FA+
Shop
947
Views
Views
40
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 720 x 233
File Size 33.8 kB
Report this content
More from baroncoon
Since yellow07 
yellow07 has been posting some really neat photos of aircraft I decided post this old piece of art I did some years ago. I've always had a certain fondness for the A4 Skyhawk.
The Scooter was one of the first jets that I found as fascinating as proppers. Yes there are jets that fly faster, go higher, carry more weapons, or have more nifty electronics, but there is a simple elegance to the Scooter.
I remember as a kid watching them fly in and out of El Toro and always wondering how in the hell they stayed the air since I knew they didn't have that big of an engine and it appear as if all of their wing surface was covered with loaded hardpoints and drop tanks? This is an early B model. The blue color of the Bullpup missiles denotes that they are inert training missiles to give the ground crews experience with loading the aircraft. Medium, color pencil, with some gouache and micron pen.
yellow07 has been posting some really neat photos of aircraft I decided post this old piece of art I did some years ago. I've always had a certain fondness for the A4 Skyhawk. The Scooter was one of the first jets that I found as fascinating as proppers. Yes there are jets that fly faster, go higher, carry more weapons, or have more nifty electronics, but there is a simple elegance to the Scooter.
I remember as a kid watching them fly in and out of El Toro and always wondering how in the hell they stayed the air since I knew they didn't have that big of an engine and it appear as if all of their wing surface was covered with loaded hardpoints and drop tanks? This is an early B model. The blue color of the Bullpup missiles denotes that they are inert training missiles to give the ground crews experience with loading the aircraft. Medium, color pencil, with some gouache and micron pen.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 720 x 233px
File Size 33.8 kB
For sale: Second-hand A4K Skyhawks to approved non-military buyers. One owner (RNZAF, ex- 2 Squadron and 75 Squadron), avionics refurbished to F16 standards, purchaser to arrange delivery. Please apply with appropriate credentials to the New Zealand Government :)
====
I was always impressed how the obsolescent A4s of the Argentine Air Force went up against the Royal Navy Harriers in the Falklands War - they did damn well with going up against a major NATO force considering the A4s weren't exactly state of the art and were operating at the edge of their combat range. It shows what can be done with good quality gear (even if it is old) in capable hands.
====
I was always impressed how the obsolescent A4s of the Argentine Air Force went up against the Royal Navy Harriers in the Falklands War - they did damn well with going up against a major NATO force considering the A4s weren't exactly state of the art and were operating at the edge of their combat range. It shows what can be done with good quality gear (even if it is old) in capable hands.
A4's are an attack aircraft, and though "obsolete" they do their mission better than many "modern" aircraft. The Brits were sending up Harriers against them, and the Skyhawk will almost always win because it's more manueverable. Granted, it's an attack aircraft, so it's not going to dogfight. A win for it is drop it's payload and get home. And once it's cleared it's hard points, it's gonna be hard for just about any aircraft ot get a good lock-on.
There was a reason why Top Gun used A-4's as aggressor aircraft... The A-4 and F-5 were lightweight, highly maneuverable, and low cost. But we're America and everything must be big and expensive.
There was a reason why Top Gun used A-4's as aggressor aircraft... The A-4 and F-5 were lightweight, highly maneuverable, and low cost. But we're America and everything must be big and expensive.
The Navy rates Harriers as attack planes, too; however, flown by a pilot who's competent with the Harrier's systems, it will outmaneuver a Skyhawk. With the additional flexibility that viffing gives the Harrier, it will pull its nose around faster than a Skyhawk can. Of course, it's a much bigger IR target in the process; there are tradeoffs. The Harrier is a more complex plane to fly to get the full performance out of, which is an advantage of the Skyhawk.
Top Gun used A-4s because they were of comparable size and maneuverability to the MiGs that the brownshoes were going to be facing, and they were already in inventory, which let them get the program up and running faster. They later added F-5s, Kfir C2s, F-16Ns, and F/A-18s. Similarly, Red Flag used T-38s, which they already had, to mimic the MiG-21, then F-5s until the F-16 became available, and now uses F-16s and F-15s to mimic the MiG-29 and Su-27.
Top Gun used A-4s because they were of comparable size and maneuverability to the MiGs that the brownshoes were going to be facing, and they were already in inventory, which let them get the program up and running faster. They later added F-5s, Kfir C2s, F-16Ns, and F/A-18s. Similarly, Red Flag used T-38s, which they already had, to mimic the MiG-21, then F-5s until the F-16 became available, and now uses F-16s and F-15s to mimic the MiG-29 and Su-27.
Not yet but I do love the Sandy's. I remember my saving allowance for months so I could buy my dad a 1:32 model of one for Christmas. The funny thing was dad took one look at the 350+ pieces in the kit and almost got cold feet about building it. It was the most complicated kit he'd seen to date. I remember helping him build it in our garage in Whittier. I seem to remember we won a Father and Son contest with it at a local hobby shop.
My dad was an Ordie in the Navy in the early 50's, and he use to tell me stories of how they'd just load those A1's up until you'd swear the tires would blow out from just the weight but somehow the things lumber down the carrier flight deck and claw themselves into the air.
My dad was an Ordie in the Navy in the early 50's, and he use to tell me stories of how they'd just load those A1's up until you'd swear the tires would blow out from just the weight but somehow the things lumber down the carrier flight deck and claw themselves into the air.
I remember a Monogram or a Revell kit from the late 60's or early 70's that was incredibly detailed with folding wings and landing gear that were connected by a shaft so that they worked together. It must have had at least 350 parts and the 1:32 scale sounds about right. Damn, I wish I still had that model.
I have two Tamiya Skyraiders in 1:48 scale; one Air Force and the other Navy, that I'll be building as soon as my back allows me to sit at my work table long to put the care and detail I used to be able to do before I got hurt.
I've only seen one in the air at an air show years ago but I did see a bunch of them lined up on the deck of the USS Coral Sea when she was at Pearl Harbor back in 1966 when I was a kid. They were freakin' huge.
I have two Tamiya Skyraiders in 1:48 scale; one Air Force and the other Navy, that I'll be building as soon as my back allows me to sit at my work table long to put the care and detail I used to be able to do before I got hurt.
I've only seen one in the air at an air show years ago but I did see a bunch of them lined up on the deck of the USS Coral Sea when she was at Pearl Harbor back in 1966 when I was a kid. They were freakin' huge.
I believe our's was a Monogram. I remember cutting strips of old toothpaste tubes for seat belts armed fuse flags on the bombs. I also remember my dad learning how to stretch sprue so we could make wiring for the radio antenna and the cockpit. I seem to remember that you could build model with the engine cowling up if you wanted, but dad decided to not push his luck and left it down.
I too have an affection for the scooter, they were good little planes. I think there are still a few countries operating them with updated electronics packages and new engines. They were damn good planes for their role, rugged fast little bastids near the deck with better agility than many in the generation.
Maybe I'm just nostalgic but I think there's still a place for refabbed version of old birds like the A4 and the Thud in situations where they won't be running into modern first-tier NS opposition. Then again what do I know, I think they should retry the experiments with AC landing gear on some cargo planes and see if modern materials science can bring out the unused potential there. And perform institutional surgery on the Navy before it becomes any worse.
Maybe I'm just nostalgic but I think there's still a place for refabbed version of old birds like the A4 and the Thud in situations where they won't be running into modern first-tier NS opposition. Then again what do I know, I think they should retry the experiments with AC landing gear on some cargo planes and see if modern materials science can bring out the unused potential there. And perform institutional surgery on the Navy before it becomes any worse.
I believe New Zealand is still flying them. In the 90's they had a choice of upgrading their A4's or buying F16's. they found for about 10% of the price of a F16 they could 60% of its performance through A4 upgrades. I believe the Israelis did the upgrade work, since they have an upgrade for everything, and with improvements in micro-electronics they could get a APG-66 radar and the ability to launch maverick missles and LGB's. Also they could launch the more advance AIM9L Sidewinder missile to.
Unfortunately the RNZAF stopped flying A4s in 2001 and disbanded the combat wings - basically due to the high price of A4 replacements (F16s etc) vs a "benign security environment" down here in the South Pacific. The A4s are in the process of being sold to a US tactical air training company, but the US government is holding up the completion of the sale. Something about highly capable military aircraft going into *private* hands... :)
The Royal New Zealand Air Force upgraded its A4s to effectively have the same capability as an F16 in the eighties, turning them into what became known as the A4K model. So yeah, it can be done.
Problem is as I see it, the military (especially the US military with containerloads of $$$ to throw about) would far rather spend shitloads of money buying ultra-futuristic kit to defeat hypothetical enemies. And considering that any likely "first-tier" opposition to the likes of the US would be... umm... er... ah... NATO partners, it hardly seems value for money...
Problem is as I see it, the military (especially the US military with containerloads of $$$ to throw about) would far rather spend shitloads of money buying ultra-futuristic kit to defeat hypothetical enemies. And considering that any likely "first-tier" opposition to the likes of the US would be... umm... er... ah... NATO partners, it hardly seems value for money...
Yeah and it the money the Kiwi's saved on the upgrades they could spend on training, spare fuel, spare parts and ordnance. So for them it was a very wise investment. The one thing I don't believe the RNZAF A4's can do is launch BVR missiles like later model F16's, but it would give an earlier F16A a real fight since they would be using the same model of Sidewinder. It would probably come down to pilot skill at that point. But skill is always the trump card.
It would probably come down to pilot skill at that point. But skill is always the trump card.
Not really. Energy is much more important, as it dictates the terms of the engagement, and thus covers a multitude of sins. An F-16 has double the thrust (triple with afterburner) of the Skyhawk, but is only a third heavier.
The Skyhawk was a great plane (and this is a very nice picture of one), but the only reason it worked so well for the Kiwis is that, located where they are, they didn't need an air-superiority platform.
Not really. Energy is much more important, as it dictates the terms of the engagement, and thus covers a multitude of sins. An F-16 has double the thrust (triple with afterburner) of the Skyhawk, but is only a third heavier.
The Skyhawk was a great plane (and this is a very nice picture of one), but the only reason it worked so well for the Kiwis is that, located where they are, they didn't need an air-superiority platform.
Crazy thing about airplane wings... They don't fly like they tell you in school. But they're close.
Wing curveature is important, especially the top surface, but the real lift factor is how much air gets shoved downward, and at what ratio to forward motion. Yet at the same time, the majority of the air disturbance is above the upper wing surface; If you took an instantaneous snapshot, there'll be a big, vigorous whorl above the wing, but very little movement underneath (And that'll tend to be forwards and downwards, slightly.)
So yeah, you can cram massive amounts of ordinance, engines, etc, underneath the wings and not disrupt your lift all that much, but start sticking stuff on top and you're gonna bugger up your lift quick.
Also, I love the rudder on the A4. 'There's massive resonance flutter on the surface skin.' 'Peel off the skin, split the formers in half, and stick a single sheet down the middle.'
Wing curveature is important, especially the top surface, but the real lift factor is how much air gets shoved downward, and at what ratio to forward motion. Yet at the same time, the majority of the air disturbance is above the upper wing surface; If you took an instantaneous snapshot, there'll be a big, vigorous whorl above the wing, but very little movement underneath (And that'll tend to be forwards and downwards, slightly.)
So yeah, you can cram massive amounts of ordinance, engines, etc, underneath the wings and not disrupt your lift all that much, but start sticking stuff on top and you're gonna bugger up your lift quick.
Also, I love the rudder on the A4. 'There's massive resonance flutter on the surface skin.' 'Peel off the skin, split the formers in half, and stick a single sheet down the middle.'
Yeah that is why you see only limited above wing points. In fact I can only thing of two aircraft immediately that made much use of that location. The SEPCAT Jaguar which some model had a top Sidewinder launch rail, and BAE Lightning FMK6 which had those long range drop tanks mounted on top. I thing the Soviets played somewhat with it but the Brits seems to be the ones that made the most use of it.
One thing I do know is that hang all that crap out in the breeze must have really increased the A4's RCS!
One thing I do know is that hang all that crap out in the breeze must have really increased the A4's RCS!
Curiously, thought, the Germans did experiments with strange external fuel tank designs toward the end of WWII; I have a book on the FW-190 showing an odd-looking semi-conformal fuel tank (150 gallons, IIRC) that would mount on the upper surface of the wing; two of them caused less drag than the ETC 501 belly rack with drop tank. More interesting was the result that a single conformal drop tank on the upper surface of the right wing produced less than half the drag of a pair of them (one on each wing); it was a moment until I realized that the weight of the tank and fuel out on the wing helped counteract the engine torque without requiring the drag of trimming the control surfaces.
Things like gravity/airflow activated leading slats, thus chopping the weight of the actuators, and thereby reducing the load on the hydraulics so IT can be a little smaller and lighter, plus meaning there's no controls for flaps, and the pilot doesn't have to worry about 'em so there's less workload...
It's the spiraling complexity problem in reverse, that plane.
It's the spiraling complexity problem in reverse, that plane.
Yeah love the F8. In fact recently I've started a rather extensive attempt to get information about 1950's and 1960's jets. Too many books will make you thing that all there was flying at the time were F86's. F4's, Mig-21's, oh and some Mirage-III's and some F-104's. This is a time when a ideas were tried out, and many found wanting, and aircraft development was advancing at a feverish pace! It wasn't just the Americans and Soviets either. the Brits, the French and Italians, Germans plus neutral Sweden and China were trying out new ideas and proposals.
The fifties and the sixties were almost the golden age for jet aircraft in a way - lots of innovative designs being built and tested. Yeah, some of them were dead-ends, but others are pretty much ahead of their time. The Lockheed SR-71 and the BAC TSR-2, for example, still look futuristic even after their retirement / scrapping. And what ideas they had!
Nowadays, you'd spend just on design - without cutting actual metal - what back then would have got you design AND at least a couple of nifty prototypes to play with :)
Nowadays, you'd spend just on design - without cutting actual metal - what back then would have got you design AND at least a couple of nifty prototypes to play with :)
For my third (and final) year at uni, I have to write a screenplay. I intend to write it set in an alternate history where those 1950's and 60's jets are still cutting edge, and many of those concepts actually made it into reality and are currently being used, as I love those ideas and the 'what might have beens' a lot.
In terms of the picture, and the Skyhawk - it's also a favourite and a soft-spot of mine. I've always been a fan, and it's nice to see it rendered so well.
In terms of the picture, and the Skyhawk - it's also a favourite and a soft-spot of mine. I've always been a fan, and it's nice to see it rendered so well.
Awesome, Awesome, Awesome, Awesome, Awesome ^^
lol, I'm in the credits XDXDXD Now thats a aircraft pic; much like those squadron prints ^^
If only you dod one of the Jaguar....*dreams*
The effect of shade completes it.
Man, thats totally worthy to be hung in a squadron leaders office ^^
lol, I'm in the credits XDXDXD Now thats a aircraft pic; much like those squadron prints ^^
If only you dod one of the Jaguar....*dreams*
The effect of shade completes it.
Man, thats totally worthy to be hung in a squadron leaders office ^^
I LOVE these aircraft! The fact that they were the most maneuverable aircraft used by the Blue Angels is proof of their awesomeness. Then again, your stunning depiction here is the perfect icing on the cake.
The best display of them I've ever seen also happens to be in the atrium of the best (IMHO) aviation museum: www.navalaviationmuseum.org
The best display of them I've ever seen also happens to be in the atrium of the best (IMHO) aviation museum: www.navalaviationmuseum.org
Comments