RAN A4G info required

[Meatbox8]

Apologies if this topic has already been covered. I want to build a 1/72nd scale RAN Douglas A4G operating from HMAS Melbourne in the early 1970s and have the Modeldecal sheet that includes this scheme. As the new Airfix A4B kit is readily available and reasonably priced what are the main differences between this mark and the A4G? i.e. Is it possible to build the A4G more or less from the box or is there extensive re-modelling/converting to be done and where?

I have searched the net but have not been able to find a definitive list of differences.

With thanks in advance.

Tim.

[pigsty]

I don't know about an exhaustive list - might be able to get you more information later on once I'm back in conctact with my Big Book of the Skyhawk - but I reckon some fairly extensive changes will be needed. The A-4G was based on the A-4F, in turn based on the A-4E, which was a significant improvement over the A-4B. Two big external differences are the avionics hump behind the cockpit and an extra pair of pylons. The engine was different, too, though I can't quite recall whether that created many external changes.

[Meatbox8]

I don't know about an exhaustive list - might be able to get you more information later on once I'm back in conctact with my Big Book of the Skyhawk - but I reckon some fairly extensive changes will be needed. The A-4G was based on the A-4F, in turn based on the A-4E, which was a significant improvement over the A-4B. Two big external differences are the avionics hump behind the cockpit and an extra pair of pylons. The engine was different, too, though I can't quite recall whether that created many external changes.

That's interesting about the hump. I don't have the decal sheet to hand but if I remember rightly it depicts the aircraft with the hump - however, I recently watched some nice colour footage of RAN Skyhawks on you Tube and they definitely DON'T have the hump - so to speak. What I gleaned from my searches was that different marks had different spans but I couldn't find out which mark the G was derived from although it appears to be used only by the RAN and later the RNZAF. A wider span would suggest to me fairly extensive conversion work - yikes!

[pigsty]

The hump was always removeable and I believe some missions (not needing the specific gubbins) may have allowed it to be taken off to save weight.

The wing of the A-4 was never altered except for the pylons and the adoption of lift dumpers on the A-4F. I can't imagine where talk of a different span might have originated.

[Andrew Perren]

The A-4B has a significantly different nose. You can get away with building an E/F as a G (no hump) but not using the B kit. Plenty of pics around the net of the antennae layouts and what not.

[bentwaters81tfw]

I have no references to the RAN bird having a hump. Ed Heinemann started with the wing and built the airframe around that. I can see no references about changing it.

It was that size to fit carrier lifts without wing fold.

[XV571]

As well as the nose, one other major external difference was in the intake area - the A-4E and subsequent models used the J52 engine in place of the original J65. This resulted in a separated intake to accommodate the increased airflow requirements. A splitter plate was added in front of the intake as well. The A-4G, being a customised version of the A-4F, has these. Definitely no avionics hump either .

In short you can't build a totally accurate RAN Skyhawk from the Airfix kit without a lot of work; you'd be better off trying to find a Fujimi A-4E/F or an ESCI/Italeri A-4E without the hump. Also check the fit of the decals. The Modeldecal sheet was designed for the woefully inaccurate Hasegawa kit which has a too-long fuselage so the fin checks may be too large.

[Meatbox8]

The hump was always removeable and I believe some missions (not needing the specific gubbins) may have allowed it to be taken off to save weight.

The wing of the A-4 was never altered except for the pylons and the adoption of lift dumpers on the A-4F. I can't imagine where talk of a different span might have originated.

I think I got the span info from a dedicated A4 site, believe it or not. Can't remember its URL but I think it was by A4 crew, for A4 crew.

[Meatbox8]

I have no references to the RAN bird having a hump. Ed Heinemann started with the wing and built the airframe around that. I can see no references about changing it.

It was that size to fit carrier lifts without wing fold.

Certainly the two films I've seen show Aussie A4s sans hump. To my untrained eye the approach speed looks mighty fast for a carrier bird compared to, say, a Sea Vixen and on a carrier as small as Melbourne perhaps the additional weight of the hump would have made landings prohibitive. then again maybe I don't know what I'm talking about!

[Meatbox8]

As well as the nose, one other major external difference was in the intake area - the A-4E and subsequent models used the J52 engine in place of the original J65. This resulted in a separated intake to accommodate the increased airflow requirements. A splitter plate was added in front of the intake as well. The A-4G, being a customised version of the A-4F, has these. Definitely no avionics hump either .

In short you can't build a totally accurate RAN Skyhawk from the Airfix kit without a lot of work; you'd be better off trying to find a Fujimi A-4E/F or an ESCI/Italeri A-4E without the hump. Also check the fit of the decals. The Modeldecal sheet was designed for the woefully inaccurate Hasegawa kit which has a too-long fuselage so the fin checks may be too large.

Thanks XV. Looks like the Airfix kit is a non-starter then. Especially with my limited skills! I seem to remember the sheet mentions the wrong shape of the fin on the Hasegawa kit. Can't say I'd be looking forward to masking the fin checks. Presumably the Fujimi kit is still in production. I wonder whether the hump is a separate part.

[Don McIntyre]

IIRC the avionics hump wasn't generally added/removed at the squadron level. Once added it typically stayed with the arcraft (Agressors excepted).

[Wez]

I think I got the span info from a dedicated A4 site, believe it or not. Can't remember its URL but I think it was by A4 crew, for A4 crew.

If it was an aircrew biased site then that's where you went wrong you see! If you want to know technical details about an aircraft NEVER ask aircrew - they haven't got a bloody clue! Although as an aircraft maintainer I may be slightly biased!

Going back to the original post, the A-4G was based upon the A-4E airframe. Original A-4E airframes were built without the avionics hump, that was introduced with the A-4F airframe and retrofitted to many A-4E's during the Vietnam War period to add extra capability. I've never seen a picture of an Aussie A-4G with the hump.

The Fujimi A-4E/F comes with a separate hump which gives you the option.

The Airfix kit being an A-4B doesn't represent an A-4E for the reasons already stated (nose length and profile, intake differences etc).

As you state, the Modeldecal instructions mention the inaccuracies in the Hasegawa kit, I'm sure they expected you to adjust the fin in order for the decals to fit - if in doubt measure up.

Wez

[Max Headroom]

I'm being totally ignorant here but I thought that I read somewhere that Kiwi Scooters only used the hump to transport golf clubs?

Trevor

[Enzo the Magnificent]

or an ESCI/Italeri A-4E without the hump. Also check the fit of the decals. The Modeldecal sheet was designed for the woefully inaccurate Hasegawa kit which has a too-long fuselage so the fin checks may be too large.

The Esci kit is superb! But it may be difficult to find one these days. The Modeldecal decals will fit - at least they did thirty-odd years ago when I built that exact combination.

[theplasticsurgeon]

Looked up the A-4g in the Osprey Air Combat series book.

Very similar spec to the A-4F.

About the avionic hum, it says provision only (wiring) ie not supplied to Aus Navy.

All pictures of A-4G aircraft are without hump.

This is my Hasegawa A-4E sans hump - showing the separated air intakes mentioned.

Kit has 5 pylon points, and both RF probes.

[Jennings Heilig]

The hump was not something easily removable. It was part of the airframe, and only came off during heavy deep depot maintenance.

The RAN's A-4Gs never had the hump fitted.

[NAVY870]

The A-4G is a derivative of the A-4F, the first 8 received in 1967 were new built to G standard (882-889) whilst the second 8 (870-877)

received in 1971 were ex USN A-4F's modified to G standard.

The RAN's requirement for the A-4 to replace the Sea Venom in the fleet defence fighter role saw the G wired to carry AIM-9B Sidewinder missles on stations 1,2,4 &5. This is the major difference between the G & F variants. The A-4G never carried the hump in RAN service though at least two of the

70 series (871 & 877) had been photographed with humps fitted during their service with the USN. Both aircraft served in the Vietnam conflict.

The A-4K's flown by the RNZAF were fitted with humps but were not fitted with the avionics normally installed in the hump. I cant comment on the golf clubs story.

The main differences between the A-4B and A-4G are; Different foward fuselage, the B didnt have the APG-53 radar and is shorter. The intakes are flush on the B, they were moved on the J-52 powered variants to get the intakes out of the boundary layer. The side engine access panels are srewed on panels on the B, hinged upward and quick release of the G. The B doesnt have the access panels for the hydraulic systems like the G. There is no large panel behind the port intake for the AJB-3A amp on the B.

Rear Fuselage; Major differences are internal and not really visible. In 1/72 scale it should be fine.

Wings: The G has 5 weapons racks, the B has 3. main wheels are different between the 2 types. Main gear wells are the same.

I wouldnt try to convert the Airfix kit, the Fujimi or the older Esci kits would be a better starting point.

Steve Long

A-4/TA-4G Airframes & engines maintenance

VC-724 Squadron RAN.

1980-1984

[Calum]

A heap of RAN A-4G and RNZAF A-4K images

http://a4-alley.x90x.net/A4-Alley/index.html

When the RNZAF bought the A-4G's we didn't fit the Hump (becuase they never had any and why whould you when there was nothing to go in it)The Hump affected performance as well

The Hump in the A-4K was empty, Hence it was removedduring the Kahu upgrade

[Jennings Heilig]

What hump?

[JMChladek]

Fujimi's A-4E/F or the Esci kit are your best bet for a 1/72 A-4G (or the old Hasegawa kit if you don't mind raised panel lines). The Italeri mold (which has nothing in common with the Esci kit) A-4 is NOT a good starting point since it has the hump molded integral to the fuselage and cutting it away results in a huge gap that requires filling. I've only ever seen anyone attempt to cut a hump off and fill that area on an Italeri kit and it looked like a long slow root canal to do.

Now, concerning the Airfix kit. It is GREAT for A-4B and C builds, just not E and F models. Personally though, if Airfix were to perhaps use the common wing sprues and tool up an all new A-4E/F fuselage for it, they would have a cracking good late model Scooter on their hands as well. Supposedly, Hobbyboss is also doing E/F and M Skyhawk kits in 1/72. But it remains to be seen how good they will be. I REALLY hope they don't copy Italeri's kit though as if they mold the hump integral with the fuselage, forget it.

[Meatbox8]

Looked up the A-4g in the Osprey Air Combat series book.

Very similar spec to the A-4F.

About the avionic hum, it says provision only (wiring) ie not supplied to Aus Navy.

All pictures of A-4G aircraft are without hump.

This is my Hasegawa A-4E sans hump - showing the separated air intakes mentioned.

Kit has 5 pylon points, and both RF probes.

Thanks for the info and nice build.

[Meatbox8]

The A-4G is a derivative of the A-4F, the first 8 received in 1967 were new built to G standard (882-889) whilst the second 8 (870-877)

received in 1971 were ex USN A-4F's modified to G standard.

The RAN's requirement for the A-4 to replace the Sea Venom in the fleet defence fighter role saw the G wired to carry AIM-9B Sidewinder missles on stations 1,2,4 &5. This is the major difference between the G & F variants. The A-4G never carried the hump in RAN service though at least two of the

70 series (871 & 877) had been photographed with humps fitted during their service with the USN. Both aircraft served in the Vietnam conflict.

The A-4K's flown by the RNZAF were fitted with humps but were not fitted with the avionics normally installed in the hump. I cant comment on the golf clubs story.

The main differences between the A-4B and A-4G are; Different foward fuselage, the B didnt have the APG-53 radar and is shorter. The intakes are flush on the B, they were moved on the J-52 powered variants to get the intakes out of the boundary layer. The side engine access panels are srewed on panels on the B, hinged upward and quick release of the G. The B doesnt have the access panels for the hydraulic systems like the G. There is no large panel behind the port intake for the AJB-3A amp on the B.

Rear Fuselage; Major differences are internal and not really visible. In 1/72 scale it should be fine.

Wings: The G has 5 weapons racks, the B has 3. main wheels are different between the 2 types. Main gear wells are the same.

I wouldnt try to convert the Airfix kit, the Fujimi or the older Esci kits would be a better starting point.

Steve Long

A-4/TA-4G Airframes & engines maintenance

VC-724 Squadron RAN.

1980-1984

Thanks for the comprehensive answer Steve. It sounds like the F/G was almost a completely new design apart from the wings. Anyway as I like modelling to be fun I don't think I'll be attempting to convert the Airfix B to a G!! I think I'll go for the Fujimi kit as the Esci one is probably difficult to find these days, although it's amazing what you can find on ebay. Do you know if there was a typical load for the RAN's Skyhawks when operating from Melbourne or did it vary from mission to mission? I happen to have a few sidewinders lying around left over from various Revell Hunters. Also, I'm assuming that the paints used were Federal standard rather than locally mixed.

[Meatbox8]

A heap of RAN A-4G and RNZAF A-4K images

http://a4-alley.x90x...lley/index.html

When the RNZAF bought the A-4G's we didn't fit the Hump (becuase they never had any and why whould you when there was nothing to go in it)The Hump affected performance as well

The Hump in the A-4K was empty, Hence it was removedduring the Kahu upgrade

Thanks for the link. Now I want a Kiwi A4 as well!! Really nice colour schemes over the years. It will sit nicely with my 14 Sqd Strikemaster.

[Meatbox8]

A heap of RAN A-4G and RNZAF A-4K images

http://a4-alley.x90x...lley/index.html

When the RNZAF bought the A-4G's we didn't fit the Hump (becuase they never had any and why whould you when there was nothing to go in it)The Hump affected performance as well

The Hump in the A-4K was empty, Hence it was removedduring the Kahu upgrade

P.S. Do you know of a good decal sheet for RNZAF A4s?

What hump?

Ha ha. Mel Brooks is a genius.

[Meatbox8]

Fujimi's A-4E/F or the Esci kit are your best bet for a 1/72 A-4G (or the old Hasegawa kit if you don't mind raised panel lines). The Italeri mold (which has nothing in common with the Esci kit) A-4 is NOT a good starting point since it has the hump molded integral to the fuselage and cutting it away results in a huge gap that requires filling. I've only ever seen anyone attempt to cut a hump off and fill that area on an Italeri kit and it looked like a long slow root canal to do.

Now, concerning the Airfix kit. It is GREAT for A-4B and C builds, just not E and F models. Personally though, if Airfix were to perhaps use the common wing sprues and tool up an all new A-4E/F fuselage for it, they would have a cracking good late model Scooter on their hands as well. Supposedly, Hobbyboss is also doing E/F and M Skyhawk kits in 1/72. But it remains to be seen how good they will be. I REALLY hope they don't copy Italeri's kit though as if they mold the hump integral with the fuselage, forget it.

As Airfix are in my good books, chiefly for the Valiant (my personal modelling Holy Grail) and the Spitfire 22, I reckon I'll be getting the A4B anyway. I usually build to the theme 'Britain and Commonwealth' but I have a smattering of NATO aircraft pre about 1970 and , although I clearly don't know much about Skyhawks, I've always thought it was a pretty nifty aircraft.