A-7 Corsair II familiarization

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 986
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post10 Jan 2022, 02:11

Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 27376
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jan 2022, 03:02

What an excellent video. Sorry I missed it earlier. I guess on a 9.5 degree or so angle deck USN carrier then crabbing during a carrier approach is OK but the aircraft has to be aligned with the centre line before touch down or LSO wave off.

I would like to find the first part with the FCLP in it - if available. That may show how the aircraft is flown for approach.

USAF A-7D Flight Manual: https://www.filefactory.com/file/1slhgt5b5uiz/LTV_A-7D%20Flight%20Manual.pdf (56 Mb)
Attachments
A-7DcorsairFuelTanks&Capacity.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 27376
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jan 2022, 06:39

The Vought A-7 Attack Fighter [USN A-7E & USAF A-7D] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ5v8SvOdA0

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2572
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post19 Jan 2022, 01:33

Salute!

Tnx Spaz for latest video.

I prolly flew some to the 'MR" and "MB" tail numnbers but have to check.

What a great ride, and it is still my favorite one, even after flying the Viper for a few years.

Great cockpit that even had a relief tube and the two thermos bottles behind the seat. Decent switchology for the various radar and fire control modes.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5334
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post19 Jan 2022, 11:44

Gums wrote:What a great ride, and it is still my favorite one, even after flying the Viper for a few years.

That's quite the ringing endorsement.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

edpop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post21 Jan 2022, 08:24

In 1985, the USAF requested proposals for a fast strike aircraft because of concerns that A-10 Thunderbolt II was too slow for interdiction.

On May 7, 1987, LTV received a contract from the USAF to modify a pair of A-7D airframes to what came to be known as "A-7D Plus". This was later redesignated YA-7F. The YA-7F was to be powered by a 26,000 lb.s.t afterburning Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 Turbo Fan engine and had a fuselage that was made 4 feet longer by adding extra plugs both ahead (29 1/2 inches) and behind (18 inches) the wings. A taller fin and rudder was to be provided, augmented flaps were to be fitted. and leading-edge root extensions were to be used. The rear fuselage was redesigned so that it canted upwards by 3 degrees. A more advanced cockpit was to be fitted, with HOTAS and heads-up displays. The new YA-7F looked uncannily like the original F-8 Crusader from which the A-7 had been derived.”

Program was cancelled after 2 aircraft were built.
Attachments
A7F upgrade.jpg
Vietnam veteran (70th Combat Engineer Battalion)(AnKhe & Pleiku) 1967
Retired from Chrysler Engineering
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4851
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post23 Jan 2022, 15:08

The program was cancelled...

Likely due to it making too much sense, performing too well or not costing enough. Perhaps even some combination of all 3? If we split the CAS buy 50/50 between A-10's and A-7F's, that would have been best of both worlds IMO. Of course multi mission aircraft were about to proliferate, and one could argue the world hasn't been the same since.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2572
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post23 Jan 2022, 15:55

Salute!

[b]@mixel/b]l: that is exactly what I was getting at in my famous AvWeek letter to the editor back in Sep 1973. It promoted a mixed buy and I explained why the Warthog seemed a Dragonfly on steroids, or slightly faster A-1 Skyraider and would be able to do things the SLUF could not. I also tried to point out weapon accuracy and other things the SLUF had going for it as well as the value of speed when working low in a high threat environment.

Have to get the copy of my letter on a URL where all can read it, as it is a JPG. A Brit uTube military history dude interviewed me this past summer and found it using his gear. I may not be quoted in his vdeo on the Hawg when he cranks it out, but will guarantee some of my thots/opinions will be there.

Image

http://sluf.org/sluf_graphics/misc_grap ... Editor.JPG

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

edpop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post24 Jan 2022, 06:26

We had A7's stationed here in Mt. Clemens, Michigan at the Selfridge ANGB. They were part of the 107 TFS / 127 TFW.
They eventually switched to the F-16 Falcon.
Attachments
80-0291 (4).jpg
80-0291 (3).jpg
70-1047 (2).JPG
70-1035.jpg
Vietnam veteran (70th Combat Engineer Battalion)(AnKhe & Pleiku) 1967
Retired from Chrysler Engineering
Offline

usafhk

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2021, 00:01

Unread post24 Jan 2022, 06:50

I joined the 127th Just as they were phased out.

I got to go to Misawa when we changed from the F-16A to the F-16C.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 27376
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Jan 2022, 07:15

'GUMS' just letting you know soon the text of your AvWeek 1973 letter will be here - meanwhile here is a PDF & GIF of it.

NOW a text file of the same material is attached.
Attachments
GUMSavWeekLetter1973 GIF gry OCR.pdf
(840.24 KiB) Downloaded 58 times
GUMSavWeekLetter1973.gif
GUMSavWeekLetter1973.txt
(6.46 KiB) Downloaded 58 times
Last edited by spazsinbad on 24 Jan 2022, 08:33, edited 2 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 27376
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Jan 2022, 08:31

NOW attached a ONE page PDF of the text of the letter in three columns in landscape orientation.
Letters to the Editor
A-7D/A-10A Debate


I'm writing this letter after reading Cecil Brownlow's article on the tentative A-7D/ A-10A flyoff (AW&ST Aug. 20, p. 18). Even now I can foresee another great debate looming, such as existed with the multi-role vs. single-mission fighters, and the continuing saga of the F-15 vs. F-14.

But perhaps we're all a little guilty of not seeing the forest for all the trees. The bulk of the R&D funds have already been spent in the A-X, now A-10A, program, and the A-7D is being procured on a straight unit cost basis.

So the real question we should be debating is how many of which aircraft we need and want, not whether the A-7D or A-10A is the airplane we want/need.

While it may be true that a committee can pretty much gain a desired result by the ground rules laid down for any flyoff to be conducted, some of the misconceptions floating around at the higher echelons concerning A-7D and A-10A capabilities seem startlingly ignorant, if not ludicrous.

Who is it [who] is claiming that A-7D and A-10A capabilities are mutually exclusive? It tickles me to see comments such as attributed in your article to a "top Air force official'' who asserts. ''If you want to come in low... right close to friendly troops, then the A-10A is going to win." You gotta be kidding. Even the F-4, which hasn't gained the accuracy reputation that the A-7, A-37, A-1 and F-100 had in SEA close air support, can certainly hold its own with high drag bombs and napalm when it doesn't drop until the pilot can "'see the whites of their eyes.''

l think, and most fighter pilots agree, that the inherent accuracy of a particular airplane isn't really tested until you back off on the release parameters. And even then, you'll have to weigh the individual pilot's ability (except the A-7, where it starts to become who can aim more accurately with his "aiming symbol").

No, most experienced troops will agree that both the A-10A and A-7D will probably be identical insofar as accuracy at low altitude, short slant ranges is concerned. But now let's try what is asserted by the Saber Armor Charlie report, which the committee feels is weighted toward the A-10A. Indeed, let us allow an A-10A to "loft'' some bombs over the heads of friendlies into the enemy's fold. The assumption that the A-10 could do so with any accuracy and at a greater slant range than the A-7D is completely lacking any basis in fact or theory.

Unless someone has developed some new way for the human brain to integrate rapidly changing dive angles, airspeeds and ballistic coefficients and then press the pickle button when conditions are optimum for the ordnance to impact the target. then it will probably be the A-7D (that) will win any toss-bombing contest. And it should be pointed out here that the 10 meter CEA (cumulative error average) which was attributed to the A-7D in your article was obtained 99% of the time while toss-bombing.

On one particular mission under a low ceiling, my wingman and I calmly lofted iron bombs from a straight and level run to a target almost a mile and a half in front of us. Our accuracy under such conditions was certainly no 10 meters, but at those ranges even a 1 or 2 mil aiming error would be greater than those 10 meters normally attainable from a 15 to 30 deg. dive. But let me see any other airplane try the same thing and come within a "country mile.''

As far as other parameters, such as availability, range and bomb load are concerned, I think you'll see that where one aircraft has more speed to evade bullets, the other has the armor to absorb them and continue the mission... which would you rather fly? A-7Ds carried 4,000 lb. to Hanoi from Korat and returned without refueling . They also did not have to drop from 3,000 ft. to come close, fly in at a dazzling 350 kt. and come back the next day because most of their bombs missed. And all this at the same unit cost as the A-10A.

Surely each of the two aircraft has its own bailiwick in which the other is either uncomfortable or incapable. Let's go back to my premise that it shouldn't be which one, but how many of each.

I flew over 300 [A-37] missions, mostly close air support, during the Tet and May offensives of 1968. I worked "right down in close to friendly troops" on a regular basis in all kinds of weather, carrying a mix of ordnance, and from the Hue Citadel to Ca Mau. I remember working targets that the F-100s couldn't hack due to low ceilings, restricted visibility and mountainous terrain.

I remember one day when our entire daily schedule was canceled and we flew twenty- some-odd missions in support of rescue operations in II Corps because conditions were so bad that nobody else could get in.

But l also rementber clear days and nights when those gunners could keep us in sight all around the delivery pattern, and it was those times that my slow 250 to 300 kt. finals seemed to take a year.... I instructed Vietnamese for an additional three years in the same airplane before coming to the A-7D. So I think that I can appreciate the low-ceiling, restricted visibility, mountainous terrain argument that the A-10 people will offer.

Ask any A-7 jock who flew the SAR missions in North Vietnam what they would have liked to have flown versus the A-7. Surely our computed attack capability was nice to have, but we used the avionics in the plane mostly for navigation in those cases, and not for weapons and delivery.

Most will agree that in roles such as search and rescue that the A-10 with its loiter time, maneuverability and mixed ordnance capability is the plane to have. But to have it do we have to give all the A-7s to the Reserve and ANG? Do we need six wings of A-10s and none of A-7s? Who wants to take lite A-10 to downtown Hanoi? Why use a 30-mm. cannon on a tank when you can hit the thing with a 500 lb. bomb (not laser guided) from an A-7 releasing above 3,000 ft. (and it hits better closer in)?

Perhaps the best estimate of the situation in this debate was given by Mr. Brownlow, who mentions candidly that many A-10 proponents are simply using the plane as an argument against the Army's advanced armed helicopters. Now there's a machine which can literally toss/fire ordnance from over the heads of the friendlies... from a hover. Let's get serious about the A-7/A-10 controversy and decide where and how many of each do we need, not which one can do the required jobs so much better that the other is unnecessary.

PATRICK G. McAdoo
Captain, USAF
354th TFW
Myrtle Beach. S. C.

Aviation Week & Space Technology. Sept 11, 1973
Attachments
GUMSavWeekLetter1973 p1.pdf
(176.1 KiB) Downloaded 58 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4851
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post25 Jan 2022, 16:31

Gums wrote:Salute!

[b]@mixel/b]l: that is exactly what I was getting at in my famous AvWeek letter to the editor back in Sep 1973. It promoted a mixed buy and I explained why the Warthog seemed a Dragonfly on steroids, or slightly faster A-1 Skyraider and would be able to do things the SLUF could not. I also tried to point out weapon accuracy and other things the SLUF had going for it as well as the value of speed when working low in a high threat environment.

Have to get the copy of my letter on a URL where all can read it, as it is a JPG. A Brit uTube military history dude interviewed me this past summer and found it using his gear. I may not be quoted in his vdeo on the Hawg when he cranks it out, but will guarantee some of my thots/opinions will be there.

Image

http://sluf.org/sluf_graphics/misc_grap ... Editor.JPG

Gums sends...


Way ahead of your time Gums, as usual. The 50/50 mix seemed so logical, at least based on the threat/need at the time. Did you by chance "hear about" this after AW@ST published your letter? I'm not sure how dead set USAF was at the time against up-rated A-7's. One would hope with an evaluation program it at least was given some consideration. The F-16 was shiny and new though, so I really wonder...
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2572
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post25 Jan 2022, 21:52

Salute!

Well, I got an official letter of reprimand following my letter to AvWeek. My boss and his boss had seen the letter before I mailed it, and agreed with the thrust of it, so they were "gentle", but still followed orders from the 9th AF CO and Gen Momyer.

After the letter was in the mail, Gen Momyer put out a directive that there would be no more A-7D/A-10 comments until Congress and USAF proceeded with a flyoff or other exercise. So I was a day late, dollar short. No biggie, as the next year I got promoted and even had a charm school assignment at Air University that came with it.

During 1974 my boss was on the eventual flyoff exercise team and he came back to tell us that the rules were rigged and the Hawg would get the nod. For example, no battlefield interdiction and no deep strikes versus SAM's and manpads or radar ZSU-24 ( and that one was what we were most scared of at the time besides the SA-6). They also had no reward for getting to a survivor 250 miles away real fast and navigating the Jolley in and out. Our super map display and INS/Doppler and TF radar was of great value.

As the Hawg was under development prolly 90% of SLUF drivers recommended the plane get a minimal INS and computed attack display on the HUD. They didn't get that for almost 20 years. But USAF had sold the beast to Congress as not requiring computers or new avionics and couldn't back down. Brownlow's article is one I should look for, as he lays out the situation. Fer chrissakes, the plane didn't even have an autopilot!!

EDIT added: I found a link to my map article in the Fighter Weapon Review/Newsletter. The user interface beats the hell outta the one in my Subaru and it was the most amazing avionics system we had. I did not describe all the things you could do with the thing, but my most famous call was when escorting a damaged Jolly coming out who had only one engine and we had to cross the last ridge before downhill to NKP. He asked if I knew the gap in that ridge ahead we had to go thru, and I replied my map does!

http://www.sluf.org/misc_pages/fwr_winter_1973.pdf

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 27376
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Jan 2022, 01:19

FIVE page PDF extract of 'Gums' PMDS article extracted from larger PDF cited above and attached below.
Attachments
A-7D PMDS GUMS fwr_winter_1973 pp5.pdf
(1.25 MiB) Downloaded 67 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Next

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests