A-7D Instantaneous Turn Rate?

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

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1042
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Kentucky

Unread post10 Jun 2018, 04:58

Well, those are the first Ps figures I can recall having seen for the A-7D, so yes, that is helpful. Thank you!
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3559
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post10 Jun 2018, 07:38

Nice!
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1155
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post10 Jun 2018, 20:37

Yes, that A-7F vs A-7D comparsison contains some nuggets.

Particularly the configuration for the SEP bar graph. 6 parent rack mounted MK-82s, no MERS, no TERS or external tanks. That's the way the ANG units were tasked for interdiction, with or without FLIR. And notice how truly low the positive SEP is just cruising along down low.

The thing could drive nails with dumb bombs and defend itself reasonably well, but certainly was no Viper, nor would the A-7F have been.
Offline
User avatar

alfakilo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 19:01

Unread post10 Jun 2018, 20:55

Maybe.

It's a comparison of the proposed "Strikefighter" against a basic D model. And it assumes a combat loadout whereas most EM diagrams assume at the most 2 heaters only.
Offline
User avatar

edpop

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan

Unread post11 Jun 2018, 01:13

While going through some old A-7 stuff found this ad for the Strikefighter version.
Attachments
IMG_20180610_0001.jpg
Vietnam veteran (Combat Engineer) 1967
Retired from Chrysler Engineering
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Jun 2018, 13:42

A very interesting bird. Yet, USAF couldn't capitalize. They almost never do, especially with robust improvements in existing platforms. No F-15C 2040, no up engined Hornet, etc.. They did develop the F-15E, which to my knowledge was the only time. We have more powerful F-100 variants but they never seem to make their way into the F-15C community. I think it's a crime Saudi F-15SA's fly with much more powerful engines, better sensors etc while our men have to settle for 2nd best.

Yes, I know a lot of that $ is going to procure the F-35. But when your air superiority hangs by such a dangling thread with F-15C's designed in the 1970's, you owe it to the men flying them the best engines, sensors etc
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3559
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 21:01

So, making the best model I could based on the FM data I came up with the following information on turn rates for the A-7.
A-7 Rates.xlsx
(28.51 KiB) Downloaded 90 times
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1155
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post03 Jul 2018, 22:58

Those numbers all look 'reasonable' from what I gathered in 1000 hrs in the large-mouthed bass.

A chuckle for the 0.9 to 1.0 STRs.

Big time negative SEP was what I learned on in the F-100 & A-7. On the defensive, might as well take 'em real slow and cross your fingers. The A-7 was 100% recoverable if you departed it and had enough room below.....it didn't take much altitude though to recover....a lot less than trying to sustain 10 deg/sec at higher speeds. I guess a few guys bought it rushing the recovery in the early years. But it was truly docile through-out the envelope. A fine pilot's machine.

Unless the A-7F wing was significantly different, it wouldn't have gained much over those numbers, just the SEP.

Humility was the watchword for the A-7 drivers.....until you bet bucks on the gunnery range or held clear so the minimum fuel F-4s could all get on the ground. :D
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1418
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post04 Jul 2018, 00:25

outlaw162 wrote:
Presumably the A-7 regenerates energy fairly slowly?


A master of understatement.

When the Kansas Guard started the ANG F-4 schoolhouse, the day came when they set up the first DACT with the Tulsa Guard lowly A-7s.

I was in F-4 school at the time and everybody was in Ops to listen to the first fight, a 1 v 1, ex F-4 FWIC IP against your average okie A-7 driver (a previous C-124 pilot). I'm sure all the F-4 guys felt this would be a valuable humbling experience for the attack community......

......When the dust cleared, the A-7 was camped firmly at the F-4's six. The F-4 driver wanted another chance and told the A-7 guy, "Okay, pass me on the left and we'll set up another one." The A-7 driver's reply said it all about 'energy regeneration',

"You don't understand." :D


Have you flown both the F-4 and A-7?
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1155
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post04 Jul 2018, 03:39

not at the same time :D
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3559
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post04 Jul 2018, 14:47

Large mouth bass, love it.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1418
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post04 Jul 2018, 17:45

outlaw162 wrote:not at the same time :D


Ha! I see what you did there! We Army Dogs should learn more about the pointy, fast aircraft!

Anyways, I was going to ask if you had F-4D and F-4E experience against A-7s. My curiosity being with which Phantom model might have been better against the A-7 at low speeds.
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1155
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post04 Jul 2018, 20:22

I only flew the F-4D and I can say that it was generally no match for an A-7D with AMF at slow speed. So a prudent F-4 driver avoided that trap. We're talking pure 1 v 1 dogfight performance here. Except for the acceleration (or lack of), the A-7D performance was very close to the F-100 and the F-100 was reasonably close to the MiG-17/19, call it a MiG-18. :D And we know what they did against slowed up F-4s.

I 'spect the slatted F-4E (never flew it) would have faired better, but F-4 of any type handling was much more 'touchy' and less comfortable at very high AOA than the A-7D. The A-7D could depart but you didn't really worry, it would shortly start flying again.....if you pushed the F-4 too far and departed, you might be walking home, even using the drag chute. We had two crews do that, both fighting A-7s. I 'spect even the F-4E guys would have been somewhat reluctant to slow up with an A-7, but on paper they probably stood a relatively even chance at lower speeds.

You'd have to ask an F-4E guy that fought the ANG AMF A-7s though.

The A-7 school conducted an intentional departure training program, made possible by the fact they were 100% recoverable every time....the F-4 school didn't conduct this program for obvious reasons.

The A-7 was primarily a CAS/SAR aircraft with interdiction capability, and at the time would have been very good at it for you Army Dogs. It wasn't going to look for an A2A fight, but had ways to defend itself, particularly when they were upgraded to 9 Limas.
Offline

35_aoa

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post04 Jul 2018, 21:05

A-7F would have been pretty cool. Would have bridged the gap that the legacy Hornet filled pretty nicely, at least had we kept the Tomcat around for a little longer. The technology/avionics in the Super Hornet are much better today than what we had in the A-6 or A-7 for air-to-mud scenarios, but what we lost, in a big way, was specialization. I have to be really good at DCA, really good at OCA, really good at BFM/ACM, really good at CAS, really good at SCAR, really good at ASuW, really good at being a tanker. There is really no way to concurrently be good at all of those......inherent to that job statement, you have to turn off a decent amount of those missions for a period of time to become truly proficient in another. As a Hornet to Rhino person, I've never known anything different, but man it must have been nice to have been VF or VA but not both.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3559
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post05 Jul 2018, 00:33

Nice insight about multi-role training.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests