|
Post by planecrazy on Dec 16, 2015 9:31:40 GMT 12
Been searching the net researching for a two seat rc Skyhawk I am currently modelling, came across this interesting article on the gold Skyhawk, sorry if it has been posted already. www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/RNZAF_50th_Anniv_Skyhawk.htmlAnother piece of trivia the RNZAF Skyhawks often seen with centreline fuel tank, I am yet to find a RAN single seater Skyhawk with a centreline tank, would this be because it would be in the way for catapult launches? Thank you....... Some pic's of RAN Skyhawks here. www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Skyhawk
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 16, 2015 10:47:03 GMT 12
That Gold Skyhawk page is on my website and is a compilation of info submitted by forum members here.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Dec 16, 2015 11:17:38 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by mileater on Dec 16, 2015 13:28:48 GMT 12
Pics not showing up Ian Cheers, Allan
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 16, 2015 13:38:21 GMT 12
I can see them
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Dec 16, 2015 14:11:52 GMT 12
Pics not showing up Ian I should have re-sized to photo's for a better viewing, I'll adjust shortly
|
|
|
Post by planecrazy on Dec 31, 2015 13:08:22 GMT 12
I have been searching the net researching for a rc micro Shyhawk I have been building, wanting to replicate a two seater in the RAN blue grey scheme, found these great pic's, have seen the tight one of 55 a few places. Have seen the formation of four in different schemes from a rear view a few places recently found a more side on angle, they look great! Photo credit. Air Force Museum of New Zealand Official
|
|
|
Post by planecrazy on Oct 9, 2016 21:35:27 GMT 12
Sorry for a trivial question, it seems some of the auxiliary fuel tanks have fins and others don't, just wondering why is this, did they not have fins and they where added later for stability or vice versa?
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by keroburner on Oct 10, 2016 13:28:28 GMT 12
Don will know for sure. I always thought the wing tanks had fins and the centreline ones didn't? Throw in the other types with the air to air refuelling probes... Did they have any cargo pods as well for the A4?
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Oct 10, 2016 13:37:00 GMT 12
The centreline 400 gallon tanks didn't have their tails fitted on Kahu jets, so that the chaff and flares would remain clear when they were fired (the CMDS buckets are under the fuselage above the tail area of the tank). With a centreline tank fitted, the aft hell-hole door rests on top of the tank. Beside the forward end of the hook, you can see the rounded square blanking plate where the countermeasures buckets were loaded. Luggage pod (SULC)
|
|
|
Post by planecrazy on Oct 10, 2016 14:26:49 GMT 12
Thanks for the replies folks, I'm grateful.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Oct 13, 2016 14:38:47 GMT 12
RE cargo pods for the A-4. There was a converted drop tank that was used to carry a full Lox Converter. No knowledge of it being used but with servicings at Wb it could have been handy to have. Also there was the chilling of beer cans in the (5inch?) rocket pods. Now thats a cargo.
|
|
|
Post by planecrazy on Oct 23, 2016 8:08:46 GMT 12
Sorry for another trivial question, been watching a few clips of A4s landing, noticed they never flair on landing always tend to thump on when landing?
I realise this is probably a must do for carrier landings but they also land hard on runways as well. Is this a result of the design being for carriers and arrestor hook landing?
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Oct 26, 2016 15:56:59 GMT 12
No flare landings were recommended mainly because "we could" but also to ensure that you had equal main gear oleo compression - the danger being that uneven compression would lead to a turning moment on rollout. Most of us would give a quick burst of power just before touchdown to reduce the sink rate, particularly at higher weights.
|
|
|
Post by planecrazy on Oct 26, 2016 16:46:01 GMT 12
Thanks so much, interesting the gear really does collapse quite a bit on landing.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Oct 26, 2016 16:56:32 GMT 12
Not just on landing.The A-4 has what i describe as a 2 stage oleo compression. Once i was on the flightline and refeulling was in progress,the aircraft would sink as you would expect,then when it got to a heavier loading it compressed rapidly,something to watch out for as you moved around the aircraft,that tail would hurt!
|
|
|
Post by planecrazy on Nov 10, 2016 21:54:49 GMT 12
Another question for those in the know and I am most grateful for those who share their knowledge, thank you. I remember seeing the RNZAF displaying the single and two seat A4s at Nowra many moons ago. There was only one pilot in the two seater, I've been wondering if there was a noticeable difference flying the single seater as aposed to the two seater in similar configuration? Obviously the weight of the two seater would have made some difference to things like roll rate, climbing speed, landing speed, was there a notable change or minimal difference between the single and two seaters when configured for airshow handling displays? Thank you...........
|
|
hughw
Flying Officer
Posts: 58
|
Post by hughw on Nov 24, 2016 9:13:50 GMT 12
Is it true that the post Kahu A4K's could also attach SU-44 flares to their wing pylons? Were they ever used on the post Kahu Skyhawk? I don't see why you would use SU-44's when you could use the Tracor ALR-39 dispensers that would be much more lightweight and would't use up pylon space. However on page 354 of "The History of the RNZAF Skyhawk" book by Don Simms and Nick-Lee Frampton there is a diagram of possible external weapons loads on the post Kahu Skyhawk which has SU-44's listed.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 24, 2016 18:50:29 GMT 12
They were used pre and post Kahu for night illumination of target areas and as "targets" for live firing of AIM-9s!
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 24, 2016 19:00:46 GMT 12
Another question for those in the know and I am most grateful for those who share their knowledge, thank you. I remember seeing the RNZAF displaying the single and two seat A4s at Nowra many moons ago. There was only one pilot in the two seater, I've been wondering if there was a noticeable difference flying the single seater as aposed to the two seater in similar configuration? Obviously the weight of the two seater would have made some difference to things like roll rate, climbing speed, landing speed, was there a notable change or minimal difference between the single and two seaters when configured for airshow handling displays? Thank you........... The single seater (know as the "Model" in RNZAF service) was the prefered mount for handling/aero displays and air combat manouvering. The T-bird (known as the "Family Wagon" in RNZAF service) airframe was 1,000lbs heavier and the C of G was slightly further forward meaning it wasn't as responsive in pitch as the single seater. But when there was a shortage of Models available the pilots would have to take whatever was available. On 2 Sqn at Nowra we only had six jets and because we were the conversion unit we always had a few T-birds. It wasn't uncommon to have 3 of each type, so there was a 50/50 chance the jet you were going to be allocated would be a T-bird! 75 Sqn didn't have that problem, they would usually only have one or two T-birds out of 8 or 9 jets. Hence why 2 Sqn was the place to be for getting back seat rides!
|
|