Talk:Douglas A2D Skyshark

Contradicting data

The data given in Baugher's book disagrees in many minor points with that in Heinemann's book.

As Heinemann was the the man responsible for overseeing not only the design and development of the A2D, but the AD and A4D, I tend to credit his information.

I did not change any of the information.Mark Lincoln 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on Skyraider?

The text seems to be trying to assure the reader that the A2D is not in fact in any way directly related to the SKyraider, but the list of differences it quotes to "prove" this just makes it seem that the A2D is in fact a Skyraider converted to turboprop.

 "While it resembled the AD Skyraider, the A2D was different in a number of unseen ways. The 5,100-equivalent shaft horsepower (3,800 kW) Allison XT-40-A2 had more than double the horsepower of the Skyraider's R-3350. The XT40 installation on the Skyshark used contra-rotating propellers to harness all the available power. Wing root thickness decreased, from 17% to 12%, while both the height of the tail and its area grew."
 

So it had a turboprop engine, twice the horsepower, a taller tail and a thicker wing: if those are the only differences, then it is basically a turboprop Skyraider. If so, perhaps it would be a relevant fact to mention in the article? I mean, the intent seems to be to prove to the reader that the planes are totally different, but the phrasing "wing root thickness decreased" and "height of the tail...grew" suggests they started out as normal Skyraider parts. Also not clear how the turboprop engine and taller tail count as "unseen ways". And since it would appear that the engine is now in the rear fuselage and the power shafted to the gearbox (yet another thing the article doesn't mention at all), that would be a pretty significant difference as well.

So all in all, it's not clear if this article is just taking it for granted that any fool can see that the A2D is based on the Skyraider, and not bothering to clearly state as much, or if it is attempting to convince mistaken readers that the A2D is NOT based on the AD, in spite of appearances,but doing a very bad job f it.

Idumea47b (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We base our articles on what reliable sources say, not what "any fool can see" - because, as in this case "any fool" would be wrong - the reliable sources are clear that, while it was originally hoped to build a simple turboprop-powered version of the AD, the changes needed to fully exploit more than twice the power meant that the A2D was largely a new aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

just remember that the Bell AH-1 Cobra is based off of the Bell UH-1 Iroquois (Huey), and they look nothing alike, so the A2D could absolutely be based off of the AD-1 Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)