I flew the A-4M in the Marine Corps from ‘77-‘81 and I loved that airplane. You didn’t get in that airplane, you strapped it on. I knew former football jock linemen who had to turn their shoulders sideways in order to close the canopy. With the addition of the Constantly Computed Impact Point, CCIP, it could deliver dumb bombs with outstanding accuracy if the system was tweaked properly. In air-to -air training exercises it was a much feared opponent if the pilot flying it was experienced and it was assumed that the somewhat unreliable beyond visual range, or BVR capability of those days possessed by the F-4 would force the engagement into a visual dogfight. Also, because of the rules of engagement often imposed on our F-4 drivers of that era, BVR shots were often not allowed, forcing the F-4 to get a visual identification, or VID. Then is was “ fights on”, and the A-4M could more than hold its own. A-4M pilots who were hot dogfighters had learned to use the 720 degree rate of roll to their advantage. That’s right! I said 720 degrees per second. That’s two full snap aileron rolls in one second. We’d use this rate of roll in the vertical by pulling the nose up or bunting the nose down ( only if you had enough altitude) and then rolled your lift vector behind your bandit instead of turning to get it there. You could also use this fantastic rate of roll defensively to prevent being gunned. Quarter roll left, settle, quarter roll pulling up, settle, half roll inverted and so on. Since no other fighter then could roll as fast as an A-4, we felt we should never suffer a cannon hit if you had a tally-ho on the bandit. It also had a corner velocity of 295 kias, which was your best dogfighting airspeed. Since it was relatively low, it was easier to get back to 295 without giving up a lot of altitude if you got below 295. We never called it a tinker toy. With affection, we called it the “Scooter”.
We had a major who would come down from Group to fly helicopter missions with us. He was heavy set for a Marine and walked like Truman Capote talked. One day in the ready room, a lieutenant asked the major why he walked “differently”. Turns out the major had to eject from an A-4 and left some of his feet behind. I don’t know how he got a medical waiver to stay in but I suppose it was because the war was in full swing.
I was a plane captain and jet mech with the last active Marine squadron (VMA-124) right till the end. Thanks for your memories and for correctly referring to it as the "Scooter"
My buddy flew A4's in Vietnam, Wild Weasel role. He took a SAM through his port wing, it didn't explode on impact - rather it just blew a hole through the wing. He was getting ready to bail out but learned he still had control of his plane. He told his wingman he was going to head for the water and bail out there. As he continued flying, he realized he had good control of his plane and wanted to land on the carrier instead of ejecting. A Friendly flew in and fed him fuel for his approach as his A4 was puked fuel. They stayed connected until Rick called the ball and he landed safely first trap. I have a picture of him and his crew chief standing on a ladder, up through the hole in the wing. He was 26 years old. He went on to fly the F4 with The Blue Angels.
The simplicity of the A-4 is a quality all its own. That said, my dad flew A-4’s in Vietnam not unlike a few pilots in this comment section. Unfortunately he crashed on nightmare range in the ROK in February of 1980 due to a malfunction of the plane. I will be forever proud of his accomplishments.
My roommate in flight school was killed in Korea flying an A-4 during a training mission. I flew SAR at Chu Lai and I was always amazed when the A-4 rolled on take off loaded with bombs. They looked like they shouldn’t be able get off the ground. Very sorry to hear about you losing your father.
It’s crazy to think that the A-4 could carry almost twice the bomb load as a B-17. It only took 20 years (ish) to develop a single seat aircraft that was capable of that.
Realistically though the difference was fast closer than many believe. To get just about anywhere beyond the carrier's catapults, the Skyhawk had to carry a belly fuel tank or two huge wing tanks. Right there you are limited from losing one to three of your store stations.
Right. It's all about speed in many cases. That tiny plane with the tiny wings can lift and carry A LOT of weight simply because it's wing, while only providing minimal lift at WW2 prop plane velocity, provides exponentially more at double and triple or more those speeds.
@@holdernewtshesrearin5471 The way a plane stays in the air is to force a mass of air equal to the aircraft mass, downwards. Bernoulli lift only gives nice handling characteristics, and a wider range of non-stalled flight speeds.
As a non-pilot, I always thought that the A4 was a slick little aircraft. It's nice to know that my lesser-informed opinion is shared by those who actually flew the Skyhawk. Thanks for putting this up!
Yeah it was an incredible aircraft with an interesting design philosophy. Make it cheap with easily replaceable parts, thats easy to work on. Id love to see that design philosophy brought to a modern stealth fighter.
as a kid in the 80s. father was Airforce at Ohakea and Woodburn. I got to climb over, under and through them plenty of times. security was very lack laster then. I very much miss hearing them screaming around our Kiwi sky's
@@hamemoney oh they held their own alright,. LoL. Good memories. Used to do the same up here at Raumi firing range. Just up the coast from Scotts Ferry. Can still walk around the sand dunes and find 20mm casings and belt links.
I was a avionics man on A4M Skyhawks. I was in VMA 311. This plane was tough. Easy to fix. And easy to fly. Even a L/Cpl was known to steal one and fly it and land it. We had one land with its port wing chopped in half. The pilot hit power lines in California. The hump on the back was where the ALQ 126 was stored. The “hotdog” on top of the tail was were the IFF and the nose had a camera that was part of the AN/ASB-19 (ARBS bombing system)
In 1969 a friend and I watched from a mountain top west of DaNang as an A-4 was involved in an air support mission for a Marine unit in Happy Valley. We were amazed at how long the A-4 was able to remain on station and how many attacks it was able to make. We had seen the A-4's in the air before that but never knew how heavily armed they could be due to their size. It was a good ground support aircraft.
Almost half its weight in armament... oh crap...that in itself is pretty amazing...first aircraft I ever started while in the Navy for A School... scared the crap out of me to pull power as I had never even been around aircraft at that point. 45 years later working aircraft my whole life I look at it and am still amazed. Low cost, agile and able to carry all the bombs that it did. Go Douglas!
My uncle spent the vast majority of his flying career with the USMC flying the Skyhawk (aka Scooter) and steadfastly refused to transition to the F-4 when given the opportunity because, in his words, "I don't want a fly a gunless brick". During his last tour (IIRC, it was his last) in Vietnam he commanded VMFA-211, The Wake Island Avengers and said that after the tours he did in Vietnam, he was certain that three things made sure he was able to rotate home uninjured; his skill, God's protection, and Ed Heinemann's Scooter.
Slight correction; when your Dad commanded the squadron, they were flying A-4's and they were attack aircraft, not fighters, so the squadron would'vAttack)e been VMA-211 (V=FixedWing, M=Marine, A=. Since they are now flying the F-35B, the squadron was changed to VMFA-211 (F added to indicate Fighter/Attack)
I'd like to Share the A-4 skyhawk's story in the Singapore airforce! It was one of the first fighter aircraft in The Republic of Singapore Air force(RSAF) arsenal. It was bought from the US Navy in the early 70s and stayed in service till 2012 as a trainer aircraft. It was also upgraded by our local ST aerospace adding a newer engine and adding an extra cockpit. This new variation was called the A-4SU Super SkyHawk. Also my dad was a trainee Pilot and flew the A-4s when he first joined the airforce! Now several of these A-4s are on display in the RSAF museum. Hope you guys enjoyed reading this extra information :)
This aircraft was the backbone of the Argentine military aviation during the Falklands War, then this little fella bombed and sank numerous ship from the Royal Navy.
As an Aviation Electrician in VA-127 and VA-164, both A-4F squadrons, having to transition to the A-7E at the end of the 1975 deployment aboard CV-19 (USS Hancock), I definitely preferred the A-4. Our aircraft were transferred to the Marines and after we collected all of our support equipment, two Marine Staff Sergeants drove up with a 2 ton stake bed and were overjoyed that they finally got everything they needed, as they were so used to working with very little. I got to ride back seat in our TA-4F/Js. The ejection seat trainer was a real kick in the tail!
The Skyhawk was a beast of an attack aircraft despite it's relatively small size. That it just kept on getting better through successive versions is a credit to the team that conceived it.
My dad served as a radarman aboard USS Midway 1963-65. As you saw from the footage, the pilot had no control over the nose wheel and it had to be steered around on deck by a handler with a big metal bar. He saw one plane handler shipmate get skewered by that bar. He didn't like A-4's after that. Midway still had Skyraiders on board back then. Dad loved those beasts. In his opinion, only the A-10 ever came close to replacing it as far as loiter time, ordnance capacity, and ground support.
My Dad flew the Scooter with 2 tours in Vietnam. Was slated to lead a squadron in 1969 for a 3rd tour when my my mother died & he decided to retire because 3 of my younger brother needed him. I was in the Army on my way to Vietnam.
I was an avionics tech in the Marine Corps on the "Mike" in the 80's. My planes were made in the 50's and had ridiculous hours on them. All analog. Cannon plugs were soldered in, no computers to help you , just simple technology from a day long past. I learned to be a really good tech in these planes because they didn't tell you what was wrong them, you had to figure it out. We called it the ""Scooter". There have been much more advanced planes since but the A-4 was a great plane! I'm proud to have been a part that.
Just a couple of comments, and I speak from experience. I was a Marine power plants mechanic (J52's) from 1973-1999. About 8 of those years was on A-4s, working on A-4F, TA-4J, and A-4M's, before I moved over to the A-6/EA-6B community (same engine). During my A-4 days, I was low & high power turn-up qualified and had taxi certification for 4 years. Additionally, I had my "back seat card" for TA-4's. 1. As noted by a fellow Marine poster, I never, except in this video, heard an A-4 referred to as a "Tinker Toy Jet". Perhaps that moniker didn't survive the 50's? A much more common nickname was "Heinemann's Hotrod" or, as noted, "Scooter". 2. The engine shown, while mentioning the J52 at about the 6:10 mark, is not a J52; I'm not even sure it's a J65, the predecessor. 3. When speaking about the later model, the narration would make you think the more powerful J52-P-408 engine came into use when the A-4M was introduced. This is not accurate, as the P-408 was already in use in the A-4F aircraft (which was the model flown by the Blue Angles, minus its avionics hump and "hotdog" on the top of the tail). It was sometimes referred to as the "Super Fox". 4. They were crazy good at DACM (dissimilar air combat maneuvers). One of my tours was with the active duty staff with the reserve A-4 squadron in Jacksonville, FL, and we would frequently have short-duration exercises at Tyndall AFB where we flew as aggressors against F-106's, F-4's, and even a few F-15's. Our pilots came out on top more than 50% of the time; I even watched our C.O. wax an Eagle, while watching the action at the high-tech Air Force instrumentation facility there (kind of like watching a video game). 5. The nuke capability was only briefly mentioned, but that was an important early capability; it provided carrier-borne, air-delivered nuke capability. As late as 1983, (VMA-214, El Toro) we were still doing the Navy Nuclear Technical Proficiency Inspections. They were a real bitch, even for those of us who were not involved in Ordnance matters. 5. I'd give my left *** to be back working on them.
I was an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Marine Corps and had the chance to load ordnance on the Skyhawk as well as many other types to include the Phantom, Intruder, Hornet,Cobra, Huey Sea Knight and Super Stallion Ah great times! IYAOYAS!!!
I was a plane captain attached to VF43 in Oceana and we were an aggressor squadron. The A4 was nimble, hard to see and harder to hit. It humbled more than one F4 and F14 pilot.
I'm just gonna say it here, but I like how you sound more confident and calm when speaking now than when you started. I've been following you since the Dark5 days. Bravo 👏💪 keep it up bro! It's perfect.
A real testament to considering what the requirements were, and not get distracted/ forced to add features/complexity/ weight : ending up with a genuinely legendary aircraft perfect for its role. A lesson pretty much all weapons development programs should alway keep in mind.
The correct demonym for people who inhabit Argentina is Argentine, not Argentinian. And the diminutive A4 truly was the biggest headache the British had during the Falkland's War. The Super Etendard certainly had the Exocet, but the sustained attacks with gravity bombs by the A4s was what did the most damage to the British fleet. Altogether, a good video about a great aircraft, thanks
My pride…I worked 21 years on this baby with the Rep of Singapore Air Force as An Electro, Nav and Comms maintainer. Great great memories with a beast of aircraft. Miss you girl. 😊
I've worked the A-4 Skyhawk, when I was in the USMC from '82-86, Great aircraft for what it was,,, no doubt. Lasting so damned LONG, and in so MANY Different ways! I'm so glad that I no longer work on it, so many things, was a "Pain in the Ass"!, Love the A/C though! Semper Fi VMFT-102!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I disagree with one statement here, because at the time it was VERY AGILE in comparison to other jets. 720-degree per second roll-rate, that's pretty damn agile.
How Western propaganda is then and is still now. The lies from News media are design to brainwash people. Vijay Gokhale, Former Foreign Secretary of India told the truth on what real happened. ruclips.net/video/j0gzcLyNlGo/видео.html Tiananmen 1989 share.....
@@mathewkelly9968 No. Wrong. Delta wings, *_in general but not for ALL airfoils,_* are very good at maneuverability. It's the question of *_sustained_* turn rate that is the question. The F-16, after all, has a cropped delta-wing... and no one is going to take you seriously if you say that it has "bad maneuverability." Because, clearly, it doesn't. The fact that the A-4 Skyhawk has a lower wing loading of 62.4 lb/sq ft versus the F-16's being 88.3 lb/sq ft means that the A-4 has better sustained turn rate capability than the F-16, whereas the F-16 will definitely have better instantaneous turn-rates. The F-16 would probably win a 1-circle fight 95% of the time against an A-4 given pilots of the same skill (which is kind of meaningless to say, but just in theory), whereas you probably wouldn't want to be in a 2-circle fight against an A-4 in most aircraft.
That was a truly excellent video. I reckon 100 years from now people are gonna be still watching these. Thats a great conclusion about efficiency over-arching both quality and quantity.
Ed Heinemann's prolific career and list of aircraft is simply astonishing. At Douglas he designed numerous legendary aircraft, obviously the Scooter but also the SBD Dauntless, A-20, A-26, A-1D and many more. There was also the Skyrocket that Crossfield took to Mach 2 in the pre X-Plane days for NACA and its data was used for future development in the next generation of American aircraft. And if that wasn't enough, after his long career at Douglas, he joined General Dynamics as a VP where he oversaw the F-16 project. What could be the most amazing thing was that he never went to university and was a self-taught engineer.
As an ex sailor I remember doing drills with the A4K and watching them fly past below us as we stood on the upper decks of the ships. Awesome aircraft!!
It's a nimble and great aircraft.. And easy for upgrades for years to come. Love from Singapore (A4 Skyhawk used in the 70s to 2012 in the Republic of Singapore Air Force).
Greatly enjoyed this video. Have been a true fan of this aircraft for 50 years. Pound for pound among the best aircraft ever purchased by the pentagon.
Great informative history on the A-4's. I worked on the TA-4J's and a few of the A-4E's we had at VT-7 in the late 80's. I remember staking the brakes with a screwdriver for tire changes, also needing a NC-8A for power and GTC-85 huffer to start. Hot refueling through the nose probe and hot seating pilots on the USS Lexington. Yeap, to be young again.
I remember watching A-4 Sky Hawks during a training exercise in Twentynine Palms, CA. They were phenomenal! Talk about close air support! One dropped napalm only seven hundred meters in front of our formation! It was amazing! Shortly after, however. They were finally retired and replaced with the Harrier Jump Jets. Those Harriers acquitted themselves quite well, and I quickly forgot about the A-4s...
I was involved with the J52 engine that powered later A4's. Toward the end of its service life, there were still folks who believed that the A4 deserved to benefit from continued improvement. Like the B-52 has. More proof that simple and solid ideas don't go out of style. I sure hope our highly complicated aircraft that have followed the A4 earn their expensive costs....
I was an A4L plane captain in VA209, which supported the US Naval Air Reserve Air Barons tactical flight demonstration team in 1971. The Blue Angels switched to the A4 Skyhawk shortly after we were disbanded. Operating costs were significantly less. We travelled with a ground crew of only 7 technicians.
Not so sure about the “not particularly agile” thing…after all, it WAS used as an aggressor aircraft to train fighter pilots in air-to-air combat and it was also flown by the Blue Angels
Yup, that’s BS. I flew the E, F, F+, M in VF-126, Pacific Fleet Adversary Squadron and humbled more than a few USN F-14 drivers along with some USAF F-16 and F-15 pilots.
It would be interesting to see how the author came to that conclusion. At what weight, engine, configuration, etcetera? I do know there were some stripped down bigger engined A-4 aggressor baddies that with good pilots regularly deflated the egos of many fighter jocks flying anything in the U.S. inventory.
It was certainly maneuverable, but it was very slow. The F 14 Tomcat and F 4 Phantom were contemporaries and were literally more than twice as fast. It was used as an aggressor aircraft not because it was highly capable, but because its speed and handling characteristics resembled the Mig 17.
@@davidgeorge4696 my squadron had a bunch of ‘E’ models..J52-8…yes, 8000lb thrust(the F+, M , 11000, J52-408) but I could always fly slower than them(slats out, 1/2 flaps)… I knew not tactically sound but fun in 1v1.
Great video! As a kiwi, I will always have a soft spot for the A-4 as they formed the backbone of the RNZAF, replacing the English Electric Canberra's that we had at the time (1970) In the early 1990's the RNZAF began a program (Project "Kahu") to strip each airframe down completely to remove all the old and heavy internal wiring and completely rebuilt/replaced the wings to extend their service life. In addition they were given avionics and instrumentation on par with the F-16C making them particularly lethal in the right hands. The RNZAF based a squadron in Australia, for the role of interdicting the warships of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) for training purposes of both forces and became extremely good at it... particularly at low level and high speed. Sadly both RNZAF A-4K squadrons were disbanded by 2001, by the then short-sighted government and was a decision that at the time was against popular opinion and to this day still causes resentment and contempt. Anyway, 8 former RNZAF A-4K's live on... and back in the USA, now flying with Draken International, and I believe still carry their RNZAF markings.
Not sure it was quite so short sighted. What use would they have had in the past 21 years? There was no mission for them besides a training tool for other country's armed services. They would never have been deployed - nor would the F16s that were going to replace them. And don't get me wrong. I thought they were great and also howled at the TV as Clarke got rid of them. But being honest . . .
@@funkyjbass7762 It wasn't getting rid of the A-4 that was the real crime, it was not having F-16s at the extremely low rate of $1M/aircrraft/year. A complete steal. But then it was never about money. Clarke is a hard-core globalist, and strong sovereign nations is anathema to that project (which is why the globalists in elected and unelected positions of power orchestrate mass immigration, to dissolve any society that could remain sovereign and resist the now openly-declared NWO). Clarke was not stupid nor silly. She knew exactly what she was doing, but also knew the public would not accept it. Once you understand their motivations their actions become completely consistent, even if their actual reasons remain undeclared and obfuscated to a befuddled public. Internal and external security are core functions of sovereign governments - the slow degradation of combat power in the Free World is quite deliberate and nothing to do with economics. IYKYK
Great video.lots of footage I have never seen before. Can you imagine it was designed 70 years ago The design is a classic -looks modern today... I saw all the time in youth back in new Zealand
US Navy veteran Aviation electricians mate . My A school for aircraft was working on a4 skyhawks. Last I knew it still held multiple world records for it's class of airframe. Most pilots loved how small and nimble they were. Tough lil airplane.
I knew a A4 Sky hawk pilot who transitioned to Harriers. I worked on Harriers. All the other pilots were in awe of him. Because he once came back from a mission in his Sky Hawk...with blood on his wings.
Growing up in the shadow of NAS S. Weymouth in the 1970s and 80s, the Bantam Bomber easily became my favorite aircraft. It was difficult to concentrate on school work when the Marines were training. Nothing compares to the banshee wail of the A4 taking off.
Just a couple of follow up comments. I felt the best combat interdiction combination was a wedge formation at low altitude with an A-6 leading up front and 2 A-4s in combat spread behind as fighter bomber escort to ensure the A-6 got to the target. The BNs were terrific and the A-6 navigation system was way ahead of it’s time. If A-4 pilots were candid, they knew they would have a very difficult if not impossible time navigating to the target at low altitude. All we had was “map on the lap” and our wrist watch to navigate with, and if you had to turn off your planned route to honor a threat, you had very little chance for a successful low altitude mission unless you had giant land marks to navigate off of. Also the A-4 internal cannons sucked. Never once in the years I flew the Scooter did I fire out all my 20mm without them jamming.
I was in the marines when they flew. I worked closely with them. So small and so light it was difficult at times to get them out of the arresting gear. We would sometimes have to retract the cable 2 times to get it to bounce off the cable and release. I was in aircraft launch and recovery. Loved beings so close to them. I great plane!
Thanks. Once upon a time I spent over 250 hours building an A4-E Skyhawk model. When merging in a dogfight, it is always pilot first, plane second. And a better pilot will nearly always shoot down a better plane. But not always. And no matter how much you trained, you couldn't simulate merging with a MiG and a Soviet pilot flying for Mother Russia. And when the very first encounter between enemy plane types results in a kill, it is normally the result of superior situational awareness, flying skill, and an ability to predict where the other plane will be. In a dogfight, simply losing sight of your opponent in the sun, or lose them against the background in a rate fight on the deck -- that could easily result in your demise, even in quite a superior plane. Real fighter plane pilots are amazing. They are both some of the most highly trained morons in the world, and some of the least reliable witnesses of events. If we believed every story pilots told about UFOs, we should see alien craft flying around most cities every day. Never believe what a pilot claims happened outside of his own aircraft: because that is all they know about. Their one and only job is to land their plane so it can be flown again.
William Forby, he was a fighter pilot and cellmate a room over from McCain. He had it much worse and was there even longer than McCain. He came back from war and became an amazing principal for our school and dear friend of mine.
Same here. I've never achieved the 720 degree per second roll rate in the C-172, but I have done a barrel roll and landed on an aircraft carrier -- that's in Microsoft Flight Simulator, however.
The USAF and Navy bought A-7D planes 1971. Subsonic, but maneuverable. Good for ground support and carried AIM-9 Sidewinders. They're gone from the inventory but the A-4s are still around.
2:50 Saying the A-4 is "less than ideal for dogfighting" is like saying a book about the history of the bow is less than in ideal weapon in modern warfare. The A-4 was built to fight other planes. It was built to attack ground targets. A roll for which it was ideal.
To date the A-4 Skyhawk has one of the highest sustained roll rates of any combat aircraft - in excess of 720 degrees per second with a clean configuration. And the United States military still rents out/hires A-4 Skyhawks/pilots (now from private companies) in order to play the role of aggressor/RedFor aircraft because of how nimble, maneuverable and lightweight that they are. Look up Air & Space Magazine's article on them called "The Hotrod Squad." Really gives some insight as to how impressive the A-4 Skyhawk is, even when going up against modern generation 4+ aircraft and against skilled aviators.
been going through a period of watching military videos. I really liked this one. Quite compact, well structured and full of really important information.
The refueling drove system see at 3:54 was Pioneered on the A-4B dubbed Buddy Stores. This allowed any aircraft capable of mounting the self-contained/powered system via racks to refuel other aircraft without the need for dedicated tankers. both the A-4 Skyhawk and the F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II prove that one need not over engineer, nor overspend to meet and exceed the requirements at hand.
@@ditzydoo4378 USN and USMC adversary squadrons. Navy has been upgrading its adversary F-5s and also using older F-18Es to supplement. The USAF got rid of their aggressor F-5s in the early 90s, replacing them with F-16s and F-15s. USAF aggressor squadrons now use the F-35.
@@ironroad18 thank you, wasn't aware the USAF had done so. Much is the pity for them. though they never did cotton to it, being it was originally a Navy design from Northrop. hmmmm wonder why??? (snark disabled ^~^)
The A4 Skyhawk has a warm place in the hearts of American aviators of both fixed wing services. Relatively simple to pilot and forgiving to fly, she was an agile bird that still relied on a lot of pilot skill rather than black boxes to put the metal on the right piece of mud. I've talked to a couple of pilots who flew Navy strike aircraft from A4's to FA18's and they say that love Skyhawk best.
Great plane! The first I worked and trained on in the early 70s. Except at engine change time, it was all hands on deck to tear the plane in half to change the engine then reconnect all the hoses, wires, cables, then test everything. The com/nav “biscuit” in the nose was a whole different story.
Thanks for another great production. In addition to the other preceding comments which are in disagreement with your characterization of the A-4 Skyhawk, I would like to add that the Skyhawk was NOT a "Fighter" jet, as you suggest and then criticize it for not meeting fighter characteristics. Rather it was designed and built for "ATTACK," hence the "A" in the title "A-4." So, it was also incorrect to suggest that it was equipped with guns for self defense when those guns, like every other feature of the craft, was intended for ground attack. Please continue your efforts.
"not so agile", lmao I always thought a fighter version could have been built because it was more agile than most fighters of similar size and was a joy to fly.
I drove through Alameda, CA this afternoon and an A4 is mounted on a pylon in front of a school. I didn’t know what it was so I came looking for it on RUclips. Low-cost and simplicity is always a good thing, especially if the tool solves the problem.
Loved watching them training as a kid for the rnzaf. More than held its in in our conditions against the aussie f18s and f111s. Our guys flew them 30 meters off the ground at times when other countries wouldn't go under 100
I would also mention that almost the entire first prototype of the A-4 was built in Heinemann's garage, and it rarely dumped its belly tank, as the airframe was so light it could make a gear-up landing on it's belly tank and the airframe would suffer negligible damage. They also trained for an 'over the shoulder' atom bomb attack profile, and were equipped with a white shade to pull over the cockpit after launching the bomb and retreating on full reheat. They lasted a long time, the TA-4s were still used in training command until the T-45 was adopted, and almost everyone considered that a significant downgrade.
Such a great little plane. I believe Brazil just completed a major upgrade to their A4s which are still in front line service with the Navy. Impressive what they could and can still do.
Sadly, the upgrade to brazilian A-4s proved to be pointless, as they scuttled their carrier a few months ago, so the brazilian navy Will probably sell or scrap them...
Thank you for using finally normal playback speed. Now I can appreciate your work without the strange too fast playback speed. It makes your content better and relaxing to watch this way. Please keep it up.
My father flew a Skyhawk off the U.S.S. Saratoga CV60 VF31. Mostly med cruises, have all these cool photos and vids, although the vids have no sound. If only they had iPhone's back then.
My Father did some of the design work on the later models. He retired in charge of all Comercial sales to the middle east and Africa. I remember they had an A-4 in a small room. Inside the plant. The room was smaller than most people's living rooms.
I flew the A-4M in the Marine Corps from ‘77-‘81 and I loved that airplane. You didn’t get in that airplane, you strapped it on. I knew former football jock linemen who had to turn their shoulders sideways in order to close the canopy. With the addition of the Constantly Computed Impact Point, CCIP, it could deliver dumb bombs with outstanding accuracy if the system was tweaked properly. In air-to -air training exercises it was a much feared opponent if the pilot flying it was experienced and it was assumed that the somewhat unreliable beyond visual range, or BVR capability of those days possessed by the F-4 would force the engagement into a visual dogfight. Also, because of the rules of engagement often imposed on our F-4 drivers of that era, BVR shots were often not allowed, forcing the F-4 to get a visual identification, or VID. Then is was “ fights on”, and the A-4M could more than hold its own. A-4M pilots who were hot dogfighters had learned to use the 720 degree rate of roll to their advantage. That’s right! I said 720 degrees per second. That’s two full snap aileron rolls in one second. We’d use this rate of roll in the vertical by pulling the nose up or bunting the nose down ( only if you had enough altitude) and then rolled your lift vector behind your bandit instead of turning to get it there. You could also use this fantastic rate of roll defensively to prevent being gunned. Quarter roll left, settle, quarter roll pulling up, settle, half roll inverted and so on. Since no other fighter then could roll as fast as an A-4, we felt we should never suffer a cannon hit if you had a tally-ho on the bandit. It also had a corner velocity of 295 kias, which was your best dogfighting airspeed. Since it was relatively low, it was easier to get back to 295 without giving up a lot of altitude if you got below 295. We never called it a tinker toy. With affection, we called it the “Scooter”.
We had a major who would come down from Group to fly helicopter missions with us. He was heavy set for a Marine and walked like Truman Capote talked. One day in the ready room, a lieutenant asked the major why he walked “differently”. Turns out the major had to eject from an A-4 and left some of his feet behind. I don’t know how he got a medical waiver to stay in but I suppose it was because the war was in full swing.
Thanks for the above sir. I wrenched on them, but they hold a place nearly as venerable as the B52.
Good story. Thank you for it.
Thanks for sharing, much appreciated!
I was a plane captain and jet mech with the last active Marine squadron (VMA-124) right till the end. Thanks for your memories and for correctly referring to it as the "Scooter"
My buddy flew A4's in Vietnam, Wild Weasel role. He took a SAM through his port wing, it didn't explode on impact - rather it just blew a hole through the wing. He was getting ready to bail out but learned he still had control of his plane. He told his wingman he was going to head for the water and bail out there. As he continued flying, he realized he had good control of his plane and wanted to land on the carrier instead of ejecting. A Friendly flew in and fed him fuel for his approach as his A4 was puked fuel. They stayed connected until Rick called the ball and he landed safely first trap.
I have a picture of him and his crew chief standing on a ladder, up through the hole in the wing. He was 26 years old. He went on to fly the F4 with The Blue Angels.
mad respect for the Wild Weasels
YGBSM
Cool story but wild weasel was an airforce thing while A4s were used by marines and naval aviators 🤨
The simplicity of the A-4 is a quality all its own. That said, my dad flew A-4’s in Vietnam not unlike a few pilots in this comment section. Unfortunately he crashed on nightmare range in the ROK in February of 1980 due to a malfunction of the plane. I will be forever proud of his accomplishments.
Is your dad alright?
@@somerandofilipino6957 bro
Did He Survive?
My roommate in flight school was killed in Korea flying an A-4 during a training mission. I flew SAR at Chu Lai and I was always amazed when the A-4 rolled on take off loaded with bombs. They looked like they shouldn’t be able get off the ground. Very sorry to hear about you losing your father.
Should flew a f-4
It’s crazy to think that the A-4 could carry almost twice the bomb load as a B-17. It only took 20 years (ish) to develop a single seat aircraft that was capable of that.
Realistically though the difference was fast closer than many believe. To get just about anywhere beyond the carrier's catapults, the Skyhawk had to carry a belly fuel tank or two huge wing tanks. Right there you are limited from losing one to three of your store stations.
Right. It's all about speed in many cases. That tiny plane with the tiny wings can lift and carry A LOT of weight simply because it's wing, while only providing minimal lift at WW2 prop plane velocity, provides exponentially more at double and triple or more those speeds.
Mm
Given enough power, even a brick can fly.
@@holdernewtshesrearin5471 The way a plane stays in the air is to force a mass of air equal to the aircraft mass, downwards. Bernoulli lift only gives nice handling characteristics, and a wider range of non-stalled flight speeds.
As a non-pilot, I always thought that the A4 was a slick little aircraft. It's nice to know that my lesser-informed opinion is shared by those who actually flew the Skyhawk. Thanks for putting this up!
Yeah it was an incredible aircraft with an interesting design philosophy. Make it cheap with easily replaceable parts, thats easy to work on. Id love to see that design philosophy brought to a modern stealth fighter.
@@GonzoDonzo build it too cheap no money for contractors to steal.
I’ve flown it in dcs and it’s awesome. I little squirley to fly but it takes practice.
@@gmac8852 there’s a balance here you’re not considering.
Yeah I totally agree. Building models as a boy was made better by this plane, i built a couple.
My father was an armourer for RNZAF A-4s that aircraft was phenomenal in what it could do, dogfight, attack missions, recon it could do it all.
as a kid in the 80s. father was Airforce at Ohakea and Woodburn. I got to climb over, under and through them plenty of times. security was very lack laster then. I very much miss hearing them screaming around our Kiwi sky's
Can remember them doing mock dogfighhts over Blenheim vs F-18 and F111 from Aussie. plus holding there own.
@@hamemoney oh they held their own alright,. LoL. Good memories. Used to do the same up here at Raumi firing range. Just up the coast from Scotts Ferry. Can still walk around the sand dunes and find 20mm casings and belt links.
I remember seeing them at air shows back in the 80’s as a kid. Blew my mind. The all wise and all knowing Helen fucking Clark put an end to them.
@@julianowen7377 She should've been tried for treason for disbanding(destroying) 75 squadron
John McCain was a true American hero. His service to our country will never be forgotten.
I was a avionics man on A4M Skyhawks. I was in VMA 311. This plane was tough. Easy to fix. And easy to fly. Even a L/Cpl was known to steal one and fly it and land it. We had one land with its port wing chopped in half. The pilot hit power lines in California. The hump on the back was where the ALQ 126 was stored. The “hotdog” on top of the tail was were the IFF and the nose had a camera that was part of the AN/ASB-19 (ARBS bombing system)
Ord. 84-88
@@311Bob was your OIC WO “Porno” Crouch?
@@eshelly4205 no don't remember his name he was a wo then was jumped to ldo capt.
In 1969 a friend and I watched from a mountain top west of DaNang as an A-4 was involved in an air support mission for a Marine unit in Happy Valley. We were amazed at how long the A-4 was able to remain on station and how many attacks it was able to make. We had seen the A-4's in the air before that but never knew how heavily armed they could be due to their size. It was a good ground support aircraft.
I was also there in 69' VW-1 crew 3. We'd sometimes have transit A-4s park in the revetments next to our EC-121.
fr u a US troop?
@@user-sg9ql8nk1u yes
@@fish509b o noice,
@@user-sg9ql8nk1u USN
"Heinemann's Hotrod"! An amazing little warplane.
That was going to be my exact comment! LOL!
I never heard of the a4 being called the tinker toy.
Almost half its weight in armament... oh crap...that in itself is pretty amazing...first aircraft I ever started while in the Navy for A School... scared the crap out of me to pull power as I had never even been around aircraft at that point. 45 years later working aircraft my whole life I look at it and am still amazed. Low cost, agile and able to carry all the bombs that it did. Go Douglas!
living near an airbase in New Zealand , the RNAZAF had the Skyhawk. They were awesome to watch flying around, I think it was the A4K model.
My uncle spent the vast majority of his flying career with the USMC flying the Skyhawk (aka Scooter) and steadfastly refused to transition to the F-4 when given the opportunity because, in his words, "I don't want a fly a gunless brick". During his last tour (IIRC, it was his last) in Vietnam he commanded VMFA-211, The Wake Island Avengers and said that after the tours he did in Vietnam, he was certain that three things made sure he was able to rotate home uninjured; his skill, God's protection, and Ed Heinemann's Scooter.
Might as well add in the Easter bunny.. god.. 😂😂
F-35B unit now. Did that join Royal Navy Pacific cruise Last year.
Yeah the F-4 originally didn't have an internal gun, designers thought they'd no longer be needed, they were wrong.
Slight correction; when your Dad commanded the squadron, they were flying A-4's and they were attack aircraft, not fighters, so the squadron would'vAttack)e been VMA-211 (V=FixedWing, M=Marine, A=. Since they are now flying the F-35B, the squadron was changed to VMFA-211 (F added to indicate Fighter/Attack)
@@sheilaolfieway1885 USN and USMC versions never did. Exports vary.
I'd like to Share the A-4 skyhawk's story in the Singapore airforce! It was one of the first fighter aircraft in The Republic of Singapore Air force(RSAF) arsenal. It was bought from the US Navy in the early 70s and stayed in service till 2012 as a trainer aircraft. It was also upgraded by our local ST aerospace adding a newer engine and adding an extra cockpit. This new variation was called the A-4SU Super SkyHawk. Also my dad was a trainee Pilot and flew the A-4s when he first joined the airforce! Now several of these A-4s are on display in the RSAF museum.
Hope you guys enjoyed reading this extra information :)
This aircraft was the backbone of the Argentine military aviation during the Falklands War, then this little fella bombed and sank numerous ship from the Royal Navy.
As an Aviation Electrician in VA-127 and VA-164, both A-4F squadrons, having to transition to the A-7E at the end of the 1975 deployment aboard CV-19 (USS Hancock), I definitely preferred the A-4. Our aircraft were transferred to the Marines and after we collected all of our support equipment, two Marine Staff Sergeants drove up with a 2 ton stake bed and were overjoyed that they finally got everything they needed, as they were so used to working with very little. I got to ride back seat in our TA-4F/Js. The ejection seat trainer was a real kick in the tail!
The Skyhawk was a beast of an attack aircraft despite it's relatively small size. That it just kept on getting better through successive versions is a credit to the team that conceived it.
My dad served as a radarman aboard USS Midway 1963-65. As you saw from the footage, the pilot had no control over the nose wheel and it had to be steered around on deck by a handler with a big metal bar.
He saw one plane handler shipmate get skewered by that bar. He didn't like A-4's after that.
Midway still had Skyraiders on board back then. Dad loved those beasts. In his opinion, only the A-10 ever came close to replacing it as far as loiter time, ordnance capacity, and ground support.
My Dad flew the Scooter with 2 tours in Vietnam. Was slated to lead a squadron in 1969 for a 3rd tour when my my mother died & he decided to retire because 3 of my younger brother needed him. I was in the Army on my way to Vietnam.
Thats amazing, your dad flew for two tours, then you immediate head over. Thats a pretty badass family Sir.
Now that's a bad ass bloodline you've got right there sir hats off to you and your family
Welcome back!
I was an avionics tech in the Marine Corps on the "Mike" in the 80's. My planes were made in the 50's and had ridiculous hours on them. All analog. Cannon plugs were soldered in, no computers to help you , just simple technology from a day long past. I learned to be a really good tech in these planes because they didn't tell you what was wrong them, you had to figure it out. We called it the ""Scooter". There have been much more advanced planes since but the A-4 was a great plane! I'm proud to have been a part that.
Semper Fi
Just a couple of comments, and I speak from experience. I was a Marine power plants mechanic (J52's) from 1973-1999. About 8 of those years was on A-4s, working on A-4F, TA-4J, and A-4M's, before I moved over to the A-6/EA-6B community (same engine). During my A-4 days, I was low & high power turn-up qualified and had taxi certification for 4 years. Additionally, I had my "back seat card" for TA-4's.
1. As noted by a fellow Marine poster, I never, except in this video, heard an A-4 referred to as a "Tinker Toy Jet". Perhaps that moniker didn't survive the 50's? A much more common nickname was "Heinemann's Hotrod" or, as noted, "Scooter".
2. The engine shown, while mentioning the J52 at about the 6:10 mark, is not a J52; I'm not even sure it's a J65, the predecessor.
3. When speaking about the later model, the narration would make you think the more powerful J52-P-408 engine came into use when the A-4M was introduced. This is not accurate, as the P-408 was already in use in the A-4F aircraft (which was the model flown by the Blue Angles, minus its avionics hump and "hotdog" on the top of the tail). It was sometimes referred to as the "Super Fox".
4. They were crazy good at DACM (dissimilar air combat maneuvers). One of my tours was with the active duty staff with the reserve A-4 squadron in Jacksonville, FL, and we would frequently have short-duration exercises at Tyndall AFB where we flew as aggressors against F-106's, F-4's, and even a few F-15's. Our pilots came out on top more than 50% of the time; I even watched our C.O. wax an Eagle, while watching the action at the high-tech Air Force instrumentation facility there (kind of like watching a video game).
5. The nuke capability was only briefly mentioned, but that was an important early capability; it provided carrier-borne, air-delivered nuke capability. As late as 1983, (VMA-214, El Toro) we were still doing the Navy Nuclear Technical Proficiency Inspections. They were a real bitch, even for those of us who were not involved in Ordnance matters.
5. I'd give my left *** to be back working on them.
I was an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Marine Corps and had the chance to load ordnance on the Skyhawk as well as many other types to include the Phantom, Intruder, Hornet,Cobra, Huey Sea Knight and Super Stallion Ah great times! IYAOYAS!!!
I was a plane captain attached to VF43 in Oceana and we were an aggressor squadron. The A4 was nimble, hard to see and harder to hit. It humbled more than one F4 and F14 pilot.
Didn't they use the A4 in aggressor role at Top Gun too?
@@alexsky88749 I believe they did along with the F5
I'm just gonna say it here, but I like how you sound more confident and calm when speaking now than when you started. I've been following you since the Dark5 days. Bravo 👏💪 keep it up bro! It's perfect.
A real testament to considering what the requirements were, and not get distracted/ forced to add features/complexity/ weight : ending up with a genuinely legendary aircraft perfect for its role. A lesson pretty much all weapons development programs should alway keep in mind.
The correct demonym for people who inhabit Argentina is Argentine, not Argentinian. And the diminutive A4 truly was the biggest headache the British had during the Falkland's War. The Super Etendard certainly had the Exocet, but the sustained attacks with gravity bombs by the A4s was what did the most damage to the British fleet.
Altogether, a good video about a great aircraft, thanks
Yes. Argentinoids
My pride…I worked 21 years on this baby with the Rep of Singapore Air Force as An Electro, Nav and Comms maintainer. Great great memories with a beast of aircraft. Miss you girl. 😊
I've worked the A-4 Skyhawk, when I was in the USMC from '82-86, Great aircraft for what it was,,, no doubt. Lasting so damned LONG, and in so MANY Different ways! I'm so glad that I no longer work on it, so many things, was a "Pain in the Ass"!, Love the A/C though! Semper Fi VMFT-102!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I disagree with one statement here, because at the time it was VERY AGILE in comparison to other jets. 720-degree per second roll-rate, that's pretty damn agile.
Well roll rate doesn't equate to agility. But ok
How Western propaganda is then and is still now.
The lies from News media are design to brainwash people.
Vijay Gokhale, Former Foreign Secretary of India told the truth on what real happened.
ruclips.net/video/j0gzcLyNlGo/видео.html
Tiananmen 1989
share.....
The Delta wings are a problem for manoeuvrability .
@@mathewkelly9968
No. Wrong. Delta wings, *_in general but not for ALL airfoils,_* are very good at maneuverability. It's the question of *_sustained_* turn rate that is the question. The F-16, after all, has a cropped delta-wing... and no one is going to take you seriously if you say that it has "bad maneuverability." Because, clearly, it doesn't. The fact that the A-4 Skyhawk has a lower wing loading of 62.4 lb/sq ft versus the F-16's being 88.3 lb/sq ft means that the A-4 has better sustained turn rate capability than the F-16, whereas the F-16 will definitely have better instantaneous turn-rates. The F-16 would probably win a 1-circle fight 95% of the time against an A-4 given pilots of the same skill (which is kind of meaningless to say, but just in theory), whereas you probably wouldn't want to be in a 2-circle fight against an A-4 in most aircraft.
@@djl5634
Kinda does, but ok.
Nice, my favorite jet from the Vietnam era. I’ve always appreciated it’s simplicity, ease of maintenance, and versatility.
That was a truly excellent video.
I reckon 100 years from now people are gonna be
still watching these. Thats a great conclusion
about efficiency over-arching both quality and quantity.
Ed Heinemann's prolific career and list of aircraft is simply astonishing. At Douglas he designed numerous legendary aircraft, obviously the Scooter but also the SBD Dauntless, A-20, A-26, A-1D and many more. There was also the Skyrocket that Crossfield took to Mach 2 in the pre X-Plane days for NACA and its data was used for future development in the next generation of American aircraft. And if that wasn't enough, after his long career at Douglas, he joined General Dynamics as a VP where he oversaw the F-16 project. What could be the most amazing thing was that he never went to university and was a self-taught engineer.
As an ex sailor I remember doing drills with the A4K and watching them fly past below us as we stood on the upper decks of the ships. Awesome aircraft!!
I really love the Skyhawk. It’s one of my all time favorite planes.
The stripped out versions they built were AWESOME.
It's a nimble and great aircraft.. And easy for upgrades for years to come.
Love from Singapore (A4 Skyhawk used in the 70s to 2012 in the Republic of Singapore Air Force).
Greatly enjoyed this video. Have been a true fan of this aircraft for 50 years. Pound for pound among the best aircraft ever purchased by the pentagon.
Great informative history on the A-4's. I worked on the TA-4J's and a few of the A-4E's we had at VT-7 in the late 80's. I remember staking the brakes with a screwdriver for tire changes, also needing a NC-8A for power and GTC-85 huffer to start. Hot refueling through the nose probe and hot seating pilots on the USS Lexington. Yeap, to be young again.
I remember watching A-4 Sky Hawks during a training exercise in Twentynine Palms, CA. They were phenomenal! Talk about close air support! One dropped napalm only seven hundred meters in front of our formation! It was amazing! Shortly after, however. They were finally retired and replaced with the Harrier Jump Jets. Those Harriers acquitted themselves quite well, and I quickly forgot about the A-4s...
Definitely one of the most fun to fly!
I was involved with the J52 engine that powered later A4's. Toward the end of its service life, there were still folks who believed that the A4 deserved to benefit from continued improvement. Like the B-52 has. More proof that simple and solid ideas don't go out of style. I sure hope our highly complicated aircraft that have followed the A4 earn their expensive costs....
Hi. Is it possible to compare the A4 ground attack capabilities with the AV-8B Harrier ground attack capabilities?
I was an A4L plane captain in VA209, which supported the US Naval Air Reserve Air Barons tactical flight demonstration team in 1971. The Blue Angels switched to the A4 Skyhawk shortly after we were disbanded. Operating costs were significantly less. We travelled with a ground crew of only 7 technicians.
Not so sure about the “not particularly agile” thing…after all, it WAS used as an aggressor aircraft to train fighter pilots in air-to-air combat and it was also flown by the Blue Angels
Yup, that’s BS. I flew the E, F, F+, M in VF-126, Pacific Fleet Adversary Squadron and humbled more than a few USN F-14 drivers along with some USAF F-16 and F-15 pilots.
It would be interesting to see how the author came to that conclusion. At what weight, engine, configuration, etcetera? I do know there were some stripped down bigger engined A-4 aggressor baddies that with good pilots regularly deflated the egos of many fighter jocks flying anything in the U.S. inventory.
It was certainly maneuverable, but it was very slow. The F 14 Tomcat and F 4 Phantom were contemporaries and were literally more than twice as fast. It was used as an aggressor aircraft not because it was highly capable, but because its speed and handling characteristics resembled the Mig 17.
@@mattuw82
"resembled the MiG 17" -- which was highly capable. If you're going to start comparing Mach numbers, you've missed the point.
@@davidgeorge4696 my squadron had a bunch of ‘E’ models..J52-8…yes, 8000lb thrust(the F+, M , 11000, J52-408) but I could always fly slower than them(slats out, 1/2 flaps)… I knew not tactically sound but fun in 1v1.
Great video! As a kiwi, I will always have a soft spot for the A-4 as they formed the backbone of the RNZAF, replacing the English Electric Canberra's that we had at the time (1970) In the early 1990's the RNZAF began a program (Project "Kahu") to strip each airframe down completely to remove all the old and heavy internal wiring and completely rebuilt/replaced the wings to extend their service life. In addition they were given avionics and instrumentation on par with the F-16C making them particularly lethal in the right hands. The RNZAF based a squadron in Australia, for the role of interdicting the warships of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) for training purposes of both forces and became extremely good at it... particularly at low level and high speed. Sadly both RNZAF A-4K squadrons were disbanded by 2001, by the then short-sighted government and was a decision that at the time was against popular opinion and to this day still causes resentment and contempt.
Anyway, 8 former RNZAF A-4K's live on... and back in the USA, now flying with Draken International, and I believe still carry their RNZAF markings.
Not sure it was quite so short sighted. What use would they have had in the past 21 years? There was no mission for them besides a training tool for other country's armed services. They would never have been deployed - nor would the F16s that were going to replace them. And don't get me wrong. I thought they were great and also howled at the TV as Clarke got rid of them. But being honest . . .
@@funkyjbass7762 It wasn't getting rid of the A-4 that was the real crime, it was not having F-16s at the extremely low rate of $1M/aircrraft/year. A complete steal. But then it was never about money. Clarke is a hard-core globalist, and strong sovereign nations is anathema to that project (which is why the globalists in elected and unelected positions of power orchestrate mass immigration, to dissolve any society that could remain sovereign and resist the now openly-declared NWO). Clarke was not stupid nor silly. She knew exactly what she was doing, but also knew the public would not accept it. Once you understand their motivations their actions become completely consistent, even if their actual reasons remain undeclared and obfuscated to a befuddled public. Internal and external security are core functions of sovereign governments - the slow degradation of combat power in the Free World is quite deliberate and nothing to do with economics. IYKYK
Great video.lots of footage I have never seen before.
Can you imagine it was designed 70 years ago
The design is a classic -looks modern today...
I saw all the time in youth back in new Zealand
US Navy veteran Aviation electricians mate . My A school for aircraft was working on a4 skyhawks. Last I knew it still held multiple world records for it's class of airframe. Most pilots loved how small and nimble they were. Tough lil airplane.
I knew a A4 Sky hawk pilot who transitioned to Harriers. I worked on Harriers. All the other pilots were in awe of him. Because he once came back from a mission in his Sky Hawk...with blood on his wings.
Together with the F-4 and the A-7, one of my favorite airplanes of that time
Growing up in the shadow of NAS S. Weymouth in the 1970s and 80s, the Bantam Bomber easily became my favorite aircraft. It was difficult to concentrate on school work when the Marines were training. Nothing compares to the banshee wail of the A4 taking off.
As a Plane Captain, I spent many years working on that sweet little aircraft.
The Skyhawk was an unqualified success. I had a scout leader who flew A-4’s off of USS Ranger during the Vietnam War.
My father flew the A-4C in Vietnam. He loved this aircraft. VMA-225 and VMA-214. Chu li and Da Nang.
Just a couple of follow up comments. I felt the best combat interdiction combination was a wedge formation at low altitude with an A-6 leading up front and 2 A-4s in combat spread behind as fighter bomber escort to ensure the A-6 got to the target. The BNs were terrific and the A-6 navigation system was way ahead of it’s time. If A-4 pilots were candid, they knew they would have a very difficult if not impossible time navigating to the target at low altitude. All we had was “map on the lap” and our wrist watch to navigate with, and if you had to turn off your planned route to honor a threat, you had very little chance for a successful low altitude mission unless you had giant land marks to navigate off of. Also the A-4 internal cannons sucked. Never once in the years I flew the Scooter did I fire out all my 20mm without them jamming.
I was in the marines when they flew. I worked closely with them. So small and so light it was difficult at times to get them out of the arresting gear. We would sometimes have to retract the cable 2 times to get it to bounce off the cable and release. I was in aircraft launch and recovery. Loved beings so close to them. I great plane!
Thanks. Once upon a time I spent over 250 hours building an A4-E Skyhawk model.
When merging in a dogfight, it is always pilot first, plane second. And a better pilot will nearly always shoot down a better plane. But not always. And no matter how much you trained, you couldn't simulate merging with a MiG and a Soviet pilot flying for Mother Russia.
And when the very first encounter between enemy plane types results in a kill, it is normally the result of superior situational awareness, flying skill, and an ability to predict where the other plane will be. In a dogfight, simply losing sight of your opponent in the sun, or lose them against the background in a rate fight on the deck -- that could easily result in your demise, even in quite a superior plane.
Real fighter plane pilots are amazing. They are both some of the most highly trained morons in the world, and some of the least reliable witnesses of events. If we believed every story pilots told about UFOs, we should see alien craft flying around most cities every day.
Never believe what a pilot claims happened outside of his own aircraft: because that is all they know about. Their one and only job is to land their plane so it can be flown again.
William Forby, he was a fighter pilot and cellmate a room over from McCain. He had it much worse and was there even longer than McCain. He came back from war and became an amazing principal for our school and dear friend of mine.
I love the A-4 as an old marine I think it was one of the Best support aircraft we could and did call on.
Semper Fi Marine
Always fun to think I'm flying an A4 Skyhawk, even though its a 172 Skyhawk.
Same here. I've never achieved the 720 degree per second roll rate in the C-172, but I have done a barrel roll and landed on an aircraft carrier -- that's in Microsoft Flight Simulator, however.
One of my favorite aircraft of the time, OV-10 being second
The Australians loved their Skyhawks that much, that when they sold them to New Zealand, they rented them back lol!
The A-4 was one of those surprising, largely unsung airplanes that vastly exceeded it's expected limits.
The USAF and Navy bought A-7D planes 1971. Subsonic, but maneuverable. Good for ground support and carried AIM-9 Sidewinders. They're gone from the inventory but the A-4s are still around.
2:50 Saying the A-4 is "less than ideal for dogfighting" is like saying a book about the history of the bow is less than in ideal weapon in modern warfare.
The A-4 was built to fight other planes. It was built to attack ground targets. A roll for which it was ideal.
My father was XO and CO of one of the last Marine squadrons to fly the A4, VMA 142 The Flying Gators.
Semper Fi
To date the A-4 Skyhawk has one of the highest sustained roll rates of any combat aircraft - in excess of 720 degrees per second with a clean configuration.
And the United States military still rents out/hires A-4 Skyhawks/pilots (now from private companies) in order to play the role of aggressor/RedFor aircraft because of how nimble, maneuverable and lightweight that they are. Look up Air & Space Magazine's article on them called "The Hotrod Squad." Really gives some insight as to how impressive the A-4 Skyhawk is, even when going up against modern generation 4+ aircraft and against skilled aviators.
been going through a period of watching military videos. I really liked this one. Quite compact, well structured and full of really important information.
The refueling drove system see at 3:54 was Pioneered on the A-4B dubbed Buddy Stores. This allowed any aircraft capable of mounting the self-contained/powered system via racks to refuel other aircraft without the need for dedicated tankers. both the A-4 Skyhawk and the F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II prove that one need not over engineer, nor overspend to meet and exceed the requirements at hand.
The F-5 was used by the USAF Aggressor squadron.
@@tedjohansen7730 Yep, both USAF and USN are still actively looking for and purchasing ;low hour frames to be made into F-5N's.
@@ditzydoo4378 USN and USMC adversary squadrons. Navy has been upgrading its adversary F-5s and also using older F-18Es to supplement.
The USAF got rid of their aggressor F-5s in the early 90s, replacing them with F-16s and F-15s. USAF aggressor squadrons now use the F-35.
@@ironroad18 thank you, wasn't aware the USAF had done so. Much is the pity for them. though they never did cotton to it, being it was originally a Navy design from Northrop. hmmmm wonder why??? (snark disabled ^~^)
The A4 Skyhawk has a warm place in the hearts of American aviators of both fixed wing services. Relatively simple to pilot and forgiving to fly, she was an agile bird that still relied on a lot of pilot skill rather than black boxes to put the metal on the right piece of mud. I've talked to a couple of pilots who flew Navy strike aircraft from A4's to FA18's and they say that love Skyhawk best.
I've always loved the Skyhawk for some reason.
I flew in the A4 trainer when stationed with VT21, Kingsville texas. A experience of a lifetime. In the back seat with Lt. Love.
Great plane! The first I worked and trained on in the early 70s. Except at engine change time, it was all hands on deck to tear the plane in half to change the engine then reconnect all the hoses, wires, cables, then test everything. The com/nav “biscuit” in the nose was a whole different story.
When I came onboard NAS Chase Field in 1973, the two seat A4 was being used to train Naval and Marine Corps Aviators. It was more than nimble.
I was at NAS Chase Field from 9\75 to 3\77 in Base Ops on the line and worked with both VT-24 and VT-25 that had the Trainers
Thanks for another great production. In addition to the other preceding comments which are in disagreement with your characterization of the A-4 Skyhawk, I would like to add that the Skyhawk was NOT a "Fighter" jet, as you suggest and then criticize it for not meeting fighter characteristics. Rather it was designed and built for "ATTACK," hence the "A" in the title "A-4." So, it was also incorrect to suggest that it was equipped with guns for self defense when those guns, like every other feature of the craft, was intended for ground attack. Please continue your efforts.
As a New Zealander, seeing these fly around as a kid was surreal, was a shame losing our only jet in 2006
I love your channel and related channels. The quality is so damn good.
"not so agile", lmao I always thought a fighter version could have been built because it was more agile than most fighters of similar size and was a joy to fly.
see A4K sky hawk kahu upgrade saw them gain the F16 Avionics...
I belive Essex-class carriers in the anti-sub role would carry a few with sidewinders for air defense.
The A-4B is one of the sexiest airframes ever produced. Great little plane
I drove through Alameda, CA this afternoon and an A4 is mounted on a pylon in front of a school. I didn’t know what it was so I came looking for it on RUclips. Low-cost and simplicity is always a good thing, especially if the tool solves the problem.
In the RC model world, the A-4 is a very popular aircraft cause it looks good and easy to fly
Loved watching them training as a kid for the rnzaf. More than held its in in our conditions against the aussie f18s and f111s. Our guys flew them 30 meters off the ground at times when other countries wouldn't go under 100
One of the best ground support aircrafts!
I would also mention that almost the entire first prototype of the A-4 was built in Heinemann's garage, and it rarely dumped its belly tank, as the airframe was so light it could make a gear-up landing on it's belly tank and the airframe would suffer negligible damage. They also trained for an 'over the shoulder' atom bomb attack profile, and were equipped with a white shade to pull over the cockpit after launching the bomb and retreating on full reheat. They lasted a long time, the TA-4s were still used in training command until the T-45 was adopted, and almost everyone considered that a significant downgrade.
Props to the camera operator at 3:45. Such a nice shot
Such a great little plane. I believe Brazil just completed a major upgrade to their A4s which are still in front line service with the Navy. Impressive what they could and can still do.
Argentina also did so
Sadly, the upgrade to brazilian A-4s proved to be pointless, as they scuttled their carrier a few months ago, so the brazilian navy Will probably sell or scrap them...
Loved this plane as a kid, a great standard for the Royal New Zealand Air Force.
Love the videos with the hand edited vintage footage. This one is great!
What a great aircraft and still being flown today the Brazilian navy and Argentinian air force.
"Notable Pilots like John McCain."??? 🤣 🤣 🤣 PRICELESS!!!
Johnny MC shit
My grandfather was the engineer behind designing the bent refueling probe after the straight one
Holy shit it's Viper!
A-4 Skyhawk still one of my favorite planes. I think smaller cheaper better in some many areas, add it to airplanes!
I don't know where you got "Tinker Toy" from, but in my time with this exceptional bird we called them "Scooters" and "Heinemann's Hot Rod"
John McCain was one serious dude, I never knew he was also in the Forestall fire.
also known as the Scooter. pilots loved them. So did the Angels
Thank you for using finally normal playback speed. Now I can appreciate your work without the strange too fast playback speed. It makes your content better and relaxing to watch this way. Please keep it up.
The A4 was an excellent platform, they finally got smart with the engine, excellent design and payload good video
A quality site. Excellent info, much appreciated...
Really clean and clear Video. Wonderful
My father flew a Skyhawk off the U.S.S. Saratoga CV60 VF31. Mostly med cruises, have all these cool photos and vids, although the vids have no sound. If only they had iPhone's back then.
My Father did some of the design work on the later models. He retired in charge of all Comercial sales to the middle east and Africa. I remember they had an A-4 in a small room. Inside the plant. The room was smaller than most people's living rooms.
Wonderful documentary. Thankyou for making and sharing it.
That thumbnail is *insane* - really puts things into perspective