Skyhawk

[Groth]

 Was reading up on A-4s and found this nice storyhttp://www.globalaviationresource.com/reports/2010/ta4j.php. Was one in Jackson last year.
 JGroth

[Widewing]

I have always loved the Scooter... I managed to get a fair amount of backseat time in the TA-4J... The roll rate is astounding..

[icepac]

I got some TA4J seat time as well..........roll rate is 720 degrees per second.

Dad has a plaque showing 1000 hours in one but he flew it many years after he got it so not sure his total hours in it.

Used in a pure fighter loadout, it is still one of the most maneuverable fighters in the world.

Sadly, the price of the A4 was so low that most countries figured out that delivering a certain amount of bombs before one got shot down cost substantially less than losing a larger fighter bomber and this is probably why it was rarely (most likely never) used in the role it had a substantial advantage.

The israeli air force fitted them with two 30mm cannons.

At 860 grand each, the admirals had no qualms throwing them into harm's way loaded down with bombs but they forgot to figure in the investment into the man flying it.

Senator McCain tightroped down the refueling probe of one and jumped in order to clear the pooled and burning fuel under his on a carrier deck.

[No9Squadron]

Didn't Argentina sink half the Royal Navy with these. A-4s and Mirages accounted for 17 ships, sunk or damaged I think.

[Widewing]

Latest version in Argentine service.....

[EskimoJoe]

Latest version in Argentine service.....

(Image removed from quote.)

Look at that back muscle!

[Mace2004]

Yes, a very fun plane to fly.  I got to fly it in the Training Command and at USNTPS.  TOPGUN and VF-126 had the "Super Fox" which was a stripped A-4F with a bigger engine.  It was probably the most "agile" fighter the Navy has ever had and could be a real little bxxxxxd to fight.  You'd look at it and it would be a hard left turn and you think you've got him, do a 1/2 second check-6 and when you look back he's in a hard right turn and looking like he's been doing it all along and you're screwed.

It's so small that you seem to "put it on" rather than get in it yet it could carry a nuke.  As a matter of fact, the cockpit was so small that the instrument panel had crescent shaped cutouts in the bottom so you could get your legs in and out.  There were several guys I know that were told they were too big for the plane and were warned that if they had to eject they might lose their kneecaps and as tight as it was I didn't doubt it.  One guy I knew had to turn sideways to get the canopy down and then turn back forward wedging his shoulders between the canopy rails.

BTW, the 720degree per second roll rate is a myth, it's actually 270 which, if you've ever done a full deflection aileron roll, is still pretty darn quick.

Edit: Forgot to mention that it was designed by Ed Heinemann (it was called Heinemann's Hotrod or Scooter).  So, Heinemann designed both the smallest US Navy jet to operate from a carrier and also the largest (he also designed the A-3D Skywarrior).  He was as brilliant of a designer as Kelly Johnson but much less well known.

[icepac]

I'm curious at how you say the the roll rate is 270 degrees per second when I have personally seen it quite a bit over 360 degrees per second as flown by the blue angels.

Are you talking about how long it takes to go from level flight to a complete roll or after one or more turns?

It may not actually fully be 720 but it's surely faster than 360 degrees per second.

My dad flew them in 1969 for the first top gun class and I would have thought he would have hipped me to thier roll rate if it were truly 270 degrees per second.

[Widewing]

I'm curious at how you say the the roll rate is 270 degrees per second when I have personally seen it quite a bit over 360 degrees per second as flown by the blue angels.

Are you talking about how long it takes to go from level flight to a complete roll or after one or more turns?

It may not actually fully be 720 but it's surely faster than 360 degrees per second.

My dad flew them in 1969 for the first top gun class and I would have thought he would have hipped me to thier roll rate if it were truly 270 degrees per second.

There's nothing in the NATOPS that refers to 720° per second. There's notes about "greater than 200°" per second and a note not to exceed two consecutive rolls of 360°. Perhaps, someone saw 360 x 2 and concluded this meant 720°.

[Mace2004]

NATOPS was probably eventually corrected (apparently by simply avoiding a specific number at all) but, having read it in there myself in 1981 and 1987 it actually did say 720.  The Blue Angels loved such a spectacular number and spread the myth to hundreds of thousands of spectators and future Naval Aviators (even though I can absolutelyguarandamnteeyou that they never actually measured it).  Since I heard it at every airshow I ever saw the Blues fly the Super Fox I can only assume the error goes at least all the way back to 1974 when they first started flying the plane. Yes, even TOPGUN claimed it was 720 but they were wrong.

This error wasn't well known in the fleet nor was it even questioned.  I mean, it's NATOPS for crying out loud and test pilots come up with these numbers!  Of course, test pilots don't actually type the NATOPS themselves.  The typo was very well known at USNTPS since roll-rate is a standard part of flight test and we just happened to have a bunch of A-4's to practice on.  Having measured it myself, even 270 is a very generous number as it's actually pretty hard to get it into the 250-260 range.  I never got it to 270 and that's with a slick plane and using both hands to slam the stick all the way to the side as hard as I could, not exactly the way a plane is really flown.  Realistically speaking, it's best roll rate is actually about 220 to 240 with a pair of Sidewinders and 200-220 with pylons and drops.  While no plane can get anywhere close to 720dps the A-4 still has a very good roll rate compared to other planes like the F-16 which tops out at about 220dps while the F-14 was lucky to get to about 180dps.

Really though, just stop and think for a moment about how fast a 720 degree per second roll would be.  That's two complete aileron rolls in 1 sec!  That's insane and it would look like what you see in the movies when directors try to make aircraft look more exciting by speeding the film up to cartoon like speeds with fighters zipping here and there.

[Gman]

As soon as I read that 720 dps in the first post, I hit google trying to get video of the A4 doing it.  Then I decided to read the rest of the thread.

I've seen R/C planes that do 720, and trying to imagine a full sized fighter doing that....it's absolutely insane how fast that is, it's almost too fast to track what's going on with a model airplane.

I didn't know that the A4 the Navy used as an aggressor had a different engine.  How did it accelerate compared to say something like an early F16 or even the F14 and F15 back then?  I'm just asking in terms of what it was like during visual range fights.  The A4 has always been a fascinating aircraft, such an adaptable little plane, yet not even a true supersonic fighter.  The Israeli and Argentine use as mentioned is always interesting reading, I've read about some Israeli pilots that were killing AFV's with the 30mm and coming back with multiple kills every sortie.  

During the Falklands nearly 20 were destroyed by a2a or SAM/AAA fire.  I guess that sounds like a lot, but then considering that more than 20 British ships were damaged or destroyed by air attacks from A4's and other fighters, cost wise it was probably a very good value in terms of the damage dealt.

Great link OP, I enjoyed reading that, some good pics as well.  Nice pic from WW of that current Arggie A4 as well.

[bcadoo]

As soon as I read that 720 dps in the first post, I hit google trying to get video of the A4 doing it.  Then I decided to read the rest of the thread.

I've seen R/C planes that do 720, and trying to imagine a full sized fighter doing that....it's absolutely insane how fast that is, it's almost too fast to track what's going on with a model airplane.

I didn't know that the A4 the Navy used as an aggressor had a different engine.  How did it accelerate compared to say something like an early F16 or even the F14 and F15 back then?  I'm just asking in terms of what it was like during visual range fights.  The A4 has always been a fascinating aircraft, such an adaptable little plane, yet not even a true supersonic fighter.  The Israeli and Argentine use as mentioned is always interesting reading, I've read about some Israeli pilots that were killing AFV's with the 30mm and coming back with multiple kills every sortie.  

During the Falklands nearly 20 were destroyed by a2a or SAM/AAA fire.  I guess that sounds like a lot, but then considering that more than 20 British ships were damaged or destroyed by air attacks from A4's and other fighters, cost wise it was probably a very good value in terms of the damage dealt.

Great link OP, I enjoyed reading that, some good pics as well.  Nice pic from WW of that current Arggie A4 as well.

This photo was taken from aboard a British ship being attacked by the Argentines.  Note that the Skyhawk on the right is below the horizon!

[bozon]

Ahhh the little A-4 Skyhawk, one of my all time favorites. Now this is a plane built right - no BS, no over-spec, if it is not required it is not built into the plane. That is the exact opposite of what the F-35 is trying to do.

This little cutie was the first American jet in the Israeli airforce and gave an excellent service in three wars - it is still in service by the way! though will be retired soon. It even got some mig kills, including one using a salvo of air2ground rockets on a Mig-17 in a tail chase. Nasty little bugger in a multi-plane dogfight - in mock dogfights they rarely get kills on F16/15s (the latter just lose them in the vertical when in trouble) but they are very difficult to bring down when the distances are closed to a knife fight. Pilots keep losing eye contact with them, to the point that is it often difficult for them to regroup their own formation - having no radar, they keep passing by each other, not making visual, turn, try again...

This plane has been in service in the IAF since 1970. That is over 40 years! pretty darn incredible. If one normalize its service to its cost, this must have been one of the most cost-effective piece of equipment since the pointy stick.

[Zoney]

this must have been one of the most cost-effective piece of equipment since the pointy stick.

Nothing will ever beat the rock, no sharpening required, just pick it up and throw it!