MAKO69

This pit is very much like the A-4K in reality. The A-4K was a wolf in sheeps clothing had the onboard systems of the F-16A in the "tight package" of the skyhawk. I am sure that the Arg. airforce is along the same lines.

The spey did have more RAW thrust than a J-79 equiped phantom. Here's a question did the spey smoke like the J-79?

Way to cool , great work on French Skyhawk.

Phantoms had much more thrust compared to the skyhawks, the old adedge if you give a barn door enough thrust it will fly.

Loks cool

All A-4 had long nose wheels all USN F-4 Phantoms front nose gear was extended during carrier launch the UK Navy F-4K Phantom had double extention of the USN Phantoms

In reality the front was wood the rear already had plating for the AV-8S, steal plate could be added to the front as not to have direct flame impingment on the wood. And fire crews always on stand by could hose down the blast area before and after. . In the game it could work it could have a "new steal deck " w/the new arresting gear that was installed.

It already has good angle of attack and it was lighter than both those planes

JATO would be no more dangerouse than a 2000k bomb or other hi explosive device as long as caution is used.

Check out the NF-104 there is a mod that gives that aircraft additional thrust for sveral minutes get some ideas from that. Jato would only be for 4-10 seconds depending on size. You would have to Mod the aircraft to so at 100% power it would double the thrust of the aircraft and only last for a specified time 4-10 seconds. Or mod a centerline fueltank or missle, rocket it would fire when selected giving the required thrust, but not release until jetisoned. 2nd part The F-8 is much heavier than an A-4 F-8 normal load 28,000 lbs(12,700kg) the A-4 about 10,000 lbs (5000 kg) The f-8 has a highr landing speed and in order to land on the Dedalo would need to be on vapors, not true to life. Need atleast enough fuel for 2 passes an then some to climb out to 5k to bail out.

As safe as you want to make it. Probably not any more dangerouse than a F-18F coming back w/an unspent warload. It was a what if option, if they wanted to operate a-4s from that Dedalo it could have been an option. It was done w/RN Hurricanes off some theirnon carrier-type ships in WW2

Unless you are a nation like Spain that could not afford the bigger carrier and the jet aircraft to go with it. They would have needed help w/purchase or lease of both during the 60's. The small escourt carrier Cabot had no problem operating w/33 fixed wing propeller driven aircraft during WW2, so I see no problem using Skyraiders, Bearcats, and S-2 Trackers, Heck you could even throw in late versions of the F4U Corsairs which were pretty mean planes in the air to ground role in the early part of the conflict. Props were better on gas than jets the skyraider could loiter for 8 hours hanging on the prop with a fairly good bomb load. The first 2 would have been very usefull during the 60's and after the navy got rid of the Skyraider in '67. The Dedalo's Skyraiders and or Bearcats could have been assigned RESCAP duties, and or assigned to close air support for R.O.K. Army and South Vietnam Armies. Spain would have been about 10-12 years behind the US,UK,USSR in tech-mech back in the 60's. The use of a loaned USN Essex class carrier would be great but use of the Dedalo would be more realistic and a more sense of pride for Spanyards. What IF, The Dedalo could have been equiped w/arresting gear and the A-4s could have been fitted w/JATO units, similar to forward USMC bases during 'Nam. A carrier the size of Dedalo could only have 6 A-4s and operate safe and efficiant 8 would be pushing the envelope of safety. Recovery would have to be done in a way that would allow the deck to be clear for runoff after landing and bolters. The A-4 just landed would have to be stowed below "quickly"(within minutes) between recoveries.

I like that idea too but I think they would rely heavily on prop planes as well as 1st gen jets if they had the essex if not, just props of the short carrier.

Both, skyraiders were great air to ground and the bearcat was still a mean plane up into the mid 50's as a fighter, it could also do air to ground well.

check your sim settings make them all hard then see if you can fly a wounded bird

google video it you'll see the real deal very cool.

make sure your screen and game settings are the same 1024 by 768 example. dumb down the game in video options.

I think that would be a great skin a French Naval Hornet. Another sports car they missed out on. Those damn polititions always mukking up the guys trying to fly the cool planes. It happens all over the world. New Zealand and the f-16 fiasco, Australia and the loss of their naval carrier fleet in '84 tried to get Harriers got squashed oh well.

The HOFF David Hasselhoff

Re skin the Oriskany and make up a fictional story about 1 of the US essex class that was decom-ed and leased to the Spanish Armada in support of the Vietnam Conflict. There was a slew of Essex class carriers that went in and out of service from the 50s to the early 70s. I think people will like that. Then you could get some Spanish Armada Hornets skinned up for the 80 Vietnam campaign that would be cool.

bingo or just have propeller aircraft operating off of it example skyraider, bearcat, tracker, etc.

You would need an angled deck and or not recover and launch at the same time keeping the departure end of the carrier clear of aircraft, people, vehicles etc. Also witha massive upgrade the carrier would need steam catapults, and recovery eqiupment. So there goes a lot of useable space on the ship that was able to support 8 helos 8 Matadors. The wiki says 33 fixed wing I am sure that was WWII era aircraft. Probably not feasable and cost effective they are better off w/their new class of carriers. Unless they want to go the route of the money hungry rigs like the U.S.

Friend of mine worked on the shuttle program until the late 90's. He worked in the life support systems. He told me that no 1 person is left alone with the orbiter vehicle. Also if you needed to loosen or tighten a screw it went through about 10 people before it happened. He also said the orbiter was designed to have a turn around time of a month. But NASA being super safe tares it down and looks at everything. He said doing that "BODY OFF RESTORATION" takes its toll over time which it wasn't designed for. They were to get a quick check new engines put on and sent back out in about 1-2 months. he worked on the program from the early 80's when they thought these would be going up every month. Was at his Bar asked about this he said Hogwash the higher ups didnt listen to the enginers. He said the old booster ring would vent all the time just not that soon so close to the ground were the radiant heat was a factor in that venting ignited. After the Columbia disaster I spoke to him that afternoon (yes at his bar) and he spoke with some of his former co-workers. The higher ups didn't listen to the enginers, same thing. You would think they would learn, oh well time for bed later guys and gals be safe.

Its a tradgedy they didnt take on that little sports car. The French pilots would have had a blast.

MARC fighters is working on an AF-1 Fightinghawk which is a A-4M skyhawk.