JUN 2009: Q: "Hello there, I am an italian engineering student, and a fan of the great Bantamweight Bomber. Your site is beautiful and plenty of useful informations, so I thought I could ask you for a little technical problem, which arose in my Skyhawk research. The electic system of the Skyhawk consisted in a 20 kVA alternator for AC 115 V. For emergency, there is an external Ram Air Turbine (RAT), but for the sake of reducing weight, the Skyhawk has no battery. And this is the big problem: how is possible to start the engine without any battery? It is possible that a frontline attack aircraft like the A-4 required always a Groud Power Unit (GPU) just to start the engine? I'm quite sure that this little aircraft either had no space for an APU... It would be awesome if anyone collaborating in your website has an answer, from technical experts to ex-USN and USMC pilots (who surely remember the starting procedures). Thanks a lot for any answer and for your beautiful website" Daniel Vergnano Ans: "Buon Giorno Daniel, All US Skyhawks with the exception of the A-4M required an external start cart in order to start the engine. Some of the earliest models also were required to carry a starter probe in the rear "hell hole" which was a gear mechanism that was placed in the right wing root in order to turn the engine before adding fuel and then restowed after start. Multiple airplanes could share the same starter. The A-4M had its own starter along with a very small pump handle that had to be attached to the JFS (Jet Fuel Starter) and hand pumped whenever the start was not successful on the first attempt. Some of us had "borrowed" F-16 starter handles that were longer and easier to use. You have to remember that when the Skyhawk was developed, there was plenty of money for the military, start carts were very common on the first jet aircraft and adding a self start capability always adds a lot of weight, which is a bad idea in any airplane. The decision is always a trade off between convenience, performance, cost and function. Ciao," Blade 27 OCT 2008 My trip to Subic...what a disappointment! While the trip to/from was no prob (beautiful, high speed toll way...through Angeles City and Clark), when I got to Subic, I was shocked. When I crossed shit river, I literally didn't know whether I was coming or going. Olongapo looked the same on both sides. There were two RPN ships in port, so I was able to ID where the waterfront was. My trip to Cubi NAS was no different. I struggled, but finally found the Cubi O Club. The front doors had a steel bar through them, preventing entrance. I walked around back, to find a Philippino family living in the club! Roosters were clucking among the weeds, where the nice lawn overlooking the RW and the bay used to be. The Ready Room bar was still there, but all sadly in need of paint. At the BOQ, Philippino families were living in the rooms. The BOQ swimming pool was partially filled with green fetid water...disease and bugs growing among the trash that had sunk to the bottom. The two Navy exchanges (Cubi/Subic) were very poor copies of Kmart. Fedex was operating out of the old air wing hangar. No paint had been applied since the USN moved out. The only bright spot was the Binictican Valley golf course...now called the Subic Bay Golf Course. It was in great shape. Only three foursomes were on the course (Sat afternoon). Apparently the last touchup work really accompl ished on the base was in 1996, when the RP hosted an APEC summit at Cubi. Eight private homes were built just above the runways, but below the O Club...one home for each world leader. They are now privately owned...but are starting to show wear/tear so common in this harsh environment. Everything else was overgrown, buildings slowly receding back into the jungle. No lawns were without thigh-high weeds. Fences falling over, parking lots empty and chained off, with weeds growing among the cracks. I'll not go back. Sad. RADM C 09 SEP 2008: Brent: Re: your question as to the height beyond which a pilot might have trouble flying the A-4. I can't give you a figure. But I've known some pretty long Scooter Drivers! Early on in the late fifties to mid-sixties, there was a rule put into effect(?) by the human engineering types that limited the height of A-4 pilots(Largely ignored in the real world of the A-4). It was not from a problem of flying the plane. Rather, the height limit was put at about 6' 4" or thereabout - which corresponded to a hip-knee length beyond which a pilot was expected to have trouble were he to have to eject from the a/c. The measure of his hip-to-knee length was the important criteria. If one was too long in that dimension, upon ejecting from the aircraft, the legs would be thrown forward and there was a great likelihood that toes, feet, or whatever would not clear the instrument panel and would be rather summarily chopped off .... or so it was feared! (all of which would quickly reduce the pilot to the proper measurements.) I only knew one chap who ran afoul of that rule. He was Skipper of VA-44, the A-4 RAG in Jacksonville, FL. When he flew the A-4, he lowered his seat all the way to the bottom, extended rudder peddles to maximum, closed the canopy and cocked his head to one side or the other. He was just too tall to sit upright. His head rested tightly against the canopy. The folks from above dictated that he was too tall & invoked the proscription against his flying the A-4. He routinely saluted, closed the canopy and, on a regular basis, took off! He was Cdr. Damon 'Hutch' Cooper, ..... later to be an admiral. I don't recall ever reading of any A-4 ejection in which the dreadful "missing toes" occurred. Otto Stars and Bars From: Jim Sent: April 09, 2008 11:44 AM Subject: A4 Markings Do you remember any data on the placement of the Star on the A4's? I have seen graphics that place the Star on the E's up front at the cockpit area like I remember, and have seen on all A4-A through C models. I receintly purchased the "US Navy & Marine Corps A-4 Skyhawk Units of The Vietnam War", and they show an A4-E BuNo 151105 of VA-93 in the Artists Colour Plates, pages 65-72 with the Star forward. I thought that when the E model came out, with the engine change along, with the added length to the nose of the aircraft, they moved the Star to the rear at the speed brake area. Following up grades kept the Star in the rear area. Evergreen's E model replica of John McCain's #416 from VA-46 is with the Star forward, but pictures of VA-46 E models show it to the rear. Jim VA-23 1964-1967 **************************** From: Dave Sent: April 09, 2008 12:57 PM To: Jim Subject: RE: A4 Markings Jim The Evergreen replica is correct. The only A-4E in VA-46 on the ’67 WESTPAC cruise to have the stars and bars on the tail just happened to be the airplane I was in during the Forrestal fire, 150129. The paint scheme change for the Echo was taking place that year, and as the airplanes got new paint at O&R, the stars and bars moved to the rear. Around the same time, new airplanes coming from Douglas started showing the new paint scheme. In the photos from our ’67 cruise, you can see the change. In VA-46 paint, it caused us to paint only one plaid strip on the tail, as “NAVY” and the BUNO was in the way. Dave ******************************* From: Bill To: Jim Sent: April 09, 2008 10:23 AM Subject: A4 Markings Jim - all A-4's powered by the J-65 engine (A/B/C/L) had the star forward because the I-65 emitted oil from a vent on the starboard side of the fuselage aft and the oi would eat the star off - all others had the star aft since the J-52 did not spit out oil - that's how I remember it. Bill The "S" after the BuNo. I'm pretty sure that the letter after the BuNo indicates what manufacturing block the airplane was built in. It wasn't a common practice but I've seen it occasionally. Tommy ************ That "S" is a, from what I have been told, a modification program designator. Which modification program it would be I have no idea. From what I know it seems that no one has a record of them. Joe ************** I don't know when block identification became a sometime practice, but I know it predates 1962. That's not to say that a BuNo suffix couldn't have been used to denote a mod program as well. Tommy ************** I got it out of the F3H flight handbook, of all places. It was there because of variations in configuration between manufacturing blocks, e.g. whether the primary dc bus or the utility bus provided electrical power to the engine fuel shutoff valve. Tommy ************* 10 SEP 08 - Production Blocks: In the immediate postwar years, like the USAF, the US Navy/Marine Corps often used a production block system to keep track of minor production line changes that were not deemed sufficiently drastic as to call for a new aircraft configuration sequence number. This system continued after the adoption of the unified designation system in 1962. Just like the Air Force, the Navy/Marine Corps did not use production block designations for all of their aircraft, and there was considerable variation in the systems used from one aircraft type to another. Block Numbers normally progressed in increments of 5 starting with -1, then -5, -10 and so on. Intermediate numbers were reserved to denote field modifications carried out after the aircraft's delivery, although the use of these seems to be exclusive to the USAF, and there is no known record of any USN aircraft having such intermediate numbers. Exceptions to the 'plus 5' rule of progression were fairly frequent, the prime examples being the McDonnell Banshee, Demon, and Phantom and the LTV Corsair II, whose Block Numbers progressed in single increments -1. -2, -3 and so on. In addition to Block Numbers. the Navy also often used Block Letters to denote different production standards. although these don't seem to be related to any USAF-style designation. . There were various letter styles and combination of letters that were used. The differing styles appear to have no particular significance and probably existed because of the lack of any firm USN directive on the subject. Sometimes the sequence started with the letter 'A' or 'a", with the first change in production standard being denoted by 'B', then 'C', etc, until 'Z' was reached. If letters beyond 'Z' were required, it sometimes happened that the letters are started over from 'A', but on other occasions the next change was denoted by 'AA' to 'ZZ' . In order to avoid confusion with the number zero, the letter 'O' is skipped. "Boom" Murphy's Law There is some debate about the origins of the term "Murphy's Law". Find here what we believe is the the straight skinny, not scuttlebutt!. Murphy's Law and Captain J.N. Murphy, USN NAS Cubi Point "O" Club JUNE 2007: Lisa Vale, daughter of the Officer who was in-charge of the Cubi O Club during some of its finest years, has started a forum at cubioclub.org To summarize some recent traffic concerning a modelers question: Can, and would you, place a MARK 84 2000lb bomb on Stations 2 and/or 4? Weight limits not a problem. Clearance a problem? Would you use, or have to use, a MER or TER? Has anyone seen a MARK 84 loaded on Stations 2 and/or 4? So far we have: After checking with some Marines I found they did carry them on the center line - Station 3. The in-boards 2 and 4 had a clearance problem but it was between the hooks on the rack. Joe *** And that in the :..... A-4 section from the USMC fixed wing aircraft: description, planning specifics and utilization planning factors manual.... Page 7 shows the various load-outs on the wing stations and shows the Mk-84 on #3 only. *** David found that: I found researching that: MER uses two sespension lugs 14 inches apart (MK 84 lugs are 30inches apart) and TER suspension hooks space 14 inches apart (MK84 lugs are 30 inches apart). ANSWER: The Mark 84 2000lb bomb had susupension lugs 30inches apart, and only the centerline rack on the Skyhawk could accomodate that configuration. Read RADM Jeremy Taylor's review of "Shadows of War", and his interview with the author - Skyhawk Robert Gandt. Heard that Rahn used to explain the reason the slats on the A4 were not interconnectted was expense. It would have cost $70 on an airplane then worth 900 grand apiece. "Boom" I am trying to identify which USS Intrepid A-4 squadrons and pilots took part in a MiG engagement on 5 October 1967. There were no losses on either side but eight Zunis, 38 2.75 rockets and more than 200 rounds of 20mm canon shells were expended. The Red Baron Report states A-4Bs and A-4Cs took part so that means VSF-3 and VA-15 and/or VA-34. Any one know about this action? UPDATE . . . Some time ago I requested help in identifying several Intrepid A-4 drivers who engaged MiGs in October 1967. I have identified everyone who fired at a MiG and interviewed all but LCDR. J. E. Gilreath, an Air Wing 10 officer who flew with VSF-3. Any one know J. E. Galreath so that I can contact him? Thanks for the help. Mike O'Connor moconnor@dwave.net
 a4skyhawk.org Home Page |
