IIRC Skyraiders normally carried four 20mm cannon in the wings, and hardpoints for several thousand pounds of various forms of varmint extermination (bombs, rockets, napalm, etc.) Under conditions of air superiority it was a hell of a good weapon in Vietnam; able to loiter for hours unlike the jets of the ‘60s, could carry a heavy load, and was slow and stable enough to put ordnance dead on a target. Plus it was tough. I’m amazed there’s only four still in the country, considering that thousands were built and it had a 20+-year service career.
BTW, if you ever see an AD up close, those things are HUGE. Absolutely monstrous for a single-engined prop. It’s just a big gorgeous beast of a warbird.
}:-)4
I share your views on that airframe. I don’t know why I thought it had 50’s. 20mm is more better.
There are are a lot of geezers that are still looking down at the grass because of the loitering capability of that aircraft. In some respects, but not all, it reminds me of the A-10. Both solid, conservatively designed stuff that lasted far past their counterparts. Why the longevity? They were designed to use proven armaments and aeronautical technology. Nothing leading edge. It was designed to use what worked, and it served both admirably. Not like the B-58 (too leading edge), it didn’t last. The B-737 would stand with the Skyraider and A-10 by the same philosophy.
A great aircraft.
none at Davis-Monthan AFB?