Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

AF-1B Skyhawk Brazilian Navy Rollout Video

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

AF-1B Skyhawk Brazilian Navy Rollout Video

Old 8th Oct 2013, 19:56
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
AF-1B Skyhawk Brazilian Navy Rollout Video

From a 'skyhawkstudygroup' at Yahoo.com came this info about Brazil upgrading their A-4s:
"In a few words:
The first flight of an upgraded AF-1B aircraft was made on August 13th. Its the first of 12 aircraft who must be delivered to MB to 2015. The first flight was made on Embraer Defense and Security factory in SP. With the upgrade the aircraft will be on service to 2025. The upgrade programme has scheduled the delivery of 5 upgraded aircraft in 2014 and 7 in 2015.
Some details of the upgrade program:

http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2013/05...#axzz2epTsNbFY "
Primeiro voo da aeronave _AF-1B_ modernizada.mp4

SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 13:55
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,552
Neat!

The Standard Aircraft Characteristics refer to the A-4 performing a CAS mission with a "Mk 28 Store" on board. Gives "danger close" a new meaning.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 15:41
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Experts at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have concluded that in view of its previous nuclear activities, Brazil is in a position to produce nuclear weapons within three years.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 19:57
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 324
A-4 Foreverandeverandeverandever..........

I flew an A-4M on Red Flag in Sep 79 when it was an obsolescent aircraft for the USMC/USN.

We flew it with 2x230 Gal tanks inboard - giving 1:30 hrs at low level - with a centreline MER loaded with 6xMk82 (500lb) bombs, and an outboard AIM-9 on one wing, and a SHRIKE ARM outboard on the other. Active onboard ECM - smokeless engine - turned well - even better if clean wing - with an ingress at 540 KTAS - and egress at 570 KTAS with all the junk still hanging, except for the 6xMk82s.

Not bad for an obsolescent jet, I think!!

It was great fun to fly.

So I am really pleased to see it reborn and given an extended life.

I hope that those who continue to fly it now enjoy flying it as much as I did some 35 years ago!!
ex-fast-jets is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 20:31
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,630
IIRC, the Navy and USMC were still using the Mongoose as an adversary fighter in the 80's. I may have recalled incorrectly, however. I also seem to recall that some of the reserve USMC outfits had the A-4M still alive and well back then.

Hmm, from the wiki page, it looks as though memory serves:
A few snippets:
A-4M used by both VF-126 and TOPGUN.
A-4 remained a viable threat surrogate until it was retired by VF-43 in 1993. The A-4M was also operated by the Operations Maintenance Detachment (OMD) in an adversary role based at NAS Dallas, Texas for the Naval Air Reserve.
I seem to recall VF-43 also having some Israeli Kfir fighters for a while.
FWIW:
Collings Foundation has a TA-4J still flying.

Nice to see the folks in Brazil are keeping the Skyhawk alive. ( I suspect their avionics suite is quite different from the old Skyhawks some of us are familiar with ... ) From the site linked (Portuguese?) it looks like they are a variant of the Mongoose, with nicely updated displays and avionics.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 9th Oct 2013 at 20:37.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 21:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,728
Its been awhile, but weren't the mongooses sans turtleback? These look to have it, at least on my smart phone and 47 year old eyes.
West Coast is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 21:32
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Via Google Translate [Portuguese to English] for URL above: Google Translate

Plenty of A4G (some other A-4s for context) nostalgia here:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd6...6&sa=822839791
&
https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0...DhIQ0szeVJFY0U

Lots of sometimes grisly photos of various aircraft, being potential warbirds in this 55Mb PDF:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...archReport.pdf

Last USN operators of Skyhawks [TA-4Js] were VC-8 de-activated 23 August 2003 (officially 30 Sep 2003). See story Naval Aviation News Jan-Feb 2004.

A recent airshow at Vero Beach, Florida featured an A-4C warbird:


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 9th Oct 2013 at 21:40.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 23:29
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
All the ex-RNZAF (single seat) A-4K KAHUs gone to DRAKEN are ex-A4G. Who'da thunk. The ex-RNZAF (trainer 2 seaters) TA-4K KAHUs gone to DRAKEN are just crabby. The only TA4G ex-TA-4K KAHU survivor is now at FAAM Nowra (Fleet Air Arm Museum) - very kindly donated by NZed. BZ.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 08:46
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Serendipity

NAS Key West A-4E Super Fox – CAPT Carroll “Lex” LeFon 08 Oct 2013
"CDR Dave “Swifty” Morgan, the Ops O down at NAS Key West, passed on this story and these photos a short while back.

One of the static display aircraft on the base at Boca Chica, the A-4E Super Fox, was in need of a paint job. Swifty pulled together a team of his enlisted guys and gals and they did one heckuva job. When the time came for who’s name to put on the side... well, I’ll let Swifty finish:..."
NAS Key West A-4E Super Fox ? CAPT Carroll ?Lex? LeFon

http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-conten...1-1000x664.jpg

SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 09:14
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
A4G Arrests HMAS Melbourne slow motion quality video

Video snippet from: A4 Skyhawk catapult tests and arrests | Australian War Memorial

A4Gs + S2Es Slow Motion Arrests & Catapults [with strop catcher]

__________________________

Blog: Collection | Australian War Memorial

Film Collection Online: Not a Common Carrier | Australian War Memorial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbeja2znfho

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Oct 2013 at 09:25. Reason: Add extra info
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 15:06
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,454
Aggressor Hump :)

Quite a few Aggressor 'Scooters' had the hump so to speak as they were ex USMC A-4F 'Super Fox' and some A-4M





http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk...ay/158171e.jpg

http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk...45_stewart.jpg

Cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 17:46
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Mongoose / Super Fox Skyhawk Variations

An explanation about the Mongoose/Super F Skyhawk: from e-mail discussions on the ‘Skyhawk Study Group’ website at two locations:

Yahoo! Groups
& http://www.skyhawkstudygroup.a4skyha...orum/index.php
"Hi All,
Just a few bits of amplifying info to set the record straight regarding A-4E/A-4F air frames and Mongoose configurations and VA-43/VF-43.

The USN used to have four Instrument Training Squadrons, VA-43/45/126/127, based at the major jet NA Stations, Oceana, Cecil Field, Miramar, and Lemoore. During the mid 70’s they were equipped with 2 seat A-4s to accomplish their mission of fleet pilot instrument training and qualification. At this point they did not have any other role. The Fleet Composite Squadrons which flew the A-4 were VC-1/2/5/7/8/10.

Later, as the Fleet Adversary Program evolved, these squadrons received additional air craft, in the form of A-4E/A-4F, F-5E, Kfir, and F-16N models. At some point they may have had some USAF loaned T-38 for a short while. The above mix was not necessarily assigned simultaneously. As the adversary role became the primary mission the squadrons were re-designated from VA to VF.

The pic published is an A-4E in one of the adversary paint jobs; and from the looks of the A-6 air craft, the picture is of the ramp at NAS Oceana, which means that the aircraft was likely assigned to VF-43.

As one would expect, the evolution of the Mongoose was gradual and took some time to finalize what was considered the Mongoose configuration.

The first aircraft to be used to augment the TA-4Js were some A-4Es. These aircraft were modified over time to have the following configuration either prior to or after delivery to the squadron.
1] dorsal avionics hump removed (not all Es had the hump)
2] PW J52 P-8B engine (9,300 lbs thrust)
3] IFR probe extension removed
4] external stores pylons removed
5] 20mm cannon with ammo system removed.

Later I know that VF-43 re-installed the centerline stores pylon and flew the E model with an Aero 1C external fuel tank as necessary for the mission. This configuration was called the “mini bubble” since the Aero 1C was the smaller version of the Aero 1D 300 gallon external fuel tank, which was normally carried by USN fleet aircraft. This smaller tank added enough fuel for longer ACM missions without adding as much parasite drag as the larger tank; and being on the centerline did not cause any air frame stress problems which would have been present if either of the other 2 wet stations, 2 or 4, had been used.

Before the advent of the TACTS Range with the Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation, there was no requirement to carry the Airborne Instrumentation System, AIS, pod. Once the need to carry an AIS arose, the outer external stores pylons were re-installed. I never saw an E with the slats wired or bolted up. That came later with the A-4Fs which were configured like the Es, and also had PW J52 P-408, (11,200 lbs thrust), engine installed. These Fs were referred to as “Mongoose”.

The E in the picture, Bureau Number 151111, does not appear to have any external stores stations installed and no AIS pod is visible. There may have been some A-4s wired to carry the AIS on station 3, but I never saw or flew any. The AIS was carried on either station 1 or 5 on all the A-4s I saw configured with that pod.

A Mongoose/Blue Angel Fs had a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio and had the best performance envelope of all Skyhawk variants including the Skyhawk II airframes, A-4M/N/KU.
_________________________________________________

A Super F is/was essentially a Blue Angel Skyhawk. They had some mods the Mongoose did not. The most coveted Blues mod that I would have liked in the Mongoose is the inverted flight fuel mod. We definitely did not want a smoke capability, and the trim mod would have been of no benefit for us in ACM. And a drag chute or a self contained cockpit ladder would have just been nice to have. The Mongoose always operated from long enough runways to make a drag chute unnecessary. Some of the spare Super Fs were “stashed” in units around the US, and saw service as non Flight Demonstration Squadron aircraft.

Yes, the Aero 1C is the 150 gallon drop tank.

The Blues/Mongoose Skyhawks really were like rockets. When you jam accelerated for take off there was a noticeable push back into the seat and the post take off gear up, flaps up had to happen as fast as you read this, so as to not over speed the landing gear or flaps. If you had been cleared for an unrestricted climb you could leave the throttle at take off power; but you had to move the stick aft to the stop initially and establish a rate of climb above what the VSI could display to stay below the 250 knots below 10,000 feet limit. And you watched the air station rapidly shrink in your mirrors. If you had not been cleared for an unrestricted climb, then you retarded the throttle to 85%.

An Adversary A-4E with a mini bubble could do an Immelman on take off with ease. These jets were a really good simulation of a Mig 17, but they were more maneuverable than that Mig model.

Needless to say, flying these Skyhawks was always a lot of fun, but then flying any Skyhawk was always a treat for me.
_________________________________________________

The advertised speed at sea level was in the mid 600s, I believe around 670 KIAS.

The mindset of an Adversary A-4E/F Skyhawk driver regarding speed limits was quite different than when you were flying a two seater, or a single seater in the normal fleet attack configuration.

With the Adversary Skyhawk, you could pretty much go as fast as the situation allowed without regard to LBA, Limit(s) of the Basic Airframe, being exceeded. Right or wrong, if you were flying a stripped A-4E/F with either no external stores stations, or maybe stations 1, 3, & 5 installed and you had only an AIS pod on a LAU-7 on either station 1 or 5, you could not hurt the jet by going faster than any cockpit placard or NATOPS limit on airspeed. What kept us from sustained very high speeds was the limited amount of fuel and the amount of training we wanted to get on each sortie. The basic internal fuel is 1600 lbs [error corrected below]. Add a mini bubble and the total is 2600 lbs. Although the Adversary Skyhawks were as light as they could be made, and as clean as possible, the fuel consumption was significant when you were running around the sky maintaining an air speed no lower than the left hand corner of the Vn diagram while you also maintained sustained high G flying ACM. The additional excess thrust we gained from creating these ACM hot rods, was used to generate and sustain the high performance needed to perform the mission. We wanted to get a minimum of three ACM engagements on each sortie. When you consider the time to the ACMI range, the fuel used getting 3 setups and during each engagement, and then the fuel to get home, you did not have much in the way of extra JP-5 to try for a personal best on speed either in level flight or in a dive.

However, when you did a Post Maintenance Check Flight that required the full “A” profile where you went to the service ceiling and did an idle pressurization check, most guys I knew planned it so that they were beyond 30 NM off the Virginia/North Carolina coast and had a block altitude clearance from FL 450 down to 10,000’ MSL. Then they just might do a supersonic run. I forget was critical Mach was for the A-4, but it was likely around .85 IMN or maybe a little higher. So with an E or F that had been souped up you had the extra thrust to push through the high drag spike that began at critical Mach. And if you accelerated to max horizontal speed at max continuous EGT, which was 594°C for a P-8B, at FL 430 and then rolled inverted and let the nose fall through to the vertical you could easily be supersonic in a very short time.

You could do this with any A-4 from the E on, (not sure about the L model?), that had clean external stores stations.
Best, Gary “Zoo” Rezeau
_________________________________________________

PS: As per my replies to..., who were kind enough to point out that I had not mentioned the 3,000+ lbs [3,700?] of wing fuel normally carried in all A-4s, I probably should re-write that paragraph.

For the sake of brevity, what I meant to convey in answering a speed question was that even with full internal, [fuselage & wing], fuel and maybe even an external 1,000 lb fuel tank on the centerline, we kept our speed with the range needed to sustain the high performance turn rates to dog fight with guns and Sidewinders/Atolls as our only weapons. The Fleet Adversary Skyhawks were not meant to be simulators of more modern medium/long range missile equipped Communist Bloc fighters. It was a given that we were dead meat if a Phantom or a Tomcat used a Sparrow on us. Again, this was apropos the mid 70’s. So our ROE reflected the tactics used to find, and engage a guns/short range missile capable enemy fighter.

To answer your “without wing fuel” question, with about 2,600 lbs of fuel, about all we could have done was transit to the MOA, military operating area, and return to base, since we liked to be on deck with about 1,000 lbs of fuel. And we would likely be flying a max range profile to accomplish this if we were flying from NAS Oceana, Virginia.

As an aside, I appreciate the questions regarding my mistake in “attempting to take off with empty wing tanks.” LOL!"

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Oct 2013 at 17:51.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 18:04
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Adversary Skyhawks Emulate MiG-17

E-mail from 'ZOO' from the wayback machine:
"Adversary Skyhawk used as MiG-17 emulator

The USN/USMC used various models of the A-4 in their Adversary programs. The USN squadrons were VF-43/45/126/127, VCF-13, (maybe 12 too?), and the Top Gun/Have Gun programs used these A-4s as part of their training syllabus.

I am not sure what weapons school you are referring to? I am not aware of the USAF using A-4s this way, but there were many combined air warfare exercises that included USN adversary A-4 participation. They were frequent players at Red Flag exercises.

USN Fighter Weapons School was a comprehensive syllabus that covered advanced tactics training with the usual classroom instruction and flight simulator training. The flight syllabus was tailored to the type of fighter aircraft flown. These fighter crews being trained flew against the adversary pilots from any of the adversary squadrons participating.

Typically, the VF-43 at NAS Oceana and VF-126 at NAS Miramar did most of this work.

But the goal of the Top Gun/Have Gun program was to train a select number of fleet squadron pilots and NFOs to return to their squadron and continue the ACM/DACM training of their squadron's pilots.

The A-4 was an almost perfect MIG-17 substitute in every way.

Size, and maneuverability were very similar and the Specific Power envelopes were very close.

Although the MIG-17 had A/B and the A-4 did not, a mostly clean A-4E/F could emulate the MIG very well.

The Mongoose A-4 had the P-408 engine installed, no avionics hump, as much hardware removed as possible to lighten the aircraft, the slats wired permanently up; and was an amazing performer with a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.
Zoo"
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 18:12
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Look Ma - No Hump - A-4M Adversary






Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Oct 2013 at 18:21. Reason: Another One/Two Bites The Dust
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 18:26
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,004
Getting the bigger engine in the A-4M was clearly welcomed by the USMC:



Just This Once... is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 18:34
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
HotRodicusSuperSonicus

Clearly an A-4F/G with the 9,300lb J52 P8 engine - when carrying own weight in external stores - needed some extra oomph in that condition. Otherwise - no problemo amigo (as indicated perhaps above when clean - or near so). How they got by with a little help from JATO. http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...archReport.pdf (55Mb)


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Oct 2013 at 19:04.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2013, 01:57
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
DRAKEN ex-RNZAF Skyhawks

N142EM ex NZ6212 ex 883 A4G
N143EM ex NZ6213 ex 884 A4G
N144EM ex NZ6214 ex 887 A4G
N145EM ex NZ6215 ex 871 A4G
N146EM ex NZ6217 ex 876 A4G
N147EM ex NZ6218 ex 877 A4G
N140EM ex NZ6251 Trainer RNZAF
N141EM ex NZ6252 Trainer RNZAF


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 12th Oct 2013 at 02:05. Reason: Ex A4G Side Number Skyhawks now with DRAKEN
SpazSinbad is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.