Mdthbs

Why do some games show lights shine through walls?

What is this particular type of chord progression, common in classical music, called?

Is my Rep in Stack-Exchange Form?

Firefox Arm64 available but RapsPi 3B+ still 32 bit

Links to webpages in books

Singing along to guitar chords (harmony)

How to append a matrix element by element?

How well known and how commonly used was Huffman coding in 1979?

How to determine what is the correct level of detail when modelling?

How can Charles Proxy change settings without admin rights after first time?

STM Microcontroller burns every time

Fitting a mixture of two normal distributions for a data set?

In the Marvel universe, can a human have a baby with any non-human?

Impossible darts scores

What do you call the action of someone tackling a stronger person?

Why does the numerical solution of an ODE move away from an unstable equilibrium?

Layout of complex table

How often can a PC check with passive perception during a combat turn?

C-152 carb heat on before landing in hot weather?

How can I repair scratches on a painted French door?

Does anycast addressing add additional latency in any way?

MH370 blackbox - is it still possible to retrieve data from it?

Does Marvel have an equivalent of the Green Lantern?

Does the UK have a written constitution?

Why does the A-4 Skyhawk sit nose-up when on ground?

What stops planes from being stolen?What is this tube along the right side of a Blue Angel?Why are First/Business Class seats at the front of aircraft where it is the least safe?How is the area rule applied on airliners like the A380?Is there a good reason why modern airliners can't have conventional landing gears (vs. tricycle landing gears)?What is the purpose of these labels on an aircraft's wings?How do the uninterrupted and interrupted flaps compare?In the old days, why didn't aircraft use simpler systems to land on a Carrier?How much extra weight is added by strengthening a piston-prop fighter for carrier landings?Advantages and disadvantages of air intakes above fuselage/wings in jet fighters?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}

5

$begingroup$

The rear of the plane is nearer to the ground, while the front part of the plane is away from the ground (see image below).

Other planes are more flat.

I think it was for high AoA but these planes are carrier operated so I don't think there is much sense for that.

(wikimedia.org)

aircraft-design landing-gear douglas-a-4-skyhawk

share|improve this question

edited 8 hours ago

ymb1

75.5k99 gold badges245245 silver badges405405 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

Jonathan IronsJonathan Irons

1,59311 gold badge1212 silver badges3434 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Not sure what you’re asking. Are you commenting that it dits nose high in its landing gear?
  $endgroup$
  – Carlo Felicione
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The landing gears arent the same height which gives the plane a "taildragger posture". Why?
  $endgroup$
  – Jonathan Irons
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @CarloFelicione Its best observable in the Wikipedia. Open its article and CTRL+F "color scheme". (Wikipedia is banned I cant give you the link for the image)
  $endgroup$
  – Jonathan Irons
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I think most of what you are seeing is just perspective. I think the "flat A4" in the upper right corner may be parked on a hill or something. I'm not sure how the F4 is relevant to the A4 question though?
  $endgroup$
  – Ron Beyer
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The A-4 had a mechanically-simple but effective high-lift system that relied on gravity and air pressure to automatically deploy. Not sure about the actual mechanism, but I remember reading somewhere that the high pitch angle helped the deployment.
  $endgroup$
  – aerobot
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

5

$begingroup$

The rear of the plane is nearer to the ground, while the front part of the plane is away from the ground (see image below).

Other planes are more flat.

I think it was for high AoA but these planes are carrier operated so I don't think there is much sense for that.

(wikimedia.org)

aircraft-design landing-gear douglas-a-4-skyhawk

share|improve this question

edited 8 hours ago

ymb1

75.5k99 gold badges245245 silver badges405405 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

Jonathan IronsJonathan Irons

1,59311 gold badge1212 silver badges3434 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Not sure what you’re asking. Are you commenting that it dits nose high in its landing gear?
  $endgroup$
  – Carlo Felicione
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The landing gears arent the same height which gives the plane a "taildragger posture". Why?
  $endgroup$
  – Jonathan Irons
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @CarloFelicione Its best observable in the Wikipedia. Open its article and CTRL+F "color scheme". (Wikipedia is banned I cant give you the link for the image)
  $endgroup$
  – Jonathan Irons
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I think most of what you are seeing is just perspective. I think the "flat A4" in the upper right corner may be parked on a hill or something. I'm not sure how the F4 is relevant to the A4 question though?
  $endgroup$
  – Ron Beyer
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The A-4 had a mechanically-simple but effective high-lift system that relied on gravity and air pressure to automatically deploy. Not sure about the actual mechanism, but I remember reading somewhere that the high pitch angle helped the deployment.
  $endgroup$
  – aerobot
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

$begingroup$

The rear of the plane is nearer to the ground, while the front part of the plane is away from the ground (see image below).

Other planes are more flat.

I think it was for high AoA but these planes are carrier operated so I don't think there is much sense for that.

(wikimedia.org)

aircraft-design landing-gear douglas-a-4-skyhawk

share|improve this question

edited 8 hours ago

ymb1

75.5k99 gold badges245245 silver badges405405 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

Jonathan IronsJonathan Irons

1,59311 gold badge1212 silver badges3434 bronze badges

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited 8 hours ago

ymb1

75.5k99 gold badges245245 silver badges405405 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

Jonathan IronsJonathan Irons

1,59311 gold badge1212 silver badges3434 bronze badges

share|improve this question

edited 8 hours ago

ymb1

75.5k99 gold badges245245 silver badges405405 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

Jonathan IronsJonathan Irons

1,59311 gold badge1212 silver badges3434 bronze badges

edited 8 hours ago

ymb1

75.5k99 gold badges245245 silver badges405405 bronze badges

edited 8 hours ago

ymb1

75.5k99 gold badges245245 silver badges405405 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

Jonathan IronsJonathan Irons

1,59311 gold badge1212 silver badges3434 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

Jonathan IronsJonathan Irons

1,59311 gold badge1212 silver badges3434 bronze badges

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

4

$begingroup$

Comments on another forum suggest that the A-4 was designed with unusually tall landing gear in proportion to its size to allow a large nuclear bomb to be carried, and that the nose gear was unusually long in relation to the other gear to limit the amount that the nose would drop downward when the nose gear was partially compressed during catapult launches and less-than-optimal landings.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

quiet flyerquiet flyer

2,50244 silver badges3030 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Actually it's not completely clear whether the point being made is that the long strut was specifically to prevent the problems with the nose dropping from being worse, or whether the problems with the nose dropping were a just a side effect of the gear design or other design issues. The long nose strut may have had more to do with just a desire to put the wing at a high angle-of-attack during takeoff even when no unusual compression was going on. I expect that this answer may be improved or replaced by a better one. There are several other carrier aircraft that sit nose-high-- eg Cutlass
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  6 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  But that's a different situation as was tailless--
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  For corroboration, The long landing-gear struts were dictated by clearance requirements for large stores carried beneath the wings on either side and between the main landing-gear legs. Source: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft via NASA.
  $endgroup$
  – ymb1
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Right, it's just not completely clear why the nose-high stance was chosen, even given the long gear-- so not totally satisfied w. the answer yet, more corroboration/ clarification is needed, but I will work your link into the answer, thank you.
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

$begingroup$

This was pretty common on naval aircraft from that era which used the launch bridle catapult interface. It gave the aircraft s high angle of attack during launch and helped the aircraft get clear of the bridle at the end of the launch stroke. It’s noticeable on a wide variety of aircraft, including the F7U-3, A4D, A-5, F9F, F8, Suer Etendard, Buccaneer, F3H, just to name a few.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

45.2k44 gold badges8383 silver badges163163 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I like this answer better than mine. As a side note you could note that the A-4 gear was designed to be tall overall to give sufficient ground clearance to carry a nuclear weapon. Sources: For corroboration, "The long landing-gear struts were dictated by clearance requirements for large stores carried beneath the wings on either side and between the main landing-gear legs." history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch12-7.htm (thanks ymb1), f16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=27254 .
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  24 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The latter suggests that there were issues with the nose dipping too low during catapult launches and less-than-optimal landings but it's still not clear whether the tall nose gear was actually intended to help prevent that in any way.
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  20 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  If I were the op I would change my "accept" to this answer. (If Stack Exch allows that which I think it does.)
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  19 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f65845%2fwhy-does-the-a-4-skyhawk-sit-nose-up-when-on-ground%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

4

$begingroup$

Comments on another forum suggest that the A-4 was designed with unusually tall landing gear in proportion to its size to allow a large nuclear bomb to be carried, and that the nose gear was unusually long in relation to the other gear to limit the amount that the nose would drop downward when the nose gear was partially compressed during catapult launches and less-than-optimal landings.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

quiet flyerquiet flyer

2,50244 silver badges3030 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Actually it's not completely clear whether the point being made is that the long strut was specifically to prevent the problems with the nose dropping from being worse, or whether the problems with the nose dropping were a just a side effect of the gear design or other design issues. The long nose strut may have had more to do with just a desire to put the wing at a high angle-of-attack during takeoff even when no unusual compression was going on. I expect that this answer may be improved or replaced by a better one. There are several other carrier aircraft that sit nose-high-- eg Cutlass
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  6 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  But that's a different situation as was tailless--
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  For corroboration, The long landing-gear struts were dictated by clearance requirements for large stores carried beneath the wings on either side and between the main landing-gear legs. Source: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft via NASA.
  $endgroup$
  – ymb1
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Right, it's just not completely clear why the nose-high stance was chosen, even given the long gear-- so not totally satisfied w. the answer yet, more corroboration/ clarification is needed, but I will work your link into the answer, thank you.
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

$begingroup$

Comments on another forum suggest that the A-4 was designed with unusually tall landing gear in proportion to its size to allow a large nuclear bomb to be carried, and that the nose gear was unusually long in relation to the other gear to limit the amount that the nose would drop downward when the nose gear was partially compressed during catapult launches and less-than-optimal landings.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

quiet flyerquiet flyer

2,50244 silver badges3030 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Actually it's not completely clear whether the point being made is that the long strut was specifically to prevent the problems with the nose dropping from being worse, or whether the problems with the nose dropping were a just a side effect of the gear design or other design issues. The long nose strut may have had more to do with just a desire to put the wing at a high angle-of-attack during takeoff even when no unusual compression was going on. I expect that this answer may be improved or replaced by a better one. There are several other carrier aircraft that sit nose-high-- eg Cutlass
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  6 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  But that's a different situation as was tailless--
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  For corroboration, The long landing-gear struts were dictated by clearance requirements for large stores carried beneath the wings on either side and between the main landing-gear legs. Source: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft via NASA.
  $endgroup$
  – ymb1
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Right, it's just not completely clear why the nose-high stance was chosen, even given the long gear-- so not totally satisfied w. the answer yet, more corroboration/ clarification is needed, but I will work your link into the answer, thank you.
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Comments on another forum suggest that the A-4 was designed with unusually tall landing gear in proportion to its size to allow a large nuclear bomb to be carried, and that the nose gear was unusually long in relation to the other gear to limit the amount that the nose would drop downward when the nose gear was partially compressed during catapult launches and less-than-optimal landings.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

quiet flyerquiet flyer

2,50244 silver badges3030 bronze badges

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

quiet flyerquiet flyer

2,50244 silver badges3030 bronze badges

answered 6 hours ago

quiet flyerquiet flyer

2,50244 silver badges3030 bronze badges

answered 6 hours ago

quiet flyerquiet flyer

2,50244 silver badges3030 bronze badges

5

$begingroup$

This was pretty common on naval aircraft from that era which used the launch bridle catapult interface. It gave the aircraft s high angle of attack during launch and helped the aircraft get clear of the bridle at the end of the launch stroke. It’s noticeable on a wide variety of aircraft, including the F7U-3, A4D, A-5, F9F, F8, Suer Etendard, Buccaneer, F3H, just to name a few.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

45.2k44 gold badges8383 silver badges163163 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I like this answer better than mine. As a side note you could note that the A-4 gear was designed to be tall overall to give sufficient ground clearance to carry a nuclear weapon. Sources: For corroboration, "The long landing-gear struts were dictated by clearance requirements for large stores carried beneath the wings on either side and between the main landing-gear legs." history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch12-7.htm (thanks ymb1), f16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=27254 .
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  24 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The latter suggests that there were issues with the nose dipping too low during catapult launches and less-than-optimal landings but it's still not clear whether the tall nose gear was actually intended to help prevent that in any way.
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  20 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  If I were the op I would change my "accept" to this answer. (If Stack Exch allows that which I think it does.)
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  19 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

$begingroup$

This was pretty common on naval aircraft from that era which used the launch bridle catapult interface. It gave the aircraft s high angle of attack during launch and helped the aircraft get clear of the bridle at the end of the launch stroke. It’s noticeable on a wide variety of aircraft, including the F7U-3, A4D, A-5, F9F, F8, Suer Etendard, Buccaneer, F3H, just to name a few.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

45.2k44 gold badges8383 silver badges163163 bronze badges

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I like this answer better than mine. As a side note you could note that the A-4 gear was designed to be tall overall to give sufficient ground clearance to carry a nuclear weapon. Sources: For corroboration, "The long landing-gear struts were dictated by clearance requirements for large stores carried beneath the wings on either side and between the main landing-gear legs." history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch12-7.htm (thanks ymb1), f16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=27254 .
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  24 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The latter suggests that there were issues with the nose dipping too low during catapult launches and less-than-optimal landings but it's still not clear whether the tall nose gear was actually intended to help prevent that in any way.
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  20 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  If I were the op I would change my "accept" to this answer. (If Stack Exch allows that which I think it does.)
  $endgroup$
  – quiet flyer
  19 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

This was pretty common on naval aircraft from that era which used the launch bridle catapult interface. It gave the aircraft s high angle of attack during launch and helped the aircraft get clear of the bridle at the end of the launch stroke. It’s noticeable on a wide variety of aircraft, including the F7U-3, A4D, A-5, F9F, F8, Suer Etendard, Buccaneer, F3H, just to name a few.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

45.2k44 gold badges8383 silver badges163163 bronze badges

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

45.2k44 gold badges8383 silver badges163163 bronze badges

answered 2 hours ago

Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

45.2k44 gold badges8383 silver badges163163 bronze badges

answered 2 hours ago

Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

45.2k44 gold badges8383 silver badges163163 bronze badges