Vought (LTV) A-7 Corsair II Projects

[F-14D]

What's out there on the YA-7Fs? V-number, drawings, etc.

You know, one of these days I really am going to post my promised Story of the A-7F (potential alternate title, "We want the best plane for the job as long as it's the F-16").

 

[Bill S]

Couple more Vought Archives shots
of YA-7F

1). First flight
2).Family photo at Edwards AFB

 

[F-14D]

Couple more Vought Archives shots
of YA-7F

First flight

Family photo at Edwards AFB

Sadly, this is how the bird in the top photo looks today...

 

[Sundog]

You know, one of these days I really am going to post my promised Story of the A-7F (potential alternate title, "We want the best plane for the job as long as it's the F-16").

Is that day here yet? As I've been looking forward to your insight on this, but it sounds similar to the same argument used regarding the F-20. You can have any LWF you want for the ADF as long as it's the F-16. Of course, there was a day the F-16 was an LWF. Then it went into production. I hear echos of the JSF in that. Wherein the JSF will be a low cost replacement for the F-16, F-18, Harrier,and A-10 (As if) that was to use "off-board" sensors to keep the cost down. Then they dumped all of those sensors on board and the price never went up until they had to pay for it; oops, I guess we forget to let anyone know that would affect the price. Anyway, I'm getting O.T.

So, the A-7F, a plane, I agree, that did not get a fair shake.

 

[F-14D]

You know, one of these days I really am going to post my promised Story of the A-7F (potential alternate title, "We want the best plane for the job as long as it's the F-16").

Is that day here yet? As I've been looking forward to your insight on this, but it sounds similar to the same argument used regarding the F-20. You can have any LWF you want for the ADF as long as it's the F-16. Of course, there was a day the F-16 was an LWF. Then it went into production. I hear echos of the JSF in that. Wherein the JSF will be a low cost replacement for the F-16, F-18, Harrier,and A-10 (As if) that was to use "off-board" sensors to keep the cost down. Then they dumped all of those sensors on board and the price never went up until they had to pay for it; oops, I guess we forget to let anyone know that would affect the price. Anyway, I'm getting O.T.

So, the A-7F, a plane, I agree, that did not get a fair shake.

Yes, someday I really will post it. I keep looking at what I've prepared, but then I get distracted by bright, shiny objects. Yes, it is like the F-20. As far as the F-16 goes, it originally was a pure LWF-- day, VFR WVR. Problem was, such an aircraft wasn't of that much practical use. On JSF, everyone (well USAF) was trumpeting offbard sensors until someone actually figured out how much it would cost with foreseeable term technology. Turned out putting them on the aircraft was cheaper (not inexpensive, but cheaper).

ADF was basically a ploy, IMHO, to insure we never bought any F-20s (actually, much as I love the F-20,it was not a good fit for USAF, however, it would have served well abroad if we had supported instead of obstructed the sale effort, bu that's another story). Notice how fast after the ADF F-16s arrived they were removed from service?

Quick summary of USAF position: "You said we had to evaluate it to verify it can do what they claim and if it would be cost effective. We did, it does, and it would. Now can we have more F-16s"?

 

[Sundog]

On JSF, everyone (well USAF) was trumpeting offbard sensors until someone actually figured out how much it would cost with foreseeable term technology. Turned out putting them on the aircraft was cheaper (not inexpensive, but cheaper).

Wow, I hadn't heard that before. You'll have to explain that one in the JSF thread, while I take away your shiny objects. ;D

 

[F-14D]

On JSF, everyone (well USAF) was trumpeting offbard sensors until someone actually figured out how much it would cost with foreseeable term technology. Turned out putting them on the aircraft was cheaper (not inexpensive, but cheaper).

Wow, I hadn't heard that before. You'll have to explain that one in the JSF thread, while I take away your shiny objects. ;D

Actually, think about it for a moment: How much would it cost to have all those sensors wherever JSF would need them, anytime JSF would need them, be on a platform close enough to "see" what needed to be seen, yet far enough away that the enemy wouldn't just say, "Hey! Forget shooting at the JSF for now, just knock down their sensor carriers, then we can came back and kick the JSFs' red tipped white canes away". Plus, how do you securely get the two-way massive dataflow going and staying up in the near to mid term? Theoretically, JSF was supposed to be coming on line about now. Can we do that today? Break out the cash!

 

[flateric]

posted by Fliermike at ARC Discussion Forums

Here are a couple of somewhat rare shots of the prototype YA-7H parked next to the only TF-8A. This was at Navy Dallas in July 1973. I was a production acceptance test pilot at the LTV Navy office at the time. As I recall LTV was trying to sell both aircraft to the Philippines and were conducting demonstration flights. As far as I know this is the only time the two two seaters were together. A similar picture from this batch was printed in Volume 10 of the International Air Power Review but the location was incorrectly identified as Pax River.

 

[Sundog]

Actually, think about it for a moment: How much would it cost to have all those sensors wherever JSF would need them, anytime JSF would need them, be on a platform close enough to "see" what needed to be seen, yet far enough away that the enemy wouldn't just say, "Hey! Forget shooting at the JSF for know, just knock down their sensor carriers, then we can came back and kick the JSFs' red tipped white canes away". Plus, how do you securely get the two-way massive dataflow going and staying up in the near to mid term? Theoretically, JSF was supposed to be coming on line about now. Can we do that today? Break out the cash!

I actually thought they would get most of their info from stealthy UAV's. Although, yeah, the AWACS and Joint Stars would be large targets and taking them out would obviously, "greatly degrade" the JSF's performance immediately if their sensors were offboard.

Flateric, thanks for the pics!!! I've always thought the Twosair was the best looking of the production Corsairs and the Twosader the 2nd best Crusader, next to the RF-8; I'm not including the F8U-3 as it was in a class of it's own.
But those pics with both of them are a great find.

 

[Iranian F-14A]

Anyone have any info or diagrams on the proposed KA-7F tanker? From what I understand,it had a lengthened fuselage that contained more internal fuel as well as the HDU unit.I assume it would have looked like an AF A-7F but I have to wonder about the ground clearance of the HDU.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I've got some drawings from the Vought Archives on a couple of studies or proposals for KA-7s. I'll dig'em up and see if I can make decent drawings (the originals were rather faint). Spider may have a better scan....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Pioneer]

I've got some drawings from the Vought Archives on a couple of studies or proposals for KA-7s. I'll dig'em up and see if I can make decent drawings (the originals were rather faint). Spider may have a better scan....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Yes please!

Mark a little off topic (I do apologies!!), but do you know if there was any Vought proposals to add more under-wing hardpoints under the wing of the F-8 Crusader series?
As opposed to the standard two hardpoints/pylons, which I have only ever seen!
Also has anyone got pictures of F-8 Crusader's fitted with under-wing drop tanks?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Bill S]

I've got some drawings from the Vought Archives on a couple of studies or proposals for KA-7s. I'll dig'em up and see if I can make decent drawings (the originals were rather faint). Spider may have a better scan....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Mine are not really in shape to share. Give a week or two.

 

[Bill S]

I've got some drawings from the Vought Archives on a couple of studies or proposals for KA-7s. I'll dig'em up and see if I can make decent drawings (the originals were rather faint). Spider may have a better scan....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Yes please!

Mark a little off topic (I do apologies!!), but do you know if there was any Vought proposals to add more under-wing hardpoints under the wing of the F-8 Crusader series?
As opposed to the standard two hardpoints/pylons, which I have only ever seen!
Also has anyone got pictures of F-8 Crusader's fitted with under-wing drop tanks?

Regards
Pioneer

The Attack Crusader proposals had more than two total wing pylons.
I believe there are some shots of the F-8J in testing with drop-tanks.
Gotta finish this current chapter of my F8U book and then might have
the time to share some stuff in the proper thread.

On the KA-7s there were several different variations on the theme.

 

[Steve Pace]

Who has some good stuff on the YA-7F? Talk about 'coming full circle," it almost re-evolved into the supersonic F-8 Crusader...

SP

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

The Attack Crusader looked a lot more like the A-7 than it did the Crusader. Pictures of an F-8 with drop tanks are pretty rare.

 

[Pioneer]

The Attack Crusader looked a lot more like the A-7 than it did the Crusader. Pictures of an F-8 with drop tanks are pretty rare.

Thanks Tailspin Turtle!

Thats the one
Nice
Very nice!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Iranian F-14A]

Any news on the KA-7 tanker scans?

 

[Bill S]

Some new scans of A-7 Plus, A-7X, YA-7F artist renderings.
All Vought Heritage Archives.

bill

 

[ReccePhreak]

Greetings All!

Here's a few more gems from the visit to the Vought Archives a few weeks ago. Thanks to PhotoGator giving me a heads up, I had the chance to peruse some study/proposal files on the A-7 that included these two along with some tanker studies. I'll post the tanker study drawings later.

The RA-7 is a "cheeky" conversion of the A-7 to perform recon duties.

The profile comparison is for a Spey with afterburner equipped A-7 - I did not find any info on the A-7+16 and A-7+48 profiles noted.

The supersonic A-7 obviously makes use of the F8U-3 development effort motivated by a Spey with afterburner.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

COOL! Another recce aircraft for me to model! ;D
Were you able to find any more data on this proposal?
Larry

 

[ReccePhreak]

Greetings All!

Here's a few more gems from the visit to the Vought Archives a few weeks ago. Thanks to PhotoGator giving me a heads up, I had the chance to peruse some study/proposal files on the A-7 that included these two along with some tanker studies. I'll post the tanker study drawings later.

The RA-7 is a "cheeky" conversion of the A-7 to perform recon duties.

The profile comparison is for a Spey with afterburner equipped A-7 - I did not find any info on the A-7+16 and A-7+48 profiles noted.

The supersonic A-7 obviously makes use of the F8U-3 development effort motivated by a Spey with afterburner.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Mark,

Any chance of getting higher resolution scans of the RA-7A proposal? I would absolutely LOVE to build a model of that version!

Larry Engesath

 

[Bill S]

Here is some more detail on the RA-7A.

Cameras were KA-45A, -46A, -50A, -51A, -53A and -60

Stations: #1 forward viewing camera
#2 IR sensor or panoramic camera
#3 Fixed vertical camera
#4&#5 remote rotatable LH and RH cameras

Flasher pod provisions

SLAR in the cheek fairings

All info Vought Heritage Archives.

bill

 

[ReccePhreak]

Here is some more detail on the RA-7A.

Cameras were KA-45A, -46A, -50A, -51A, -53A and -60

Stations: #1 forward viewing camera
#2 IR sensor or panoramic camera
#3 Fixed vertical camera
#4&#5 remote rotatable LH and RH cameras

Flasher pod provisions

SLAR in the cheek fairings

All info Vought Heritage Archives.

bill

Thanks Bill, GREAT info!!

The last drawing is especially useful, as it lists where the various recce components are located, except for Camera Station 3. Does any of your drawings or info say where that was? It looks like the pod under the left wing was the flasher pod, now to try to find a similar pod photo somewhere, to use as reference.
I had previously read (A LONG time ago) a recce study, where they proposed using podded sensors (mainly reworked fuel tanks) on the A-7 and other non recce-dedicated aircraft. When I finally build it, I can put it in some kind of USN test unit markings.

Thanks again for your help!

Larry Engesath
Phormer Photo Phantom Phixer

 

[Bill S]

Larry,

#3 is the first one on the left bottom,
see attached markup.

The numbering looks bassackawards to me, but that is what is on the drawing.
I guess it preserves the odd numbers on the left, even on the right convention.

bill

Thanks Bill, GREAT info!!

The last drawing is especially useful, as it lists where the various recce components are located, except for Camera Station 3. Does any of your drawings or info say where that was? It looks like the pod under the left wing was the flasher pod, now to try to find a similar pod photo somewhere, to use as reference.
I had previously read (A LONG time ago) a recce study, where they proposed using podded sensors (mainly reworked fuel tanks) on the A-7 and other non recce-dedicated aircraft. When I finally build it, I can put it in some kind of USN test unit markings.

Thanks again for your help!

Larry Engesath
Phormer Photo Phantom Phixer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

With a couple of simple filters in GIMP:

[Note to all: I am happy to help with editing pics e.g. for book preparation]

 

[Bill S]

Thanks that cleaned it up pretty well.

bill

 

[ReccePhreak]

Looking at the cleaned up scan by Overscan, it looks like the camera positions might not be exactly as your post:

#1 forward viewing camera
#2 IR sensor or panoramic camera
#3 Fixed vertical camera
#4&#5 remote rotatable LH and RH cameras

Based on the drawing of Position #3, I would assume that to be for the IR Linescan system, but I could be wrong. Too bad you don't have any scans like those that were posted for the YA-7F, with the cross-sections and cutaways showing the interior equipment. But then, beggars can't be choosers, I am more than happy with what you all have posted. I just got my HobbyBoss 1/48 A-7A Corsair II model, and plan to start cutting & hacking on it. I plan to make it in Naval Air Development Center markings, since that unit tested the prototype TARPS pod on an NA-7E.

Cheers,
Larry Engesath
Phormer Photo Phantom Phixer

 

[Bill S]

I had previously read (A LONG time ago) a recce study, where they proposed using podded sensors (mainly reworked fuel tanks) on the A-7 and other non recce-dedicated aircraft. When I finally build it, I can put it in some kind of USN test unit markings.

Thanks again for your help!

Larry Engesath
Phormer Photo Phantom Phixer

I have seen a little on this proposal as well which added a viewfinder to the aircraft as well as the pod mounted cameras.

b

 

[Bill S]

Looking at the cleaned up scan by Overscan, it looks like the camera positions might not be exactly as your post:

#1 forward viewing camera
#2 IR sensor or panoramic camera
#3 Fixed vertical camera
#4&#5 remote rotatable LH and RH cameras

Based on the drawing of Position #3, I would assume that to be for the IR Linescan system, but I could be wrong. Too bad you don't have any scans like those that were posted for the YA-7F, with the cross-sections and cutaways showing the interior equipment. But then, beggars can't be choosers, I am more than happy with what you all have posted. I just got my HobbyBoss 1/48 A-7A Corsair II model, and plan to start cutting & hacking on it. I plan to make it in Naval Air Development Center markings, since that unit tested the prototype TARPS pod on an NA-7E.

Cheers,
Larry Engesath
Phormer Photo Phantom Phixer

The camera and position info I provided came from a source separate from the drawing. It is possible the two do not match.

 

[Bill S]

Also important for Larry and others to note:

There were at least 3 different versions of the "RA-7A"

1. Same fuselage length, the lower fuselage contour is changed from round to flat. The nose mounted radar would be moved to an under wing pod.

2. Same fuselage length with one change, the radome is 5" longer to allow the installation of the viewfinder while retaining the same radar. The lower fuselage contour is changed from round to flat.

3. The extended fuselage version which has a 16" section (similar to the TA-7A proposal) added ahead of the wing and aft of the cockpit in addition the radome is 5" longer to allow the installation of the viewfinder while retaining the same radar, and lower fuselage contour is changed from round to flat.

bill

 

[Bill S]

Looking at the cleaned up scan by Overscan, it looks like the camera positions might not be exactly as your post:

#1 forward viewing camera
#2 IR sensor or panoramic camera
#3 Fixed vertical camera
#4&#5 remote rotatable LH and RH cameras

Based on the drawing of Position #3, I would assume that to be for the IR Linescan system, but I could be wrong. Too bad you don't have any scans like those that were posted for the YA-7F, with the cross-sections and cutaways showing the interior equipment. But then, beggars can't be choosers, I am more than happy with what you all have posted. I just got my HobbyBoss 1/48 A-7A Corsair II model, and plan to start cutting & hacking on it. I plan to make it in Naval Air Development Center markings, since that unit tested the prototype TARPS pod on an NA-7E.

Cheers,
Larry Engesath
Phormer Photo Phantom Phixer

Larry,

I went back and looked at my notes, the IR line scanner was only mentioned for the pod mounted system. #3 station was always dedicated to vertical photography, not to say it could not be added. The initial goal was an A-7 having the same capabilities as the RF-8G with the addition of the AN/APQ-102 SLAR.

There was also another proposal around the same time for upgrading the RF-8G with the same SLAR along the fuselage sides (under wing) with engine and other upgrades.


b

 

[ReccePhreak]

Also important for Larry and others to note:

There were at least 3 different versions of the "RA-7A"

1. Same fuselage length, the lower fuselage contour is changed from round to flat. The nose mounted radar would be moved to an under wing pod.

2. Same fuselage length with one change, the radome is 5" longer to allow the installation of the viewfinder while retaining the same radar. The lower fuselage contour is changed from round to flat.

3. The extended fuselage version which has a 16" section (similar to the TA-7A proposal) added ahead of the wing and aft of the cockpit in addition the radome is 5" longer to allow the installation of the viewfinder while retaining the same radar, and lower fuselage contour is changed from round to flat.

bill

Thanks for that added info. No wonder the drawings didn't match my model, when I tried to scale them up to 1/48 scale. I guess I will use them as a "general" reference, and make a SWAG as to what dimensions to make things on my model, and which "version" to build. I still would love to see any drawings of the electronic (?) photoflash pod.

Cheers,
Larry

 

[Bill S]

From a different A-7 Recon proposal,
This was based on a standard attack configured A-7 carrying an under wing recon pod, not unlike the later TARPS program for the F-14.

Here is a drawing of the pod courtesy of the Vought Heritage Archives.

bill

 

[Bill S]

A couple of KA-7A concepts again from the Vought Heritage Archives.
Drawings were poor to start with and I probably did not help.

Enjoy none the less!

bill

 

[Triton]

Model of LTV Corsair II Marines proposal by Precise found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vought-A-7-Corsair-II-rare-USMC-proposal-Precise-Models-1-48-Marines-USN-Topping-/190642473624?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c632d4a98

Seller's description:

This is a rare manufacturers model of the Vought A-7 Corsair II, made by Precise Models. It is in 1/48 scale. The model is overall good condition with some paint and decal wear. There are a couple of chipped bomb fins also. But still a very display worthy model. What makes this one rare is the US Marines markings applied. This is not an error. In the late 1960's when the A-7 was under development for the Navy, Vought was pushing hard for the USMC to buy the A-7 to replace their A-4 Skyhawks. These Marine marked models were provided to Marine generals and other high ranking defense officials in an effort to convince the Marines to buy the Corsair. In the end, the USMC passed on the A-7, and instead bought the AV-8 Harrier jump jet. The Precise Models Marine A-7 is extremely hard to find, much much rarer than the USN and USAF marked versions.

 

[Bill S]

In 1972 VAC studied and analyzed 30mm gun installations on the single seat A-7D aircraft for the USAF.
They studied two different cannons: GAU-8 Gatling Gun and Oerlikon 304RK. They also studied two different configurations: Internally mounted and podded.


The recommendation was for a stretched A-7 (same dimensions as the trainer) with a single seat, and internally mounted GAU-8 with 391 rounds of ammunition. This configuration was chosen due to the increased effectiveness of the GAU-8 and the least effects on the flight characteristics during gun firing.


All drawings from a photocopy of a slide presentation, original not available. All information from Vought Heritage Collection.


bill

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Nice find Bill - thanks! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TWIN-ENGINE-A-7-VOUGHT-CORP-PHOTO-/310407607227?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4845bc33bb#ht_500wt_1180

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Poor scan already posted on forum, Model V-529

 

[Stargazer]

The same picture with 1.90 gamma correction, +3 hue and +9 saturation. Makes it a bit better I think.