Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:50 am

Why did the A-4 have such a TINY cockpit? It was the most cramped, tiny cockpit known to man, and since it was used as a trainer it set all sorts of leg-length and height restrictions on Navy pilots for decades...

Andrea Kent
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:39 am

Ed Heinemannm set out to design the smallest airframe possible without folding wings around the J65 to accomplish the mission. Its really as simple as that. The fact that it survived in active service as long as it did and was tasked with as many missions as it was, is proof that his design as as efficient a design as could be, particularly at that time of slide rules and engineering judgement
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:42 am

Don't know about the cockpit, but the canopy was enlarged on the later versions (A-4M and up).


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:09 am

It also seemed to have a reputation for punishing ejections, although I do know at least one person who has ejected from one with no apparent ill effects.

There was a story that a pilot once had his Mae West inflate in the cockpit and it pinned both arms against the sidewalls leaving him unable to reach the controls including the black-and-yellow ones. After that, I'm told, they installed a spring-covered pin on the sidewalls to deflate the vest should this happen again. Anyone know more about that?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:34 am

I'm still quite amazed they couldn't have increased the cockpit size a little. I mean the TA-45 Goshawk managed to do just fine and was around the same size right?

Andrea Kent
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:53 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 4):
I'm still quite amazed they couldn't have increased the cockpit size a little. I mean the TA-45 Goshawk managed to do just fine and was around the same size right?

The Hawk wasn't developed in the 50's (people were a little smaller back then  Wink ).

But seriously, if it was an important enough issue they would have made the cockpit bigger (by making the fuselage slightly wider, at the expense of weight and drag penalties on an aircraft that never suffered from a significant excess of power or endurance to begin with). But clearly it wasn't.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:07 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 5):

The Hawk wasn't developed in the 50's (people were a little smaller back then Wink ).

Not to mention that fighter pilots aren't generally big people! I know I've felt stuffed in every fighter cockpit I ever sat in! (6'3")
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:28 pm

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 6):
Not to mention that fighter pilots aren't generally big people!

 rotfl 

There was a John Glenn space suit prominently displayed in the Smithsonian Air & Space museum. It is obviously custom tailored for someone slightly larger than a Ken doll, like maybe 5'4" and 130 lbs. Apparently the docents had been asked many times just how small a guy John Glenn is. There was a placard explaining that the suit is on a small manikin so as not to stretch it.

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 

I'd always heard that medieval armor will surprise this generation because the warriors of four hundred years ago - presumably the larger men of the time - were all very petite by today's standards. So the first suit I ever see in Europe is one belonging to who? Henry VIII. The guy was pretty big and it did not look like all fat either. So maybe one day, three hundred years hence the museum staff will be explaining that even though we were the warriors of our time we rarely were more than 6'4" and they will be telling this to astonished seven foot tall 5th graders.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:06 pm

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 6):
Not to mention that fighter pilots aren't generally big people!

Like many youngsters I had dreams of becoming a fighter pilot, a few things got in the way (likely lack of commitment on my part was a big factor).
The RAAF frontline fighter at that time was the Mirage III-C, many years later I found that would not have been an option anyway.
I sat in one and with the assistance of the museum staff we moved the seat and made all possible adjustments, at just over 6ft there is no possible seating position that would have enabled an ejection without the bottom inst. panel crossmember neatly machining about 3 inches off each knee.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:41 pm

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 6):
Not to mention that fighter pilots aren't generally big people!

The heart doesn't have to pump blood as far to reach the brain with short people. So the general rule the short you are the better you can handle high G conditions.


And is one of the reasons they are saying now that women are better built to be fighter pilots......sudder
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:42 am

Sounds great, I'm a woman -- but I'm between 6-2 and 6-3... :O

Andrea Kent
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:05 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 10):
Sounds great, I'm a woman -- but I'm between 6-2 and 6-3... :O

Really? I thought you were a lot closer to like 6'10 - 6'11?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:47 am

When did the Navy start using the A-4 Skyhawk as a military trainer?

Andrea Kent
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:19 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 3):
Anyone know more about that?

Never heard the story and no TA-4J had "pins" in the cockpit. While a "tight" fit, the cockpit was very comfortable once I got seated and the canopy closed. 6'0" 180lbs at the time. Not cramped at all. Getting in/out was a little tight.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:16 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 12):
When did the Navy start using the A-4 Skyhawk as a military trainer?

When one says "trainer" in connection with this aircraft you shouldn't think in terms of T-34 substitute. It's not like you'd have had your first solo in a TA-4F. That said, let me add:

1. First flight of a TA-4E on 30 June 1965. (Hey! I was still a civilian!) It was soon redesignated TA-4F.
2. First deployment of TA-4F on 01 May 1966.
3. These forums are a poor substitute for Google proficiency.

Most single seaters had a T-version added to the lineup. The F-102 had a two seater (TF-102A) with side-by-side seating, sometimes called a "tub" where the TF-106 with, essentially the same fuselage, used fore-and-aft two seaters.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:33 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
When one says "trainer" in connection with this aircraft you shouldn't think in terms of T-34 substitute. It's not like you'd have had your first solo in a TA-4F.

Although it wasn't practiced, it wouldn't have been too much of a stretch. In Soviet flight academies the trainees' first plane was the L-29 or L-39. The A-4 can't be that much harder to survive.  Wink


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:58 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 15):
The A-4 can't be that much harder to survive.

Right. There was a generation of USAF pilots who had their first solo in a T-37 which is actually two-engined (or almost two)

A guy with forty hours of C-152 time would probably be freaked at the idea of soloing a jet that towers over their plane as the A-4 does. But I don't think military student pilots were much bothered by that.

Quoting LY744 (Reply 15):
L-39.

Operationally a very simple airplane. Flying characteristics must be pretty docile. It is almost straight-wing. If I were taking a guy from Cessnoids to L-39 I'd expect that my biggest challenge would be impressing upon them the spoolup time and that a little throttle slightly before you need it is way better than a whole lot of it five seconds after you need it.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:04 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16):
Operationally a very simple airplane. Flying characteristics must be pretty docile. It is almost straight-wing.

Sounds exactly like the A-4 doesn't it. Big grin

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16):
Right. There was a generation of USAF pilots who had their first solo in a T-37 which is actually two-engined (or almost two)

A guy with forty hours of C-152 time would probably be freaked at the idea of soloing a jet that towers over their plane as the A-4 does.

Right on. I was still impressed when I found out that Soviet trainees had zero time in props (or jet-powered lawnmowers), but apparently it works, and even makes sense. Why bother teaching somebody how to drive a prop and then spending a few hours transitioning to a jet, if he's destined to fly jets to begin with.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:22 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 17):
Why bother teaching somebody how to drive a prop and then spending a few hours transitioning to a jet, if he's destined to fly jets to begin with.

I knew a few ex-USAF guys at the airlines who did not have a single engine pilot license. They never flew civil before or after the USAF. They soloed in a T-37, went on to the T-38 and from there to F-4 or B-52, or KC-135 - manymotors all. So when they took their MilComp exam to get a commercial ticket they were written for whatever current qualifications they held - typically airlplane multiengine land with instrument. From there they went on to the airline and never cared to fly itty bitties.

If you spend too much time in very small airplanes, like C-152 you develop a frame of reference based on it, that can make transisition to larger planes challenging, even less than successful.

Early in my career I noticed that as I began to feel at home in a new, larger airplane, it started to feel slower, smaller, lighter and more maneuverable. I can recall being a little nervous about descending into a mountain valley with one airplane. When I got on the ground I could barely see the surrounding hills from the airport! With a bit of time, that plane too shrunk on me. I'd consider the A-4 a "scooter" now. But then, who doesn't?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:07 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 18):
I'd consider the A-4 a "scooter" now. But then, who doesn't?

Then it's settled. Who's pitching in for a jointly owned Airliners.net TA-4???

You photoshoppers out there, get cracking on some colourschemes (ask GDB in the Red Arrows thread if you need ideas).  Wink


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:30 pm

Who was Ed Heinemann, and why was he motivated to make the design as small as possible? The specifications called for a design almost twice the weight they delivered?

How big was the first A-4 Skyhawks, and how large were the later models?

Why didn't the Navy just use a modified T-38 talon? It had supersonic performance and decent performance. Plus with the F-5's more powerful engines, a modified undercarriage, and perhaps a slight flap mod it would have worked.


Andrea Kent
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:46 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):

Are you absolutely sure you're not Wardialer??? Sometimes you sound A LOT like him.

Anyway, a lot of your questions - just like many of Wardialer's - could be answered by a little detective work, on your part. Hell, simply googling many of your questions would give you a quicker answer.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):
Who was Ed Heinemann

A famous aircraft designer.

He designed aircraft like the SBD Dauntless, A-1 Skyraider, A-4 Skyhawk and 17 other aircraft. He also helped with the F-16 design.

...Like I said, if you want more information, go to the freakin' library, or google.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):
why was he motivated to make the design as small as possible?

Because simplicity in design was important. The point of the design was to avoid creating an overly complex, and costly aircraft. If you look at many of his designs, simplicity and efficiency were very important. No reason to expect the A-4 would have been any different.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):
How big was the first A-4 Skyhawks, and how large were the later models?

Seriously... a simple book on US naval aviation would answer this question.

The early A-4s weighed about 10,000lbs empty, and 18,000lbs fully loaded. The empty weight of the Super Skyhawk wasn't much bigger, but it's max gross was near 22,000lbs. Even though wing area, height and length were not altered.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):
Why didn't the Navy just use a modified T-38 talon? It had supersonic performance and decent performance. Plus with the F-5's more powerful engines, a modified undercarriage, and perhaps a slight flap mod it would have worked.

Is this a totally different question, or are you asking why they didn't use the T-38/F-5 in lieu of the A-4? Because if that's what you're asking, the answer is simple: the T38 was not submitted as a contender to replace the Navy's A-1s. Thus never competed against the A-4.

But if you are asking why the Navy never bought the T-38/F-5, and the question has nothing to do with the A-4... aren't you derailing your own thread?

-----------------------

But seriously Blackbird, ever heard of online open source websites?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:20 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):
Why didn't the Navy just use a modified T-38 talon?

Probably because the A-4 came about almost a decade before the Talon.

But even more importantly, the A-4 was designed to be operated from aircraft carriers, which is the answer to the bulk of your questions.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:58 am

UH60FtRucker

I honestly don't even know who wardialer is, although I've heard him/her mentioned many times and often compared to me.


BTW: Why did they chose the J-65 engine for the design? Or was that a Navy specification to begin with?
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:04 am

Also, I heard something I just read about that the landing gear doesn't "penetrate the main spar" or something and the landing gear leg is buried in a fairing.

What does the fairing look like as I've never seen it, and if I recall, wings generally have two spars, so why would the main leg penetrate?

Andrea Kent
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:28 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 23):
Why did they chose the J-65 engine for the design?

It's complicated. But here you go:

JFK was a boardmember of General Electric, and so was his good friend - Robert McNamarra. Both of them belonged to the "skull and bones" society. Through this group, they became good friends with another Skull and Bones man.... Ralph Cordiner.

Ralph was the CEO of GE. At the time, GE was suffering from a lack of jet engine sales, and desperately needed to sell their J-65 engine. However, Ed Heinemann - the designer of the A-4 - did not like the J-65 engine and refused to use it.

So the three friends were able to strong arm Ed. They had J. Edgar Hoover fabricate documents showing Ed was a Soviet spy and also potentially mentally retarded. Can you imagine what would happen to his image, if it became publicly known that the designer of such aircraft as the A-1 and A-20 was a retarded, Soviet spy?? So he caved, and accepted the J-65 engine.

ALSO... in 1998, through the Freedom of Information Act, declassified documents showed that the J-65 engine had something very special in its design... that no other engine had at the time. JFK was able to pass onto GE a secret piece of equipment that had been taken off the alien aircraft that crashed in New Mexico. This gave the engine supernatural powers, such as the ability to employ a "cloaking device." In fact, an entire fleet of A-4s still fly in the USN, today.... yet they are under cloak.

Lastly, the FBI also believes that Ed Heinemann, angered at the strong arm tactics of JFK... was actually the second shooter on the grassy knoll, in Dallas.

--------------------------------

Fascinating stuff. I assure you all of that information is collaborated by independent sources. Feel free to use it for your school papers.... or when you're simply standing in a circle of aviation enthusiasts, conversing!

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:57 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 25):
Fascinating stuff. I assure you all of that information is collaborated by independent sources. Feel free to use it for your school papers.... or when you're simply standing in a circle of aviation enthusiasts, conversing!

-UH60

Any comment on that rumor that keeps going around that both Ed and Kelly Johnson where members of a secret sect of gay aircraft designers.......which is where the cockpit got it's name.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:19 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 10):
Sounds great, I'm a woman -- but I'm between 6-2 and 6-3... :O

Bit tall for the fighters I'd say! Well, there's always the larger transports. I'm 6'7" and the Airbus is a very comfy fit Big grin
Maybe if the USAF would buy the KC330....
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
deskflier
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:59 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:50 pm

Quoting LY744 (Reply 5):
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 4):
I'm still quite amazed they couldn't have increased the cockpit size a little. I mean the TA-45 Goshawk managed to do just fine and was around the same size right?

The Hawk wasn't developed in the 50's (people were a little smaller back then ).

I once read an article by a guy who had been employed by Hawker Siddeley, starting when they were busy building the Gnat Trainer and leaving just after they presented the Hawk. He wrote that if he or any of the other guys working with the Gnat had been tasked with designing the new trainer, it would have been a cramped, lightweight, fighter-like plane. Kind of a modernised Gnat Trainer. But that would have made it impossible to install the CRT-displays used in the T-45 Goshawk version of the Hawk.
How can anyone not fly, when we live at a time when we can fly?
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:34 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 25):
It's complicated. But here you go

It made me laugh...thanx
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:14 am

Seriously, why the J-65 as an engine choice?

Andrea Kent
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:20 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 30):
Seriously, why the J-65 as an engine choice?

Why not? What's wrong with it? What prompts the question?

Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:25 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 30):
Seriously, why the J-65 as an engine choice?

Andrea Kent

Honestly, Blackbird, you need to start doing some of your own leg work.

The vast majority of your questions could simply be answered by using the endless open source websites and books, at your disposal. And the best part of that, not only will you get answers to your specific questions, you'll learn all kinds of cool information you hadn't even thought about.

Do some research!!!!!

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:34 am

I doubt I'd find anything if I searched "Why did Douglas Select the J-65 for A-4"

Andrea Kent
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:00 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 33):
I doubt I'd find anything if I searched "Why did Douglas Select the J-65 for A-4"

Andrea Kent

Well no shit, of course you won't.

You actually have to use your brain, and go a little deeper. Christ, it's not that hard. How do you think I answered all of your questions in reply #21? I used the freakin' internet, and a book I have on Naval aviation.

Asking questions is cool, but come'on... the vast majority of your questions could be easily answered by you taking 5 minutes to do some research.

Are you really 21-25??

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:17 am

-UH60,

I sort of understand your point. Still I figured you guys would be more qualified in terms of being able to answer the questions.

In regards to my age, I've been 25 since August 26
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sun Sep 09, 2007 6:34 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 34):
the vast majority of your questions could be easily answered by you taking 5 minutes to do some research.

He's right, Andrea.

The question 'Why did Douglas Select the J-65 for A-4' may not be a bad one for here, but in order to gain people's interest, you really need to explain why you apparently think it was a bad/strange choice, not just blurt a question.

Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:30 am

Why did the later A-4's have much longer, pointier noses than the earlier models?

Andrea Kent
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:45 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 37):
Why did the later A-4's have much longer, pointier noses than the earlier models?

To make room for some new kit no doubt.

Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:37 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 25):
It's complicated. But here you go:

JFK was a boardmember of General Electric, and so was his good friend - Robert McNamarra. Both of them belonged to the "skull and bones" society. Through this group, they became good friends with another Skull and Bones man.... Ralph Cordiner.

Ralph was the CEO of GE. At the time, GE was suffering from a lack of jet engine sales, and desperately needed to sell their J-65 engine. However, Ed Heinemann - the designer of the A-4 - did not like the J-65 engine and refused to use it.

So the three friends were able to strong arm Ed. They had J. Edgar Hoover fabricate documents showing Ed was a Soviet spy and also potentially mentally retarded. Can you imagine what would happen to his image, if it became publicly known that the designer of such aircraft as the A-1 and A-20 was a retarded, Soviet spy?? So he caved, and accepted the J-65 engine.

ALSO... in 1998, through the Freedom of Information Act, declassified documents showed that the J-65 engine had something very special in its design... that no other engine had at the time. JFK was able to pass onto GE a secret piece of equipment that had been taken off the alien aircraft that crashed in New Mexico. This gave the engine supernatural powers, such as the ability to employ a "cloaking device." In fact, an entire fleet of A-4s still fly in the USN, today.... yet they are under cloak.

Lastly, the FBI also believes that Ed Heinemann, angered at the strong arm tactics of JFK... was actually the second shooter on the grassy knoll, in Dallas.

Deary me that made me laugh - thanks fella.  Smile
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:47 am

How much thrust was the J-65 producing by the time the first A-4 flew? And was the J-52 available when the A-4 first flew? I know the J-52 was used later.

Also... this is pretty much directly related to the A-4, not powerplant... why did some models have that gigantic boxy bulge just behind the cockpit?


Andrea Kent
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:11 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 40):
How much thrust was the J-65 producing by the time the first A-4 flew?

Roughly 200 lbs... but if you turned off the air conditioner, you super charged the little f*cker to 300lbs.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 40):
And was the J-52 available when the A-4 first flew?

I don't know Blackbird... lets see...

Go to www.google.com and type in J-52 engine. Click some of the links and read about the engine. I bet you $100 it will tell you when the engine became available!

And then, go back to google and type in A-4 Skyhawk. Read about it. I bet you another $100 it will tell you when the A-4 first flew.

...then compare those two dates, and OH MY GOD! You got your answer!!!!!! WHOA!

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 40):
Also... this is pretty much directly related to the A-4, not powerplant... why did some models have that gigantic boxy bulge just behind the cockpit?

Again... this has widely been discussed. AND it's also talked about on the plethora of websites that detail the history of the A-4.

Sorry, but I think you need to start doing some of your own leg work.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:25 am

Ptrjong,

Really? I would have thought it would have been some kind of aerodynamic improvement.


UH60FtRucker,

You must be joking about the thrust levels the J-65 can produce -- sure it may have not bee the most powerful engine in the world, but I've been seeing figures in regards to the later engines being around 11,000 lbf. However, the earlier models I'm not entirely sure!

Regarding the J-52, I have been looking around for the actual date the engine was conceptualized, built, tested, and entered service. I could obviously conclude it WAS in service by the time the later A-4 models which utilized the J-52 came around... but I'm not sure when it first became available.

I know some of you think I don't do any research, but I do sometimes ya know  Wink

Andrea Kent

[Edited 2007-09-14 21:29:48]
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:06 am

The [A4D-5's] nose was lengthened by 14 inches to accommodate an AN/ASN-19A navigation computer.

This is from Joe Baugher's exellent website which tells you everyting about the A-4:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/newa4.html

The Wikipedia entry is also quite good, explaining the virtues of a small aircraft.

Peter Smile
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:19 am

Ptrjong,

When was the AN/ASN-19A navigation computer developed?

Yes I know what the AN/ASG-19A includes -- New equipment installed included TACAN, Doppler navigation, Mk 9 toss bombing system, radio altimeter, and the AJB-3A low-altitude bombing system.

Regarding the site that you showed me, it said Heinemann's initial design proposal he submitted to the Navy indicated a weight of 7,000 lbs. I got a question regarding this, it's actually a little off topic... did Heinemann have to clear the design with Douglas before submitting it to the US Navy? Or could he have submitted it directly?

How did that process typically work?


Just curious,

Andrea Kent
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:32 am

Oh, does anybody have some decent 3-View's of the A-4E or F and TA-4E or TA-4F?

Andrea Kent
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size

Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:10 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 44):
Did Heinemann have to clear the design with Douglas before submitting it to the US Navy?

Andrea, I wonder what your thoughts are behind all these questions... That the A-4 was a really bad design or what?
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests