Talk:Douglas A-1 Skyraider/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dengler Escape from POW Camp Superfluous?

Someone added a paragraph to this article describing A-1 pilot Dieter Dengler's crash in Laos in 1966. They also included a sentence about his capture and escape from a POW camp. This last sentence was removed as being superfluous. While not directly related to the A-1, I would still regard the escape information as relevant to the article since it explains why Dengler's crash landing is notable (as opposed to all the other A-1 crash landings that occurred in Vietnam). Therefore, I propose the sentence be restored. Rather than get involved in an undo battle, I thought I would post my comment here and see what others think. Skeet Shooter (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think any of the names listed in the section on crashes losses are that notable. However, in this case, the escape has nothing whatsover to do with the aircraft, and I don't see that it needs to be here. If they had escaped in an A-1, then it might be differnt! To be fair, I'll try to go through the rest of the names and remove the non-notable and/or unsourced ones too. Please remember that encyclopedia articles are summaries, and need to be focused on the actual subject as much as possible. The Dengler article is the proper place for the escape to be mentioned, but not here. IMHO. - BillCJ (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The way the text currently reads, it may be better to delete the reference to Dengler entirely. Stating only that Dengler crash-landed his A-1 isn't very notable. Almost like stating Fisher landed his A-1 at A Shau without explaining it was a rescue for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor. In both cases, the full story is explained in the respective article about the person, but providing that extra sentence in the A-1 article helps the reader understand why the event was notable and worth exploring. Actually, another A-1 pilot did spot the nearly-dead Dengler and called in a rescue. Would that be an appropriate second sentence? I do agree that the original poster's description of the escape did not fit the tone of an encyclopedic article. Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article yesterday (July 11, 2009), and consolidated the information on Dengler at the bottom in the section entitled "Popular Culture". I hope no one minds. The Skyraider article needs a lot of work. It has had so many people throwing things into it that it is not always coherent, and much of the writing is shoddy. Not to be personally critical, just direct. User:Sciacchitano User talk:Sciacchitano Sciacchitano (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cruise speed of 295 mph?

Come-on!!! No single-engine propeller-driven aircraft 'cruises' that fast. Non-pilots usually have completely wrong ideas about the 'real' speed of aircraft, and often confound VNE (Redline speed) with maximum speed, or 'real' cruise-speed with what is utterly possible to attain without blowing up your engine within five minutes.

But then again: Even Cessna, in its brochures, states cruise speed of their machines (Refuse to call them 'Aircraft') at 85% power (The latter in very small print) what someone can indeed do without blowing up the engine within the first five minutes. 65% power is realy the maximum advisable for continuous output if you do not desire to seriously compromise the MTBO of your engine. At those settings I always felt the urge to step out and push a bit when flying Cessnas.

One of the fastest cruising propeller-aircraft is the P-51 Mustang which manages almost 250 mph at low level and around 310 mph at best altitude. Surely a Skyraider (Though I must admit I've never even seen one) comes nowhere close to that.

For indication: here are some 'real' cruise-speeds of aircraft I really flew:

A 'middle-series' Cessna 150 (With the short dorsal fin) will do about 98 mph. at low level (Can't get that thing up high anyway as it climbs 500 ft/min at sea level).

A 172 (With the continental six-cylinder of 145 BHP) will do around 110 mph.

A DC 3 (With the Pratt & Whitney 'Double Wasp') will do 150 mph.(On a good day, but then again, only if it likes you, otherwise it 'll be more around 140). Crazy what you get to read about THAT aircraft's speed.

A Piper Arrow III will give you 135 mph. at sea-level and around 150 at 9000 ft. (It's best cruising-altitude for 65% power as it's not Turbo-charged). A French Robin DR 300-160 does a few miles more, but with only 160 BHP (The Arrow has 200), fixed gear and fixed propeller, but climbes twice as fast (1600 ft/min). The Arrows climb speed as stated by Piper in the flight manual to be 900 ft/min is surely only at full power and turns out to be more like 750 ft/min in real life.

An early Piper-Aztec will turn out 165-180 (Low-high) while a (Non-turbo) Aztec E can do 175-195.

And finally, probably the fastest-cruising propeller-aircraft of all time, a Connie (But then again, only the 1049), would turn out around 340 mph in its younger days, but the one I flew did a good 310 at 20.000 ft. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.157.208 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 81.246.157.208 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

295 mph. cruise-speed in a Skyraider: On the planet Zorg perhaps, but surely never here on earth! 200 (Like a Spitfire) seems a realistic figure for a 'Clean' aircraft. 81.246.157.208 (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone may have got cruise speed mixed up with Combat speed - [1] lists a Combat Speed of 256 knots for the A-1H and-J - which corresponds to the figure quoted for cruise speed in the article. [2] states a cruise speed of 240 mph for the A1E, while Swanborough and Bowers quotes 198 mph and 188 mph for the AD-2 and AD-7 respectively. The US Navy Standard Aircraft Characteristics for the AD-4 here] gives a cruise speed of between 177 and 206 knots, and for the AD-5 here as 200 - 205 knots.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I don't think the Air Force with its fleet of maintenance and mechanics (and cash) care as much about the longevity of an engine, particularly in combat zones, as a civilian or business. For example, for jets isn't "cruise" speed more or less mean "without afterburners". By that comparision I would consider anything less than "100%" to be cruising for the military (i.e. not WEP). I also believe companies rate the planes unloaded (esp no bombs, rockets, missles etc).

As fast as avionics was moving during this time just a couple years can make a big difference. Just look at the basic weight vs HP (certainly not everything but should give a good baseline if its not a flying brick) it would seem that Mustang level performance wouldn't be unheard of, and the Skyraider comes out a little bit ahead. In actual use I'm sure the typical Skyraider loadout would be much heavier than a Mustangs which could be a big part of the perception difference.

Mustang: 1,490 hp (little over 1700WEP) /7,635lbs (empty weight) = 0.19 HP per LB Skyraider: 2,700 hp/11,970 (empty weight) = .22 HP per LB

oddly the numbers listed on the planes pages are:

P-51 Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg) vs Skyraider Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (250 W/kg)

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just doing a brief search I've found ranges from 200 to the 295mph, I wonder how we can figure out which figure is the right one...

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/a1-skyraider.htm (475 km/h = approx 295.15mph) http://www.geocities.com/eepohsan/skyraider.html (173.05kts which is approx 200.29mph) http://www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com/AD-5.html (295mph) http://www.aviationtrivia.info/Douglas-A-1-Skyraider.php (204mph) http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977478803 (240MPH)

I'll have to look more into this. The gather.com one seems the best researched so I'll have to look into his refs to see what they have to say (anyone have a gather account that could message him to see how he came upon his number?). I didn't look much into these sites for reliability, just that they weren't a direct copy of a recent wikipedia page but its interesting that the 200ish and 295ish get 2 each, and the 240mph the once.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the specs to conform with a single (hopefully) reliable source, Francillion's McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 for the version quoted - it seems to be more or less consistant with the other reliable specs for other Marks, with a sensible cruise speed (i.e. 198 mph).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nigel Ish. The correct number for the A-1E seems to be about 190 mph. The Navy manual for the A-1H gives a cruising speed of 158 knots (about 181 mph). Just from these two figures, one would guess that the cruising speed varied somewhat from model to model. 198 mph is certainly in the ball park. Maximum speed at optimal altitude is somewhere around 320 mph, and the aircraft is said to have been able to reach about 500 mph in a dive.

It is interesting how many different figures one can find on the Internet for the cruise speed, including in articles from museums and the U.S. military. For instance, the U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio (Wright Patterson AFB - http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil) gives the following figures for the A-1E: cruising speed 240 mph, maximum speed 325 mph, which is at variance with the figures we have discussed, above.Sciacchitano (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistancy in the article

I hope I'm using this dialog page correctly.

There is a clear inconsistancy. In the Varients section in the entry for the AD-1 it states that the statistics are for this varient. However, in the Specifications it says it is for the A-1H which apparently is equavalent to the AD-6. I don't know which is correct. The statements appear mutally exclusive. I suspect more than one editor was unaware of each others' contributions.Aracfi (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point (and yes, you've made some errors in your submission, see the following, which I will then erase, however, it's mostly typos):

Inconsistency in the article

I hope I'm using this dialog page correctly. There is a clear inconsistency. In the Variants section in the entry for the AD-1 it states that the statistics are for this variant. However, in the Specifications; it says it is for the A-1H which apparently is the equivalent to the AD-6. I don't know which is correct. The statements appear mutually exclusive. I suspect more than one editor was unaware of each other's contributions. Aracfi (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Spad

Not wishing for an encyclopedic sub-entry about nickname derivatons; "Spad", as I understand it, was bestowed for its relative "antiquity"; a WWII era, straight winged, propellor powered aircraft doing quite well for itself in the jet age. Over the years I've talked with a few Spad drivers, all of whom were quite proud of the airplane and the nickname.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The adoration and respect that grunts and pilots had for armed prop planes in Vietnam era and on, and the upper levels seeming attempts to put a stop to them at every chance is an interesting trend that I see. I first noticed it when looking at the history of the OV-10 Bronco, and the respect my father (3 tour USMC in Vietnam and later pilot) had for its ability to support troops. He doesn't really talk much about the war so just mentioning a particular vehicle is a big deal. It seems like the military may be starting to get the idea since Boeing is considering bringing the OV-10 back and the US and other militarie looking at planes that are similar to the A-1 such as the "Super Tucano", Beechcraft T-6 Texan II, and the A-67 Dragon.

The fact that these type of planes fit the requirements for fire fighting lead plane/control and drug interdiction almost perfectly seems to help also. To me these are the perfect kind of planes to build for export since they are super useful for most militaries, but would be quite harmless against the US since they would have air supremacy the higher probabilty future theoretical wars.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Spad" nickname appears to be influenced by several factors - the anachronism of a piston-engined attack aircraft in the Jet Age, the "AD" designation originally used by the Navy, and the universal regard in which the French SPAD aircraft of the First World War were still held at the time. The "official" USAF nickname during the Vietnam War was "Super Spad", and that is what appeared on many of the A-1 shoulder patches worn at the time. So-called nicknames such as "Hobo", "Sandy", "Zorro" and the like were actually call signs for specific squadrons and missions, and not nicknames of the aircraft, "Hobo" used by the 1st Air Commando Sq. for Ho Chi Minh trail interdiction, "Sandy" used by the 602nd Air Commando Sq. for search and rescue missions, etc. Pilots and air crews did not refer to the aircraft type with those names. The article seems to be correct on this issue, and discusses it in the proper section.Sciacchitano (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This Article Needs Work

I've added a section on the South Vietnamese Air Force (how was that missed when the VNAF flew large numbers of the aircraft for 15 years?), and beefed up the section on the Navy a little bit, but the Navy/Marine Corps section is too light, and the USAF section way too long and too full of various editors favorite anecdote and tale, many of them only tangentially related to the topic. The use of the aircraft in the Korean War, where it was by far the most effective close air support aircraft flown by the Navy, is out of balance with the extensive coverage of the use of the aircraft in Vietnam by the USAF. Overall, the article feels disjointed, and someone needs to go through it and conform the style and framework.Sciacchitano (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Sciacchitano, the passage "Certainly, we did not get every downed airmen back home safely, but we got our fair share" is clearly NPOV and not something that should be found in an encyclopedia. 193.15.174.168 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be relevant there is a Skyhawk in the the War Remnants Museum in Saigon (or was in Apr 2010): http://www.aviationmuseum.eu/World/Asia/Vietnam/Ho_Ci_Minh/War_Remnants_gallery.htm I don't know enough to add it to the survivors list in the same format as the others, but maybe someone else does. 129.67.1.21 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of photographs

At last count there are now 15 photographs illustrating the article. Are all of them necessary as many can be found in the Commons gallery? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC).

USAF section

Another editor recently tagged the article as having an essay-like style which seems to be most prevalent in the USAF section. Comments? FWiW, the section seems to be entirely the work of an anon (88.17.17.78). Bzuk (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Most of the whole US section was re-written by an IP, as seen in this composite diff, with no sources of course. My bet it's either a copyvio of a book/website, of of an essay! I'm fine with restoring the pre-IP text dump version, and let that be expanded upon in the future. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It was me and I have restored the tags. I mean, the text is peppered throught with random unencyclopedic comments like "These missions could either be boring as hell or so busy that you wished you had another set of hands." This is an encyclopedia, not the autobiography of a pilot. There is stuff like this even before the dump. Please do not remove the tags until some effort to fix these issues is done. Thanks.--Cerejota (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it as-is, tags, bad writing, everything. I've spent a lot of time on this article, as have other udedicated editors, only to have amaturer fanboys (mostly IPa) add crap. We can't wthc articles 24/7, and when we try, we're accused of "ownership". Let it stay - This is what happens when we have unrestricted (open) editing) - this is the real Wikipedia! This is Jimbo's dream! - BilCat (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Survivor

There's also a Skyraider on display at the War Remnants Museum (Ho Chi Minh City). Not sure what model it is though. --Mat Hardy (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

VR-HEU incident orignal research

Here is the text of the subsection:

Cathay Pacific VR-HEU Incident
On 26 July 1954, two Douglas Skyraiders from the aircraft carriers USS Philippine Sea and Hornet shot down two Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force La-9s off the coast of Hainan Island while searching for survivors after the shooting down of a Cathay Pacific Skymaster airliner three days previously, also by La-9s. < !-- Don't change La-9 to La-7 even though it says La-7 in the cited article. The Lavochkin La-7 was a World War II fighter that was never used by Communist China, but they did use the externally almost identical postwar Lavochkin La-9, meaning that the aircraft used must have been misidentified in the article. -->

The source indicates that the 26 July combat was between A-1's and LA-7s. The editor notes in the comment (see italicized HTML markup) that "La-7" is an error in the article, and provides a good argument for how the error occured, and that "La-9" is the "true fact."

That argument is OR, and should be disallowed. However, the intention is good: we don't want bad facts creeping in to WP. Suggested resolution: changing "Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force La-9s" to "Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force Lavochkin fighters" which maintains the core information while avoiding the controversy of the disputed fact in the article. Alternative: editor can find the argument published elsewhere (or self-publish it elsewhere right now) and cite the external publication. Even if the publication doesn't qualify under normal Reliable Source rules, it can be accepted, since the argument is strong, and makes the osurce wokr as RS. This is also tangentally born out by the PRC's use of La-9s in the VR-HEU shootdown.

References

AD-4 Error?

The specs for the AD-4 state: AD-4 Strengthened landing gear, improved radar, G-2 compass, anti-G suit provisions, four 20 mm (.79 in) cannon and 14 Aero rocket launchers, capable of carrying up to 50 lb (23 kg) of bombs; 372 built.

50 lbs? Is this a typo, poor research or page sabotage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.56.42.216 (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've taken that out. It might have been a typo for 5,000 lb, but even that figure is puzzling. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Douglas A-1 Skyraider/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

All fluff, very little substance, no references. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 13:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Add mention of the 618 lbs of aluminium armor added during the korean war?

Maybe the article should add a mention of the armor added in korea. http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/07/ad-armor-all.htmlTeeTylerToe (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Added a bit about it.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Top picture

AS of now - May 2018 - the top picture present is mis-representative - It may have originally been a A-1 Skyraider, but the cockpit window/ glass sizing is totally rebuilt- and i doubt this configuration ever existed in any aircraft while flown by a country's military Wfoj3 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement- nor should there be - that a lead photo be "representative". It just needs to be a clear photo, preferably an in-flight image, that shows a good angle of the aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wfoj3: Also, the cockpit windows look like those of the other AD-5/A1E side-by-side variants in the article. - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You missed a Skyrader surviver....

The prototype Skyrader is in the Soplata Collection.... Bill Soplata (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Content excised from USS Midway page

A previous editor excised the following uncited passage from the USS Midway page, posted by an unregistered user 104.218.187.7:

In addition, VA 25 a prop driven Skyraider Shot down a MIG 17, 20 Jun 1965.

This downing is mentioned at this page; if sufficiently relevant, with a proper citation it could be worked in here. Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There are ADs . . . and ADs.

With due respect, I read the comment stating that lead picture of this plane type was selected because it was a ‘good’ shot of the plane…as this one is. But it’s an AD-5. I flew several models of the Spad (my license plate BTW). Sturdier than some realize. Flew through a 4-6 inch pine on a low level once in Georgia. Ripped off the bottom of the fuselage and it chugged along for another 1.5. Flew another into the water after a carrier launch into some parked Crusaders. The plane is a quick sinker. The point is that the AD-5 may be the wonder of the Air Force but most of AD history is written in Navy Flight Logs. Mostly AD-6s. Actual tail-hookers. I would be highly pleased to see an AD-6 rather than an AD-5 in the choice #1 position. I’m not groveling, I just would like to see respect for the senior gentleman in the Spad inventory. The single-seater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xskyraiderx (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The main image does not have to reflect the majority usage, which should be apparent from the other images on the page, but from the best photo to represent what the aircraft looks like. Ideally such an image should be of the aircraft flying, be in colour, not have a cluttered background or other unrelated aircraft and it should be at an angle where the majority of its design features can be seen. At the bottom of the page there is a link to the wikimedia commons page - if there is such an image in there we can change it, but we are somewhat limited as the images used must be freely usable without any licence, and have been uploaded. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And swapped with another image. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion / request

I find the inclusion of one or more operator stations (depending on the variant) low in the fuselage to be a fascinating and relatively unique characteristic.

Is this crew compartment completely separated from the cockpit? Does the pilot access the cockpit via the side door??

Also, this must have been one of the first piston-engined aircraft fitted with radar.

I'd like to see more discussion of these unique and interesting aspects in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6E05:99EF:652B:7D3:9A3C:84D7 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A-10 Thunderbolt II

There is no mention that the A-1 was in inspiration for the A-10, a relatively slow-flying heavily armored close air support attack aircraft with cannon with jet vs propeller power Bachcell (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that, but whatever is added needs to cite reliable published sources. BilCat (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the reverted section. The Thunderbolt II article mentions the Skyraider. Should not be hard to cite sources. The lead should mention why propeller powered plane was better than jets for close air support. The Korean war section says the Skyraider had heavier payload and longer flight time than jets

It served notably in the Korean war and Vietnam war where its performance in close air support rivaled not only faster propeller fighters like the F4U but supersonic jets like the F-100. It entered service shortly after WWII and remained in U.S. service until the early 1970s. The Skyraider inspired the specifications for its replacement, the A-10 Thunderbolt II a relatively slow jet optimized for the close air support role. Bachcell (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Inspired the specifications"- or the needs of ground forces hadn't actually changed over the years? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Should not be hard to cite sources." So why didn't you cite sources when you added it? BilCat (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)