The Airplane Thread

[Llarry]

As a sort of post-script to the A-4 story, let me relate the history of the effort to replace the Skyhawk in the early 1960s.

Remember that the A-4 story began in 1952 with the early design. By around 1960, the Navy wanted to get started on a replacement. The Kennedy administration came in and the new Secretary of Defense insisted that the replacement would have a turbofan engine with improved fuel consumption. That was fine, except that the specified engine was the Pratt & Whitney TF30. Readers of my posts may remember that I am a big P&W fan, but the company did have a couple of less-that-optimum engines over their long history. The TF30 was a first-generation military turbofan and was less than excellent, shall we say. (In afterburning form, it gave the F-14A Tomcat troubles for many years; it did OK in the F-111 Aardvark).

All the usual competitors lined up to get a piece of the light attack action to replace the A-4. To reduce development cost, Defense made the Navy stipulate that the new airplane would be based on an existing design. The competitors included:
-- Douglas themselves with a scaled-up larger "A4D-6" using the turbofan engine and with more load capacity and more fuel.
-- Grumman with a single-seat derivative of the new A-6 Intruder and two engines. (Not using the turbofan.)
-- North American with an enlarged/improved version of their FJ-4B (AF-1E) Fury light attack aircraft using the TF30.
-- Vought using a derivative of the supersonic F-8 Crusader, but shortened, given more wing, more fuel, lots of wing pylons for weapons or fuel using the TF30.

All sorts of engineering studies and comparison were conducted; the competitors knew this could be a big money program, as it turned out to be.

I'm not privy to all the details, but the competition was fierce and in the end, Vought was selected. The choice of a supersonic fighter-based airplane for the transonic attack mission was perhaps a surprise, but that was the result. The Vought A-7 Corsair was born, and the other companies licked their wounds and went back to other programs.

Here are the concepts in order as listed above:
-- Douglas A4D-6; the chart shows the size comparison to the previous-generation A-4E.
-- Grumman G-12 (A-6 Intruder-based): Apologies for the small image.
-- North American AF-1F; the model shows a rather improbable weapons load. The nose intake with radar below is rather remarkable.
-- Vought A-7A: The mockup originally had the pointed nose radome of the F-8 Crusader; this was reduced to save room on the deck of aircraft carriers. Again, just a small image is available.

Having won in February 1964, Vought started full-scale development and detailed engineering. The YA-7A prototype flew in September of 1965 (with the Vietnam War already heating up). The first squadron debuted in combat in 1967. Here's a shocker: The TF30 engine proved troublesome! But Vought, P&W and the Navy made it work. After the production of several hundred A-7s, a switch was made to the Allison TF41 turbofan, which was better. The A-7 went on to a long and distinguished career, though truth be known, not as long or distinguished as its A-4 predecessor; The A-7s are all gone today, but the A-4 flies on.

[Llarry]

The most-produced aircraft in history is the Cessna 172, with over 44,000 built. The 172's little brother, the 150 or 152, has sold over 31,000.

It all started in 1946 with the Cessna 140 and the value-priced Cessna 120 without wing flaps. They had two seats, from 85 to 108 horsepower and fabric-covered wings. In 1949, they were replaced by the Cessna 140A with metal-skinned wings. Two years later, production ended. But post-WW2 they got Cessna started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_140

[Llarry]

Having posted about Cessna's initial postwar foray into the light aircraft market, let me introduce the best-selling aircraft of all time: The Cessna 172 Skyhawk.

The story starts in 1948, when Cessna began building an enlarged (over the 140) plane with rear seats. Like the early Cessna 140s, the 170 had fabric-covered wings etc. and was a tail dragger. But it was also a commercial success for Cessna, with 5,174 sold from 1948 to 1956. As with the smaller 140, metal-skinned wings and other improvements came.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_170

Tail wheel airplanes are more difficult to handle than tricycle airplanes, and Cessna recognized that there would be a bigger market for an improved 170. The tricycle-gear Cessna 172 was introduced in 1956 and was an immediate hit. Cessna embarked on a process of continuous improvement over the years. The early "fastback" cabin was given a rear window and the square tail was replaced with a swept version. The model-by-model updates are recounted in the Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172

Cessna offered lots of options over the years: upgraded interiors, wheel pants for less drag, navigation and communications system upgraded, etc.

Military services recognized the 172 as a valuable tool for initial training of military pilots and a number of countries bought 172s in numbers; the USAF designated the 172 as the T-41.

There was even a version of the 172 marketed with retractable landing gear borrowed from larger/fancier models: The Cutlass 172RG. The extra expense made this model a lackluster seller in the line.

With the large number of aircraft sold, aftermarket modifications and options were numerous -- too numerous to recount here.

The Cessna 172 Skyhawk remains in production today and keeps opening up the lead in the category of "most-produced" aircraft. I would say that it is unlikely to be dethroned.

I suspect we have a number of pilots on the forum with 172 time in their log books -- I'd welcome any elaboration on the 172!

[Llarry]

The Cessna 172 series was complemented by a smaller two-seat version called the 150 and later the 152. This was a very popular trainer, though not as practical as its big brother the 170/172. Still, a larger number were sold from 1958 through 1985 and many still fly today.

The evolution of the 150/152 was much like that of the 172 and the Wikipedia articles give some detail. Expensive options were rarer on the two-seaters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_150

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_152

Cessna attempted to re-enter the two-seat market with their 162 Skycatcher in 2009 and built 275 of that model. (no photo) It was not a success, and many were not sold and ended up being scrapped. The used market for Cessna 150/152/172 is large, though, so these Cessna light planes remain numerous in the skies throughout the world.

[Llarry]

Having recounted the selection of the Vought A-7A to replace the Douglas A-4 in the U.S. Navy's light attack squadrons, let me now tell the story of the A-7, which would end up being the last Navy light attack aircraft.

The initial production A-7A was introduced to the fleet in 1967 and soon was in combat over Vietnam. The Navy learned that the A-7A could carry twice the weapons load of the previous A-4s -- or could carry the same weapons load twice as far. This was a major step forward for carrier attack aviation. All was not rosy, though; the A-7A was assessed to be underpowered and the Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan engine suffered problems: compressor stalls and steam ingestion during catapult takeoffs from carrier decks. After 199 A models had been delivered, the A-7A was replaced on the production line by the A-7B with increased thrust. The TF30 remained a somewhat temperamental beast, though, and pilots complained of slower spool-up time when acceleration was called for -- a serious deficiency in carrier operations.

A-7A/B attack squadrons were soon carrying a considerable portion of the load in the Vietnam War and the Air Force took notice. The Air Force had obtained Navy A-1 propellor-driven attack aircraft from Navy stocks and were using them for combat search and rescue operations and other light attack tasks; now the USAF was looking for a more modern replacement for the now-antique A-1s. The A-7 looked to fill the bill, but the Air Force wanted upgrades -- in particular they wanted an engine upgrade and adopted the Allison TF41 turbofan, a more powerful engine that was a license-produced UK Rolls-Royce Spey. They also wanted detailed changes in avionics and replaced the Navy's twin 20mm cannon with a Vulcan rotary-barrel 20mm unit. The result was the Air Force's A-7D; the Air Force bought 459 of them and A-7Ds were soon in combat as well.

The Navy liked the Air Force's A-7D and adopted the improved engine and the Vulcan cannon, along with improved avionics, for the next Navy version, the A-7E, which fairly quickly replaced the A-7A/B. Both services were well-satisfied with their Corsair IIs or SLUFs.

As the Vietnam War ended, the Air Force turned most A-7Ds over to National Guard units and bought 30 two-seat A-7Ks to aid in pilot training. The Navy also wanted two-seaters and converted early A-7A/B models to TA-7Cs; their TF30 engines were ultimately replaced with A-7E-type TF41s.

The Navy used a number of two-seat A-7s as electronic adversaries in two squadrons. These TA-7Cs became EA-7Ls and were used in fleet exercises to simulate the bad guys.

By the late 1980s, the A-7s began to be phased out of service; the Navy replaced them with F-18s, and the Air Force/Air National Guard replaced them with F-16s. The A-7 to F-18 replacement was not without controversy, though, the F-18 did not have quite the prodigious bomb-carrying capacity of the A-7E and did not have the range of the A-7E, either.

The last hurrah for the A-7E would come in 1991 in Desert Storm; of the six carriers involved in the attacks on Iraqi forces, one had A-7Es. Shortly after the war, Navy A-7Es were retired and the F-18 strike fighter took over. The Air Force's A-7Ds lasted a couple of years longer, but by 1993 were gone to the boneyard as well.

The only other nation to buy new-build A-7s was Greece, which bought 60 A-7H/TA-7H aircraft and operated them until 2014. Portugal and Thailand bought used U.S. A-7s and operated them for some years, but the Greek A-7Hs were the last active aircraft.

One minor note: The Air Force considered an upgrade of the A-7D, lengthening the fuselage, installing an F100 afterburning engine (a la F-15/F-16) and other upgrades and calling the result the A-7F. The timing was poor, though: The Cold War was ending, budget cuts were coming and F-16s were coming off the line like hotcakes. Two A-7F prototypes flew but the program was cancelled and not to be.

In a bit of irony, the airplane that the A-7 replaced, the A-4 Skyhawk, still flies today in the adversary or aggressor role, while the A-7 can only be seen in museums.

[Lady Jane]

A little anecdote:

In 1984, the RCAF celebrated its 60th anniversary. Labatt's Brewery was a sponsor and issued a special Blue label. During that year, there were many receptions and Mess Dinners commemorating various historical episodes of the formation of the Air Element.

In September of that year approximately, both my parents attended such an event. They must have enjoyed themselves immensely because nine months later, the following June, I was born. My mother was forty at the time and I always teased her by asking if I was a mess dinner baby or planned.

[3798j]

"Once in the U.K., 5 Grand, was assigned to the 333rd Bomber Squadron of the 96th Bomb Group at Snetterton Heath in Norfolk, U.K. One of it's first local test flights, before any combat missions were flown, also ended in near disaster when, 5 Grand's, electrical system failed, preventing it's main landing gear from extending, causing, 5 Grand, to make a gear up landing after ejecting it's ball turret."

https://www.americanairmuseum.com/ar...craft/43-37716

[ezaircon4jc]

RE: the C150...

One tried to go IFR, east out of SLC one summer night; well, actually 3 nights (around 0200) in a row. The minimum altitude for the airway was, IIRC 11600. The highest he could get was something like 11200, and then only for a couple of minutes. After the aforementioned 3 nights, he decided to go VFR and finally made it over the mountains. This was in the early 80's and Cessna has probably increased the 150's power.

I liked the dichotomy of Cessna's jets. The C500 is known as the flying roadblock and the C750 was one of the fastest kids on the block! I made the mistake in my very early tower career of having a C500 slow to his minimum approach speed as I wanted to get a departure out ahead of him. Wasn't a mile or so later I looked and his ground speed was something like 85kts! I told my instructor I thought a C500 was a jet (certainly looked like a jet out the window)?? He told me that my instruction turned a jet into a single-engined prop-job! I learned a LOT from that instructor! In my job, I learned that knowing aircraft performance was of vital importance.

[Llarry]

The earliest days of U.S. Navy carrier aviation were a time of fits and starts and experimentation. The aircraft carrier was seen by the brass as a ship for scouting the enemy out so the battleships could attack. There was the realization that torpedo planes could do real damage to an enemy ship, but the first carrier, the USS Langley (CV 1) was too small to operate the torpedo planes of the day. Not until the USS Lexington (CV 2) and USS Saratoga (CV 3) joined the fleet in 1927-28 was the embarkation of torpedo planes considered feasible. There were no dive bombers; no airplane could withstand the stress of a high-G pullout after dropping a bomb. The early air groups were a squadron of fighters, a squadron of scouts and a squadron of torpedo planes (after 1927).

The first fighters were Vought VE-7Ss. The VE-7 (the first Vought Corsair) had first flown during 1917 and the VE-7S fighter version had one cockpit faired over, making it a single-seater. The Naval Aircraft Factory had also designed the first purpose-built carrier fighter, the TS-1 and that fighter had first flown in 1922. Early fighters flew both in wheeled versions from land and carriers and as floatplane fighters from battleships.

Vought also made the scout planes. The early ones were VE-7s and then slightly more advanced UOs.

The earliest torpedo planes operated on floats, as the Langley was too small for the larger and heavier torpedo planes. Douglas and Curtiss made torpedo planes. Once the big carriers arrived, Martin got into the action with the T3M and then T4M torpedo planes. The former had a water-cooled V-12, while the latter had a radial engine. The Navy bought these in large numbers for the time. At one point it was planned to have two squadrons of torpedo bombers per carrier, though I think that plan never came to fruition.

Some planes carried bombs but released them either in level flight or shallow dives. It was not until the 1930s that dive bombing became possible.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The first fighters were Vought VE-7Ss. The VE-7 (the first Vought Corsair) had first flown during 1917 and the VE-7S fighter version had one cockpit faired over, making it a single-seater. The Naval Aircraft Factory had also designed the first purpose-built carrier fighter, the TS-1 and that fighter had first flown in 1922. Early fighters flew both in wheeled versions from land and carriers and as floatplane fighters from battleships.

The floatplane fighters did not last long and soon were gone from battleship decks, leaving observation aircraft to spot the fall of shot from the big guns.

I neglected to include photos of the second generation of carrier fighters. The Curtiss F6C and the Boeing FB both used water-cooled V-12s. As soon as radial engines became available, the Navy started buying airplanes with those preferred powerplants.

The numbers of aircraft purchased were pretty small; after all, the Navy had just three aircraft carriers plus a few Marine squadrons ashore. The big buy was torpedo planes; 100 T3M-2s were funded.

[Llarry]

Once the radial engine became available -- the Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp initially -- it became almost universal in Navy aircraft.

The Curtiss F6C and Boeing FB started out using water-cooled V-12s but later models fitted the R-1340. Boeing became the fighter company of choice and the F2B, F3B and F4B became the standard Navy fighters. The F4B purchases totaled 186 as naval aviation expanded.

The markings of Navy aircraft were quite colorful, with the tail painted a specific color for each aircraft carrier and a complicated system of colorful stripes denoting the section within the squadron. For this reason, I will post paintings or photos of models to show the colors.

By this time the torpedo bombers were all the Martin T4M model with Wright radial engines. The biplane torpedo bombers lasted well into the 1930s, as did the late model Boeing biplane F4Bs.

[Llarry]

To close out the story of early USN carrier aviation, let me introduce the first dive bomber.

In 1928, the Navy issued a specification for a dive bomber. They wanted an airplane that could dive steeply with a 1,000-pound bomb attached and pull out of the dive without dropping the bomb. The aircraft also had to be able to carry a torpedo.

There were a couple of candidates, and the Navy chose Martin's XT5M-1 (X = experimental, T = torpedo plane, 5 = 5th design and M = Martin).

Tests in early 1930 demonstrated that the Martin plane could meet the specification and the Navy ordered 32 production aircraft designated BM-1 and BM-2. The BMs entered service in 1932.

[Llarry]

In the late 1930s, Grumman Aircraft was bumping up against the limits of power of available engines. Bigger and more powerful engines were on the way, but not yet available. The solution? Double the power by using two engines. The Grumman XF5F-1 Skyrocket prototype was a test of the concept. Twin Wright R-1820 engines with 1,200 horsepower each was plenty and the F5F had good performance from its first flight in 1940.

But the Navy was leery of twin-engine carrier aircraft -- what happened when one engine failed? Usually -- if in the critical carrier landing low speed mode -- the airplane would flip over onto its back and crash out of control. Only one F5F was built. The XF5F-1 never did carrier trials but gave Grumman and the Navy valuable data on the concept. The later wartime-designed Grumman F7F Tigercat with twin R-2800 engines benefited from the early F5F experiment. (The F7F saw only limited carrier use; most were land-based Marine aircraft.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_XF5F_Skyrocket

[Llarry]

One final post to take the story of USN carrier aviation up to the pre-WW2 expansion -- and the end of the "yellow wing" era of colorful markings.

The coming thing was the monoplane. The first widely used Navy carrier monoplane was the Douglas TBD-1 Devastator torpedo plane, which first flew in 1935. Finally the Navy could retire the open-cockpit biplane planes that had their genesis in the 1920s.

The earlier Boeing biplane fighters had been replaced by a series of Grumman biplane fighters with retractable landing gear. The barrel shaped F2F and F3F saw wide service in the Navy and Marines. Newcomer Brewster won contracts for the first Navy monoplane fighter, the F2A Buffalo. And stalwart Grumman was not far behind with their F4F Wildcat monoplane; the early models were in service right at the end of the "yellow wing" era.

The scout/dive bombers were the last type to abandon the biplane layout. Biplane Curtiss SBC Helldivers -- with closed cockpits and retractable landing gear -- filled the scouting and dive-bombing squadrons in the latter 1930s. A new monoplane scout/div bomber, the Douglas SBD, entered service just before WWII started and quickly replaced the older SBC.

In December of 1940, the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics directed that aircraft would be painted grey overall, mandating an end to the "yellow wing" era of bright colors.

Wars are fought with what you have on hand, not with what you would like to have or are planning to have. Many of the above aircraft saw action in the initial stages of World War II. The results were mixed:
-- The TBD Devastator torpedo bomber saw action in the early carrier battles of 1942. A large number were lost at the Battle of Midway in June 1942, decimating the torpedo squadrons. Fortunately, by mid-1942, a new Grumman TBF Avenger entered service to replace the TBD.
-- The F3F biplane fighter was used for training only by the time the war started.
-- The F2A Buffalo was used in early battles with disastrous effects; it suffered terrible losses from Japanese type Zero fighters and was withdrawn from combat.
-- The F4F Wildcat became the standard Navy/Marine fighter in 1941-43. Outclassed by the Zero in some respects, it nevertheless did well overall in combat, holding the line until improved fighters (F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair) could get to the fight.
-- The SBC Helldiver saw secondary service briefly with the Marines but never saw combat.
-- The SBD Dauntless earned honors as a deadly dive bomber in the battles of 1942-44. The SBD deserves a place as one of the iconic Navy aircraft of all time as the aircraft that destroyed the Japanese carrier force in the 1942 Battle of Midway.

[Lady Jane]

Time for some Corporate aircrafts.

The newest generation of Gulfstream aircrafts. Only challenged by the Canadair Global Express for speed and range. I want one...

Maybe smokinjoe64 and matteo can pipe-in.

[Lady Jane]

Bombardier Global Express 8000,
https://businessaircraft.bombardier....-pdp-section-2


Short landing and take-off. Theoretical 8000nm range at cruise.

[Llarry]

Here's an unusual paint scheme on a Navy/Marine T-45 trainer.

[matteo]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Time for some Corporate aircrafts.

The newest generation of Gulfstream aircrafts. Only challenged by the Canadair Global Express for speed and range. I want one...

Maybe smokinjoe64 and matteo can pipe-in.

I'm currently flying the G650 and it's an absolute dream. Coming from previous generation Gulfstreams, it's like driving a BMW compared to a Ford F-150. The fly-by-wire flight controls are just so well done & balanced. When you combine that with the speed (.90 Mach) and the range (7000 nmi) it's just tough to beat.

[smokinjoe64]

Originally Posted by matteo

I'm currently flying the G650 and it's an absolute dream. Coming from previous generation Gulfstreams, it's like driving a BMW compared to a Ford F-150. The fly-by-wire flight controls are just so well done & balanced. When you combine that with the speed (.90 Mach) and the range (7000 nmi) it's just tough to beat.

I concur with matteo. Gulfstream aircraft consistently leads the 'Ultra-Large' biz jet category. My last platforms flown were last gen; GIV & GV. Both where the 'cats meow' for over 20 years for both pilots & Principals.

Also fortunate to have some time in Boeing BBJ and Global Express 5000; neither as PIC or type rated.

Post Nav, flew for a well known Entertainer. I can attest to Gulfstream performance, speed and versatility all the while very reliable jets...we landed in some challenging, cool, 'wild', and unconventional locations globally...occasionally, I miss it

Discontinued my pilot career in the 2000's once my daughter was borne. Wanted to be a full-time Dad since for many years was away from home ~90% of time, as a Naval Aviator then later Gulfstream guy. That said, remain in aviation/aerospace industry.

[Lady Jane]

Wouldn't that be something!

https://www.regionalmedianews.com/ne...cinating-wreck

[vreihen16]

Looks more like a MiG 15 or F-86 target drone to me.....

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

Looks more like a MiG 15 or F-86 target drone to me.....

Too far out in the middle of no where for that possibility. Would be nice to see her laid to rest along with Fred Noonan.