I personally think the F-20 topped both. Such a pity it didn't enter service. It's another I think would make a good stand-off scale homebuilt.
View attachment 107371
I think you might be confusing the A-7 with it's first cousin, the F-8. Which is often referred to as "The Last Gunfighter". The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and the gun was mostly used for strafing. Not that they weren't capable of engaging in a dogfight, but they were really flying dumptrucks and could haul a prodigious amount of bombs. In Vietnam the Navy A-7's would carry Sidewinder missiles as a 'just-in-case' weapon. I know of at least one A-7 that launched a Sidewinder against a bicyclist.Man I love the A-7 too! What a machine. Last GUNFIGHTER!
Just for full disclosure: Chuck was a paid spokesman for Northrop. That doesn't mean he didn't love the plane, but, well, Northrop did sweeten the pot.Chuck Yeager said it was his favorite aircraft of all time.
I visited the Navy’s aggressor squadron at NAS Key West 8 or 9 years ago. They were trying to buy F-5’s from foreign governments just to be able to keep a few flying.They also wonder, with good reason, if parts will be available for decades, if US depot maintenance will be available, etc.
I don't think I'm following you. There were never any USAF, ANG, or AFRES fighter squadrons equipped with the F-5 , right? A dozen were sent to SEA to test them in combat in Vietnam, USAF and USN Aggressors flew them, and I'd bet a few others were sprinkled around at NASA, Test Pilot School, etc,. But as far as I know none were ever in units subject to deployment under an OPLAN. We liked them a lot for FMS purposes, but apparently not enough to buy and fly then in combat ourselves. Sounds funny, but I think it is just economics (okay, and maybe politics). In many less developed countries, the airplane acquisition costs are a big share of the whole cost of having an air force. In the US, personnel costs (incl medical care, education, training, retirement, housing, etc) infrastructure costs, logistical tail, etc is usually a much bigger share of defense spending in comparison to unit acquisition costs. With the (relatively) high cost of pilots, maintainers, commissaries to feed them, etc. putting a cheap plane in the inventory that has no AI radar, no adverse weather weapon delivery capability, etc is hard to justify when all the other stuff is so expensive and those high fixed costs are the same whether you buy F-5s or F-16s (with radar, etc).V1... ref F-5s and USAF and Foreign Air Forces...
F-5s were popular in USAF until mid 1980s...
USAF F-5s were mostly retired in-favor-of F-16s, except for USAF/USN top-gun/dissimilar-tactics aircraft...
The F-20 was offered to countries that were deemed politically unacceptable to receive the F-16. There was some sales interest, IIRC, and it was competing against an F-16 derivative equipped with a J-79 turbojet. However, the political restrictions were eventually lifted and everyone decided to go for the F-16 with better payload and equipment for not much more money. More info: F-16 Versions - F-16/79I agree, However I think it was merely a way for the Military industrial complex to sale foreign countries a fighter that was almost as good as what we use.
Chuck Yeager said it was his favorite aircraft of all time.
YH - Someone, (RFB) Did! The RFB Fantainer was to be a "cost effective" Jet Trainer. The initial prototype didn't work well but the two subsequent versions received exceptional marks for giving a "Jet like" flying experience @ 1/5th the cost of the Cessna T-37 Tweet and using 1/10th the fuel, (though it slower..). It took until about 83' to get the higher power versions to work well and be quiet enough to stand flying for long. Working versions occasionally make the used market for about $330k. It was rated for utility class Aerobatics, (+6G/-3G), cruised at about 200 knots, had a range of 650 miles, seats two tandem with the rear seat elevated so visibility is great from either cockpit and is sexy as hell, See drawing in link..You an me both are fans of the ducted fan engine. Man I wish someone could make it work.
Nice plane. From memory, I thought it under performed for installed power?Couldn’t resist putting a few photos of the ul39 albi in flight testing
View attachment 107447
View attachment 107448
View attachment 107449
Yeah looks underpowered... hoping they put a turbo shaft or turbofan engine instead.Nice plane. From memory, I thought it under performed for installed power?
Hello, Even though I came this thread late, I do believe a scaled A-4 is possible. However, the wing would require a small span upsizing. Keep in mind, the area goes up with the square of the span dimension. Also, there are several engines that can be used.Greetings Friends,
I would like to start by saying that the A-4 Skyhawk is my favorite aircraft of all time. I cant get enough of the 'Scooter".
With all the talk about scale warbirds lately I have, for a long time, always wanted to create a replica A-4. Only recently has there been jet engines available that might could power a scaled down version. I know the Skyhawk is already considered a scaled down airframe due to it's small design size but I just love the pure delta wing, the roll rate, and the overall look of Skyhawk.
If anyone has an opinion or shares my passion for A-4 please feel free to post a comment.
However, my ultimate question is does anyone think a scaled down version could be done?
Thanks in advance for sharing.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Yellowhammer
A-4's ForeverView attachment 106929
Hello, Even though I came this thread late, I do believe a scaled A-4 is possible. However, the wing would require a small span upsizing. Keep in mind, the area goes up with the square of the span dimension. Also, there are several engines that can be used.