avatar_upnorth

A-7 Corsair and F-8 Crusader

Started by upnorth, November 01, 2005, 02:28:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ysi_maniac

Will die without understanding this world.

glorious.tachikoma

Quote from: Weaver on April 20, 2013, 11:58:59 AM

The "gun issue" on the F-8 was actually an ammo-feed issue caused by the fact that the ammo cans were at the top of the fuselage behind the cockpit, with the the belts feeding down long, thin channels to the guns mounted low on the sides. G-forces caused the ammo belts to "ruck up" inside the channels and jam. This means that simply swapping the cannons for another type wouldn't solve the problem unless you radically re-designed the whole ammo system as well. They solved it in the A-7D by fitting a Vulcan, whose powered, linkless ammo feed could take the Gs.

The F-8 originally had a retractable rocket pack on the lower fuselage, which was first locked shut and then replaced with an extra fuel tank. I wonder if it might be worthwhile putting the gun ammo in that space instead and having the extra fuel behind the cockpit instead. The ammo runs still wouldn't be perfect, but they'd be shorter.

The F-4's radar is WAY bigger than the F-8's in both diameter and volume: I don't see any way to fit it, unless you use the same electronics with a severely cut down aerial, but what would be the point of that?

I discovered today the Crusader's rocket bay. This gave me such a good idea. I have an alternate reality that involves a fictional African nation having bought a squadron of F-4E's to defend themselves against Sudan in 1971. By 1972, they want something just as fast but more maneuverable.

So, we know that LTV was drafting a competitor to the F-5E, the V-1000, but never got off paper because the F-5E was the winner by default because Northrop put the seed of the role it filled in the USAF's head to begin with. (Said as someone who loves the F-5E)

But, this was basically a stripped down F-8E. What would this have entailed?
-Being an export/land based aircraft, the variable incidence wing would have been deleted. (probably at least a full ton's worth of metal that can be cut out of the design. Additionally, getting rid of the moving wing means that some of the stall characteristics of the wing can be fixed. A smooth, blended leading-edge root extension probably goes a long way to making it more maneuverable.)
-It would have used the J79 instead of the J57. There's another 1200lb gone right there, and probably better fuel consumption. The J79 is also like...a full meter shorter so you could make the aircraft shorter, taper up the tail a bit more sharply, and get rid of the need for the variable incidence wing to begin with too.

Additionally, this happened after the A-7D prototypes flew. This happened after LTV had already replaced two Mk12s with one M61, and that involved over one thousand rounds onboard. Keeping the ammo capacity the same, I'm willing to bet such a conversion on the F-8 would have saved at least 300lb and made for a much more reliable cannon.

So already we have a version of the F-8 that is at least two tons lighter, is more reliable with fewer moving parts. Lets add some of those moving parts back in.

The rocket bay.
Now, it was deleted for a good reason, but the point is that LTV designed the fuselage to be opened-up in that area. And while it wasn't a terribly long bay, it looks like you could fit Sidewinders in there...hmmmmmm. And don't worry about missing fuel, with the variable incidence wing gone, there's plenty of room to more than make-up for the slightly smaller primary fuel cell.

As soon as I find a 1:48 'Gawa F-8E, I'm going to start investigating this.

Zero-Sen

#182


NARSES2

Decals my @r$e!

Old Wombat

AV-8 Harrier-ish cockpit/nose + A-6 Intruder-ish intakes + A-7 Corsair fuselage = One neat looking aircraft! :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:
Has a life outside of What-If & wishes it would stop interfering!

"The purpose of all War is Peace" - St. Augustine

veritas ad mortus veritas est

Captain Canada

Where has this thread been all my life ? Love both of these machines ! The A-7U looks great. I think an A-4 would look good ( and very similar ) as well. Now i've got to go and learn more about the A.7F.

Must resist pulling A-7s out of the stash........must resist pulling A-7s out of the stash......
CANADA KICKS arse !!!!

Long Live the Commonwealth !!!
Vive les Canadiens !
Where's my beer ?

NARSES2

Quote from: Captain Canada on November 05, 2022, 04:49:54 AMMust resist pulling A-7s out of the stash........must resist pulling A-7s out of the stash......

You might as well do it straight away rather than wait, because you know you'll give in in the end  :wacko:
Decals my @r$e!