How did the A-4 Skyhawk get such good range?

[KamenRiderBlade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4_Skyhawk
Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
Combat radius: 625 nmi (719 mi, 1,158 km)

That 2,000 mi range listing on Wikipedia really surprised me. How does such a little plane travel so far?

That sounds like a full ferry number where you aren't carrying any combat ordinance and only EFT's.

I'm probably wrong on that, can somebody elaborate, preferably somebody like Spaz who has real world experience with the A-4?

[basher54321]

Yes things like stores configuration, and flight profile might be useful.

Those figures are for the A-4F - and the A-4G is probably similar being based on the F.

Basically :
It's very light (10k empty) - so needs less power to push it.
Potentially far lower fuel consumption (9300 lbs static mil)
Still has adequate internal fuel (5K lbs)

if you compared with another jet and looked relatively - then it could be a clue that range was likely not an issue.


I think a lot of people make assumptions based on size - and its not always the size that matters...........

[outlaw162]

if you compared with another jet and looked relatively - then it could be a clue that range was likely not an issue.

It was very frustrating to go 1 v 1 against a 'Mongoose' in a clean F-4, and not only be outperformed from some initial WVR setups (not all though mind you )....

....but always outlasted petrol-wise.

[spazsinbad]

Best to read the back end of A-4E/F/G NATOPS graphs to understand why the mighty mite can do such amazing things. However like the proverbial 'how long is a piece of string' it all depends on what is being carried, at what altitude and so on. The A-4 above can lift own empty weight in stores/ordnance but also again depending on what is hanging under the wings / drag co-efficient then the A-4 will be a slug and not go very far. Drop the load and AWAY WE GO!

Get your free A-4E/F/G NATOPS here: In the SpazSinbad on Microsoft OneDrive in the Documents & Videos Various folder:

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D6 ... 07E6%21116

_A4G_NATOPS_Text_Searchable+BookMarks.pdf 139Mb

Best to download the best quality version (scanned by my own feeble cold hands from my own dog eared NATOPS ala A4G) so as to best interpret all the graphs for various conditions at the back end of this NATOPS PDF.

Same PDF is on SpazSinbad on GoogleDrive: https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#fo ... 0szeVJFY0U

[KamenRiderBlade]

Thanks =D

[spazsinbad]

The A4G (and S-2E/G) had to land here (see photo) - the only aircraft in the mid 1960s able to do this (and demonstrated by USN at or before that time). Two early A4G pilots from VF-805 remained ashore to fly from NAS Nowra to the MELBOURNE off Perth WA to arrest there - flying non-stop but air refuelling near Adelaide SA on the way. I'll post more info on this if required. Google Earth will show the distance involved (from east to west coast).

To explain this photo. Probably taken from a helo looking down the flight path approximately. The mirror shows high whilst line up is left. This close to arresting an A4G pilot will be in trouble (the photo was likely not taken from an A4G on approach - just getting near for the photo) and he will either wave off himself or the LSO will do it (depending on a bunch of variables too numerous to mention here).

Next graphics - an RAN press release from June 1970 & an RAN Navy News item shows a similar BUT UNREFUELLED flight record by two A4Gs as shown. Not sure now if the 2,100 miles is nautical or not. As you know military uses nautical miles but for the press release I'm not sure after all these years.

The NAVY NEWS report says the aircraft carrier three (2,000lb each of fuel) drop tanks underneath. Usually (depending on flight profile) the third tank under fuselage was redundant (took as much fuel in third tank to carry the load and drag as having no tank) but it all depends on variables or requirements of the day and I think they were going for endurance more than for distance at that time. Too long ago for me to remember these details now - the aircraft/pilots were from VC-724 whilst these two were my A4G instructors earlier beginning of 1970 on A4G OFS No.3 (Operational Flying School) on that squadron. The instructors shown had some down time and wanted to test out this scenario. Four and a half hours without a relief tube was something else apparently.

The strip map does not show the actual route - just a straight line - the aircraft are likely to have flown a great circle heading approx. to also go near the aircraft inflight refuel point on the way as indicated in last graphic. I'll post a link to a video of there arrest onboard soonish. Story from Navy News 13 Nov 1970 here:

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/fi ... 3-1970.pdf (probably about 10-15Mbs)

The first pilot to land and get out of the aircraft is the CO of VF-805 LCDR Col Patterson with his wingman LEUT Ken Palmer second etc.

[spazsinbad]

As indicated above the 'endurance' flight record at the time with earlier VC-724 aircraft had three 2,000 lbs drop tanks of fuel underneath with approx. 5,400 lbs of of internal fuel, making 11,400 lbs of fuel approx. at takeoff. I flew the tanker with these three drops with the centreline tank being the ARF (air refueller tank) with the added weight of the gubbins being approx. 200 lbs. Adding all that up would get close to the max. weight takeoff and max. weight for catapulting onboard HMAS Melbourne (depending on what else could be added or was added at the time - being AERO racks on the outboard empty wing stations and all the rest - oils, gun and ammo etc. Sometimes the guns were removed.

This max weight takeoff was no problem on ordinary days at NAS Nowra on the 6,200 foot runways with a bit of wind. My hairiest takeoff there was the TA4G with ARF tank and two 300 gallon (2,000 lb) drops all full. The TA4G had approx. 670 gal of fuselage fuel compared to A4G 810 gallon fuselage fuel (not including wing fuel which was the same in each aircraft). The A-4 Association has the most complete and reliable Skyhawk info BTW (with the odd error IMHO) go here:

http://a4skyhawk.org/content/technical-data OR http://a4skyhawk.org/

Anyway as described the TA4G was very close to max weight takeoff and also the max allowed tyre speed for the conditions - calculated NIL wind (only a 1 knot breeze down RW 08) on a very hot day at NAS Nowra. This is my story from the 4.4GB PDF online:

"The most extreme NAS Nowra takeoff was with a TA4G with 3x 2,000 pound full fuel tanks (centre being buddy tank) doing the ‘ski jump’ on 6,200 foot Runway 08 on a hot windless summer day, contemplating where the aircraft should be pointed, IF, during the ‘interminable’ takeoff roll things did not go as advertised according to the TA4G NATOPS Take Off Performance Charts (thankfully just making all the benchmarks perfectly) as it trundled down towards that magic drop off into the gully off the end of RW 08; but NOT BEFORE bouncing up & down on that long nose oleo – going nowhere performance-wise – on that last few hundred feet uphill (the jump-de-ski effect).
Yep, veer/turn right – eject. But then the wheels left the tarmac & aircraft dropped into the gully, slowly accelerating ‘downhill’. No performance in TA4G with that 6,000lb extra load/drag with full internal fuel of 4,800lbs on that ‘hot’ day. [A long field arrest was perhaps possible – but not certain.]"

NAS Nowra had short bumpy runways with a dramatic gully drop off at the end of RW 08 illustrated below. The main runway was 26 which meant a dramatic downdraft effect whenever the wind over 7 knots with usually the prevailing westerly wind being above ten - fifteen knots. Many aircraft were lost due to the downdraught (before the A4G era) due to this effect. Even the first RAAF Caribou demonstrating a short landing in 1964 crashed there stopping just before the displaced threshold numbers with the wings broken from the heavy landing. It was never repaired.

The earth moving described happened during my first year at NAS Nowra (I think) 1969 or 1970. The 'hill' at the other end of RW 26 was scrapped to provide material to fill in the part of the gully adjacent to the beginning of runway 26. I believe it just displaced the downdraught effect a little further out from the threshold but at least provided a 'more safe'? underrun for those perhaps requiring same.

[spazsinbad]

For the sake of finishing the thread I guess I'll repeat what was posted elsewhere on this forum....

'KamenRiderBlade' said here: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=25627&p=273101&hilit=runway#p273101

"...I'm surprised they didn't put more effort to make the runway as close to perfectly flat as possible."

As you asked the question here and not at the other place then I'll answer it here. The bumpy runway 26/08 was not the problem although the last bits caused issues when the macadam veered up at both ends. For landing 08 was seldom used because the glideslope was parallel to the ground falling below it to threshold - it could not be used for instrument landings or FCLP.

The approach to RW 26 was odd due to the runway threshold first 1,000 feet sloping down, to then more or less flatten, to then start rising again so that the 'landing picture' created an illusion. We could ignore that by using the portable mirror usually sited at the duty runway. The downdraught due to the deep gully before the beginning of RW 26 was ever present though, just to keep us on our toes. However the excellent A4G power response (replicated by all accounts in the F-35C which just leaps up into a wave off) nullified the down effect; whilst the Macchi had a good engine control unit. My early year or two was with the Vampire which had only my left hand to control engine acceleration, which engine accel was very slow. The Sea Venom had a rudimentary engine control unit - a necessity for any carrier aircraft jet engine to get the maximum out of the engine for wave off performance (to give it a name). Nevertheless a couple of Sea Venom crews died at the end of RW 26. R.I.P.

[basher54321]

if you compared with another jet and looked relatively - then it could be a clue that range was likely not an issue.

It was very frustrating to go 1 v 1 against a 'Mongoose' in a clean F-4, and not only be outperformed from some initial WVR setups (not all though mind you )....

....but always outlasted petrol-wise.

So Mongoose mods look to have been a lot lighter than a standard F with more power (11,200 lbs) - potentially better than the MiG-17s they simulated in some ways. Somewhat challenging V's an F-4 no doubt!

[basher54321]

The NAVY NEWS report says the aircraft carrier three (2,000lb each of fuel) drop tanks underneath. Usually (depending on flight profile) the third tank under fuselage was redundant (took as much fuel in third tank to carry the load and drag as having no tank) but it all depends on variables or requirements of the day and I think they were going for endurance more than for distance at that time. Too long ago for me to remember these details now - the aircraft/pilots were from VC-724 whilst these two were my A4G instructors earlier beginning of 1970 on A4G OFS No.3 (Operational Flying School) on that squadron. The instructors shown had some down time and wanted to test out this scenario. Four and a half hours without a relief tube was something else apparently.

The strip map does not show the actual route - just a straight line - the aircraft are likely to have flown a great circle heading approx. to also go near the aircraft inflight refuel point on the way as indicated in last graphic. I'll post a link to a video of there arrest onboard soonish.

Great stuff Spazinbad - 2100mi @ 32kft after climb - never doubted Wiki for a second!

[outlaw162]

Somewhat challenging V's an F-4 no doubt!

basher,

I used to think I was the world's greatest fighter pilot until a Miramar 'Mongoose' driver talked me into a 4000' line abreast, co-speed 400 KIAS or so setup (copious amounts of free beer at stake)....

....after which I realized I was actually the world's dumbest fighter pilot.

[spazsinbad]

'Basher54321' the old YAHOO 'skyhawkstudygroup' had some marvellous contributors including Gary Rezeau 'ZOO'. The attached PDF has some of the info in the main A4G PDF online on the SpazSinbad pages on OneDrive and GoogleDrive (or in specific USN Skyhawk PDFs). Here is an extract from the attached PDF from 'ZOO'.

Adversary Skyhawk used as MiG-17 emulator by ‘Zoo’ from YAHOO SkyhawkStudyGroup E-mail:
“The USN/USMC used various models of the A-4 in their Adversary programs. The USN squadrons were VF-43/45/126/127, VCF-13, (maybe 12 too?), and the Top Gun/Have Gun programs used these A-4s as part of their training syllabus.

I am not sure what weapons school you are referring to? I am not aware of the USAF using A-4s this way, but there were many combined air warfare exercises that included USN adversary A-4 participation. They were frequent players at Red Flag exercises.

USN Fighter Weapons School was a comprehensive syllabus that covered advanced tactics training with the usual classroom instruction and flight simulator training. The flight syllabus was tailored to the type of fighter aircraft flown. These fighter crews being trained flew against the adversary pilots from any of the adversary squadrons participating.

Typically, the VF-43 at NAS Oceana & VF-126 at NAS Miramar did most of this work.

But the goal of the Top Gun/Have Gun program was to train a select number of fleet squadron pilots and NFOs to return to their squadron and continue the ACM/DACM training of their squadron's pilots.

The A-4 was an almost perfect MIG-17 substitute in every way.

Size, and maneuverability were very similar and the Specific Power envelopes were very close.

Although the MIG-17 had A/B and the A-4 did not, a mostly clean A-4E/F could emulate the MIG very well.

The Mongoose A-4 had the P-408 engine installed, no avionics hump, as much hardware removed as possible to lighten the aircraft, the slats wired permanently up; and was an amazing performer with a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.”

[spazsinbad]

'outlaw162' being 'fleet defence' primarily (poor man variety - same same VSF A-4B/Cs on ASW USN carriers around mid 1960s) our RAN FAA A4Gs did a lot of ACM being trained by AWI Air Warfare Instructors who at that time had been trained in UK at Lossiemouth with the RN FAA AWI program. (The pre TOPGUN era at NAS Miramar had some of these RN AWIs there with/without their Phantoms.) Anyway a nameless CO wanted to see what I would do with another A4G up my tail. So we 'split' for return merge. Yeah right. My CO just stayed on my tail. Never trust anyone in ACM!

[outlaw162]

The Mongoose A-4 had the P-408 engine installed, no avionics hump, as much hardware removed as possible to lighten the aircraft, the slats wired permanently up; and was an amazing performer with a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.”

I believe the guns were removed also, so I understand the Mongoose driver's call, 'I'm thinking about using guns at this point', neglecting to add 'but of course I don't have any'.

My CO just stayed on my tail. Never trust anyone in ACM!

Planned no GCI 3 v 3, clean F-4 vs F-14 ended up as 3 F-14 v 2 F-4 due to mx problem. After playing fair and being soundly whipped on the first one, deciding a replay was pointless, I stayed with them (well below and out of their sight) back to their CAP point. So on the run in they bantered back and forth about 'only having one', absorbed a couple of unobserved heat shots and apologized for their RIOs poor performance, "nicely done, we just could never find the other guy".

One knows when to say nothing.

[spazsinbad]

Another story about the 'guy who said nothing' - for a while anyways....

“Gil Rud... extolled the capabilities of the A-4 — “There are many fighter pilots out there who were humiliated by that aircraft” — and also discussed landings. He noted NATOPS said not to exceed a six-knot crosswind component, but when he was with the Blues, it was always six knots cross-wind, adding, “Hey, you got to look good!” On one occasion one of the other pilots failed to arm his spoilers for landing, followed by a radio call of “LOOK OUT!” The appropriate response from the rest of the team? “Adding power…” CDR McWhirter, the current Boss, obviously enjoyed the exchange and noted a lot of similarities between the Blues and Topgun. He added that with the team there was no rank in briefs & debriefs, and during the show, the slot pilot actually ran things.

CAPT (Ret) Smith was the first to speak during the Topgun section, which alternated with the Blues reps. He used the opportunity to ask Willie Driscoll to come up and read former Topgun skipper VADM (Ret) Jack Ready’s e-mail in an appropriate Boston voice. Driscoll complied and related tails of Topgun during the early 1970s — “nobody bothered us and we were very happy doing two hops a day in T-38s, A-4s & F-5s” — and diverts to Williams AFB, Ariz., with subsequent lectures from the base commander over patio furniture in the pool and club waitresses getting impromptu water survival training from the pilots. On the more serious side, Ready strongly credited RADM (Ret) Paul Gillcrist for “commanding NAS Miramar at a period when the station needed strong senior leadership.” Driscoll then complimented Jack Ready, stating his “confident leadership inspired us to find solutions to our tactical challenges.”

Dawg Thompson ably described the F-16 period at Topgun and the school’s strong sense of mission accomplishment. He related one mission at the Yuma Range where A-4 driver “Cato” didn’t check in after the instructors and pilot students finished their first of two furballs. Cato then called in from the ground; the tail had come off his A-4 but he was OK, “Don’t call the SAR [search and rescue] just yet, let’s get the second training in.” Cato proceeded to take good notes from his perch on the ground, the pilot students got the check in the training box, and then the “Mayday!” call went out with subsequent launch of the SAR helo. Thompson said he was feeling pretty good when they returned to Miramar, but the skipper straightened him out: “Dawg! Mission accomplishment doesn’t supersede commonsense.”

Source: http://www.tailhook.org/Hook09Article.pdf