mounted, no fuel tanks. The A-7 with 6 X MK-82 had shorter takeoff rolls than the F-100 with a 'heavy-weight' student training load of 2 X fuel tanks and 4 X MK-82, primarily I think due to the higher takeoff speeds required for the Hun. T/W were about the same, but you could leave the A/C on in the Hun....not that it worked that well anyway. Heavily salt-stained cotton flight suits in the club were the norm at the time.

From what I remember, typical dumb bomb Guard A-7 unit 'checkered flag' tasking loads were ECM pod + 5 X MK-82 or 4 X MK-83, parent rack mounted, no EFTs. Units like Tulsa or ABQ with LANA for night ops were probably tasked with 4 X MK-83 of necessity (maybe 2 X MK-84?). This was for BAI, I imagine it would have been Snakes & CBU for CAS. World situation never got to that point, although they were available for GW1.

I think Toledo was tasked with 4 X MK-82s for Just Cause, but I believe they mostly just used the gun. (edit: Credit where due, Rickenbacker and Sioux Falls were also there.)

Fought clean A-7 against clean F-100 many times. As Gums says they were very similar in performance....the F-100 could accelerate out of the slow speed regime quicker....and also always ran out of gas quicker. F-5s, F-4s, even F-15s, everybody ran out of gas quicker.

After going non-stop from Grissom to Tucson in a clean A-7, I was of the opinion that fuel tanks were useful for overwater deployments, but could and should for performance reasons be stored for normal daily ops once in position. But I've never been on the policy level, always in an aircraft.

[Gums]

Salute!

Well, Outlaw, you really missed out on calculating takeoff roll. I only ever did it for the T-33 and the Sluf. Otherwise it was TLBAR.

The two tanks were mainly a problem on the roll - F=m*a And our "f" was piss poor, heh heh. They didn't have a lotta drag, but the 3500 - 4000 pounds of mass made for longer rolls.

Parent rack loads were the premier loadout for the Sluf. Very little drag, and the roll was longer but great climb once gear up. Best one I ever flew was 4 x 2000 pounders. No tanks. Had to be careful for first two releases unless salvo as the plane would easily accelerate going downhill. Not a CAS load but great for blowing the main power station at "xxxx" to smithereens.

Gums sends...

[outlaw162]

Ah the circumstantial luxury of never having had to turn off the A/C in the A-7....or do the "Silver Dollar Test".

you really missed out on calculating takeoff roll

.....until I ended up in the 727. However, a bit of fuzzy math and a willingness to accept a 'firm' touchdown and you could get the thing in or out of just about anywhere under any conditions, Greenbriar WV comes to mind. And you were only in trouble if you didn't make it, but you always did.

Although, while I was waiting to move the family to OKC from TUS, I had to get an F-105 off a 6000' runway (long one was under renovation) to get back to TUS for XMAS. Didn't do TOD card 'cause I didn't want to see the numbers and turns out with freezing rain nobody was on the golf course to complain about an F-105 'playing thru' anyway. In J-75 we trust....or is it in tail-hook we trust.

Somewhat cavalier, but you just couldn't take a lot of the 'details' seriously and accomplish anything.