Talk:LTV A-7 Corsair II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Pivoting Wings[edit]

Did this aircraft have pivoting wings that rose for takeoff and landing? 12.74.74.83 21:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you are thinking of its predecessor, the F-8 Crusader. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The F-8 Crusader was not the direct precursor of the A-7, at least not in the normal way. The F-8 series was designed from the outset as a fighter/interceptor, while the A-7 series aircraft was designed with only one function in mind: ground attack. Therefore, a completely new airframe and mission were required. Jak474 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unreasonable citation demands[edit]

The two citation needed entries in "Design and development" refer to points of common knowledge.

- subsonic flight, given the technology of the time and unless the aircraft was to have been specialized beyond the point of utility as a ground attack aircraft, is more efficient than supersonic flight.

- a turbofan engine is more efficient than a turbojet. 50.53.72.138 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out- indeed, it would seem these may be difficult to find citations for. If I’m reading your comment correctly, the two statements you are referring to are:
“However, the Navy felt that a subsonic design could carry the most payload the farthest distance, due to the lower fuel burn rate from avoiding supersonic flight”, and
“Turbofans achieve greater efficiency by moving a larger mass of air at a lower velocity”.
For the first one, I’ll agree with the CN tag- there’s a lot of info in that statement (more than just the technical aspect- it also discusses the Navy’s motivations), all of which should probably come from a verifiable source.
For the second one, it probably wouldn’t be too hard to find an aeronautics textbook or webpage to verify this statement. I’m trying to figure out through if this statement could be re-written to connect it with the rest of the paragraph (while still being verifiable)- right now, it just kinda seems like it was put on as an afterthought.
Skyraider1 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Based on" F-8 Crusader[edit]

From what I've heard and from looking over drawings of the basic airframe and dimensions, the A-7 was only "based on" the F-8 the way that a Super Hornet is "based on" the original Hornet...which is to say, they have a similar overall appearance, structure, and aerodynamics, but there are few if any parts that are actually shared between the two aircraft. I know it's a matter of opinion, but I always felt "based on" should only be used for designs that actually share common components, and for something like this "derived from" is more accurate. Whatever the wording, it would be nice to see some mention of this in the article, if it is in fact true.

I also have to wonder whether the detail about the crewmen from the A-6 that was shot down is really relevant to this article. So an A-7 was shot down. And an A-6. Do we need to know about the crewmen of the A-6 and what their names were and the degree of their injury as well? That seems like it belongs on the article on the A-6, if it belongs anywhere..45Colt 12:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote 'Whatever the wording, it would be nice to see some mention of this in the article, if it is in fact true'. I'm just reading Bill Gunston's "Attack aircraft of the West" where he says on p235"..hardly a split-pin common to the two designs, and even the superficial similarity tends to vanish under detailed scrutiny..". He also says "Vought had studied the possibility of turning the F-8 into a subsonic attack aircraft" so I guess it was derived from the F-8. I think "derived from" and "based on" by themselves are too woolly to read too much into their meaning.Pieter1963 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Split Aircraft on Display Section[edit]

I concur that the list should be split onto another page (usually when it reaches 100 examples). I am still adding examples and this will just make the page even larger.Redjacket3827 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting just seems like a good idea for this. It does not have to be done today, but should be done before long. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it wasn't - HUD, etc[edit]

"It was one of the first combat aircraft to feature a head-up display"

The EE Lightning had a true HUD in 1959. It was called AIRPASS. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It says "one of the first", not "the first" - I don't see the problem here. - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it was either. The UK had working HUDs with radar cue, range, horizon line and altitude combined into the gyro gunsight in 1942. These were in production in the AI.17 and AI.18 of the early 1950s. Similar systems were in use on US planes at the same time, notably the MG-10 used in the F-102 among others, which allowed you to fire off the optical or radar screens (but unlike the UK examples, were not combined). AIRPASS of 1959 was far more advanced, including all the features you would see in something in the F-16 (perhaps not AoA, I don't know) including a clever display that indicated the direction for the aircraft to fly to bring it into weapons firing parameters as rapidly as possible. I don't think the A-7 was even remotely close to first, and including the language "one of the first" is simply and completely misleading. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually all you need is on the Wiki's own article on the HUD. The Buccaneer pre-dates the AIRPASS, which is interesting because it used a derivative of the AIRPASS radar. So that means there were at least two aircraft in service with HUDs of an advanced design at least seven years before the A-7 even flew. Further, this article's body does not actually claim it was one of the first, but specifically the first US aircraft. That's a very different statement. And only a few characters later, we see that it was built by Elliott, and was thus a version of the AIRPASS. I am adjusting the lede accordingly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The Lead text actually lists 3 things in the relevant sentence, not just the HUD part. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And all three are wrong. The HUD came from the Lightning which used it almost a decade earlier, the INS was first used circa 1961 on the F-104 (and others on other airframes through that period), and the engine flew three years earlier on the F-111. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, but the text said it was among the first aircraft to feature all three together. Looks like you are dissecting the parts and/or over analyzing this. Whatever... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure replacing unsourced claims with other unsourced claims is the way to go. Toss the whole thing out, and find something reliably sourced before readding. - BilCat (talk)
I'm happy with that. Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I was sure you would be. :) Btw, I see nothing in the Lightning article about it being the first aircraft with a HUD, but the claim probably depends on how one defines HUD. - BilCat (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Museums?[edit]

Where can I find an A-7 in a museum? I live in the US South and visit military museums fairly often, but have never seen an A-7 in one. Since I conducted an airstrike with one (my first one), I have a soft spot for one and would like to see one again. CsikosLo (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)