Douglas A-4 Skyhawk Ideas and Inspiration

[elmayerle]

Odd thought for the A-4, reduce the leading edge sweep on the outboard portions of the wing (much as the Chinese did on later J-7/MiG-21 variants) and mount launchers for IRAAMs (Sidewinders or equivalent) on the wingtips, freeing up under-wing hard points for more offensive stores.

[M.A.D]

Speaking of twin engines:

It's a beautiful looking aircraft/model Greg!!😮
I'd be the first to admit, I do prefer an attack aircraft having two engines for redundancy.......and never thought of a Skyhawk being so equipped!!


M.A.D

[kitnut617]

Hmm! let me see now ---- there's a 1/100 scale A-10 available ----  hmm --- EDIT:  no maybe not --- I've got a 1/100 Global Express close by and I just did a comparison with the A-4 in my cabinet. I think that a 1/100 A-10 engines would be too big still. 1/144 though ----

[Kerick]

Engines off some biz jet might work. Maybe that Honda jet. Those engines are tiny.

[GTX_Admin]

Hmm! let me see now ---- there's a 1/100 scale A-10 available ----  hmm --- EDIT:  no maybe not --- I've got a 1/100 Global Express close by and I just did a comparison with the A-4 in my cabinet. I think that a 1/100 A-10 engines would be too big still. 1/144 though ----

Depending on which version of the Global Express was involved, a pair of nacelles/engines from a 1/100 one might be a close match for 1/48 F124s or RR Adours on a A-4.  Likewise, a 1/100 pair of TF-34s from an A-10 might also translate roughly into the right size to be 1/48 engines.

[GTX_Admin]

Engines off some biz jet might work. Maybe that Honda jet. Those engines are tiny.

Yeah...tiny on thrust as well.

[kitnut617]

Hmm! let me see now ---- there's a 1/100 scale A-10 available ----  hmm --- EDIT:  no maybe not --- I've got a 1/100 Global Express close by and I just did a comparison with the A-4 in my cabinet. I think that a 1/100 A-10 engines would be too big still. 1/144 though ----

Depending on which version of the Global Express was involved, a pair of nacelles/engines from a 1/100 one might be a close match for 1/48 F124s or RR Adours on a A-4.  Likewise, a 1/100 pair of TF-34s from an A-10 might also translate roughly into the right size to be 1/48 engines.

Not sure on which Global Express the model is based on, but it's a genuine Bombardier snap-together desktop kit. 
But all that nice info doesn't work for me though, I do 1/72 scale.  Mind you, the S-3 Viking had TF-34s too ---- 

I think a couple of nacelles from a 1/72 Hawker Domini might be better for a 1/72 kit bash.

[tankmodeler]

For twin engines without the rear CG issues, possibly a wing root twin layout like the Javelin or CF-100 Canuck?

A pair of PW-308s in the roots in big-ish nacelles with the jet pipe exiting just behind the trailing edge and the intake just ahead of the leading edge to alleviate any high AoA issues. High bypass may trade a titch of speed for a lot more range based on a lower cruise TSFC and using the central fuselage for new tankage. About 20% more thrust and the ability to curve the inlets to hide the fan face from radars (and also even out inlet flow) would also lower the RCS a modest amount.

[dy031101]

Anti-shiiping Skyhawk......

Taking some of this, one could potentially have a scenario such as this based around a different A-4AR Fightinghawk......

Potential centreline hardpoint ordnance:

[GTX_Admin]

Definitely.  Or the Hsiung Feng-3 if it will fit.

[dy031101]

Definitely.  Or the Hsiung Feng-3 if it will fit.

I'm a bit skeptical about the existence of an air-launched HF-3 paper project.  The HF-3 is nowhere near Moskit-level big but is still quite a bit bigger than the HF-2.

[The Big Gimper]

Stumbled upon this page. The AQM-37 photo is from here on page 3.

The Airfix Tribute Forum:  Airfix 1/72 Douglas A4B/4P Skyhawk (A03029)

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/airfixtributeforum/airfix-1-72-douglas-a4b-4p-skyhawk-a03029-t47356.html?sid=21b9b0d4f2e48f1a6e4d20ff0324f7e6

[FAAMAN]

That's my accuracy thread for the Airfix A-4B Skyhawk Big Gimper!!!!

[GTX_Admin]

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I wonder how much of a weight and balance issue would be created by installing an F-18 windscreen and canopy along with the installation of a 20mm (M197) Three-Barrel Gatling Gun in the nose?  Have the gun mounted the same location and attitude as the Vulcan in the F-18 to fire over the top of the nose.  Yeah, it might not be practical but it would make for an interesting what-if.  Of course, it goes without saying that with the new nose mounted gun that the wing root cannon features would be removed. 

[GTX_Admin]

Not sure about that sort of more radical surgery but there was this option to get more firepower in the 20mm range:  the Mk 4 HIPEG gun pod with twin 20mm cannon and 750 rounds of ammunition (for comparison, the standard A-4 20mm cannon only had 100 rounds/gun):







And BTW, one can get the Mk 4 HIPEG gun pod in these sets:




and in 1/32, there is this resin one from AMS Resin:



Put 3 pods on the Skyhawk and you have a pocket gunslinger!  Or perhaps that should be "pocket battleship" ?

[GTX_Admin]

Of course, for another whiff, there is this from he who shall not be named:

[Jeffry Fontaine]

"He who shall not be named" LolololololololoZ
I have not seen his handiwork in quite a while. 

Would love to see him together in a cage match with several other opinionated wankers that shall also not be named.   All of them armed with box cutters, I would pay to watch that!

Have plenty of the HIPEG bits from the Hasegawa weapons kits and they are quite the plinking weapon/range toy. 

[FAAMAN]

I like the A-4 model in greys although I'd not like to be the pilot with the canopy open whilst airborne as the air tear off initiation of the ejection seat would surely follow and "out you go!!" 

An A-4 of any marque would have some serious structural and stability issues if you attempted to mount an M-61 cannon ala F-18 in the front. For starters there would be nowhere to mount the displaced  avionics. There is VERY little room in an A-4 as it is and being so physically small an airframe you'd need one large dorsal avionics hump to accommodate all the displaced items trying not to seriously affect drag. Not to mention that the nose wheel when retracted is just ahead of the pilot's feet within an inch or so of the forward pressure bulkhead. that the avionics nose attaches to. Then you'd have to worry about the CofG being seriously compromised by the weight of the gun and it's ammo magazine. The horizontal tail in it's standard form (nearly identical in every A-4 apart form mod states) would not have enough control authority to overcome the "heavy" nose trim for normal flight so it would need to be enlarged in surface area/span.

The US Army trialed a pair of A-4C's (and Fiat G-91's) for rough field close air support missions with dual main wheels retracting into fairings where there would normally be the main gear doors.

That's a cool OA-4M model and an interesting concept but just no way could an A-4 with that weight taxi "rough field" with single mains, it would just simply sink into the ground. Why the US Army trials aircraft had dual main wheels. I'm not sure if I should've commented on this though, due to the comments from GTX and Jeffry Fontaine, I do hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes

An A-4 strafer would be VERY interesting, although it would seriously deplete an A-4's range as she'd only have her 5200lbs of internal fuel in a single seater or 4200lbs in a T-bird. Would need tanker support to stay on task for any length of time.
The following stores load could be fitted to any A-4 with 5 external stations. So late mod A-4B's on . . . . .
The pod could only be carried on three stations, 2, 4 & 5 due to weight limitations of the outboard wing stations to 500lb max carriage.
So you'd have a total of eight 20mm cannon hanging from an A-4 "Gunboat", with maybe an AIM-9B Sidewinder hung from Station 1 and an LAU-9 19 shot rocket pod on Station 5 

From Wiki,
:Mk 4 Mod 0
Developed by the US Navy, this pod is fitted with the Mk 11 Mod 5 20 mm cannon, along with 750 rounds of ammunition.[20] This pod is said to have been used on a variety of US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft including the A-4 Skyhawk, F-4 Phantom II, A-7 Corsair II, and OV-10 Bronco.[1] Approximately 1200 Mk 4 Gun Pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10. In the case of the OV-10, the unit was used by VAL-4, a Navy squadron assigned to Bình Thủy District, Vietnam, and was used extensively for close air support missions."

No one's mentioned the A4D-4 low level attack version with swept folding wings and Whitcomb Bodies or the long winged extended span A-4F with a 55' wing span, nor the submarine-launched proposal.

Cheers fellow Scooter freaks errr, fans 

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Maybe it is time to jumbo-ize/super size the Skyhawk though the wonders of Scale-O-Rama.  48th scale A-4 to a 1:72nd scale what-if or a 32nd scale A-4 to a 1:48th what-if.  Get plenty of room for the pilot and other luxuries. 

[M.A.D]

An engineering question if I may in relation to the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk?

For a long time I’ve been intrigued with the modified ‘wing-folded’ Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, that was used by the US Navy for public relations purposes.

I greatly appreciate that the wing design of the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is in itself integral to the amazingly clever design by Ed Heinemann. Am I correct in saying/thinking that the wing fuel tank itself makes up part of the integral strength/structure of the wing itself, as opposed to it being simply located in the wing? If so, by added a wing-fold arrangement, as shown in the picture, would it still be feasible that the out section of the wing-fold could still effectively contain fuel? Alas, I assume that the Skyhawk would lose some of its weapons load capacity on the outer wing hardpoint as a consequence?

Does anyone know the actual fuel capacity of the Skyhawk’s wing tank?

Going by the attached pictures, does anyone have an idea or take an educated guess as to the measurement at the point of the wing-fold and hence the overall wingspan when folded in this configuration?
With such a wing-folded arrangement, how much capability - range, weapons load do you think one would sacrifice as consequence of the engineering modification?

Ok and for the give away for this overall exercise, how many of these modified wing-folded Skyhawk’s would you estimate could comfortably be embarked on a Majestic class carrier?

MAD

[Old Wombat]

My mate, FAAMAN, would be the dude to ask. He worked on our A-4G's back ... ooh, too long ago to mention ... let's just say "when I was working on S-2E/G's".

[Kerick]

Another question is what happens to the wing leading edge slats? This fold mechanism cuts them right in half. Where these actual flying aircraft or mock-ups for display purposes?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Another question is what happens to the wing leading edge slats? This fold mechanism cuts them right in half. Where these actual flying aircraft or mock-ups for display purposes?

The Skyhawk was rendered incapable of flight once the wing spars were cut to crate the folding feature.  This is why you see it being hauled around on the flatbed trailer.

[Kerick]

Here is some more info and pics.
http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/A4/Truck/Truck.htm
I have no exact figures but it seems to me this modification would severely limit the Skyhawks. The increased weight and loss of fuel would make it impractical.
But this is whiff world so you build what you want the way you want and have fun doing it!