Q-5 Fantan

[Don Chan]

In early 2010, the Shang Hai Hang Yu Zhong Xin (Shang Hai Aerospace Centre) restored a retired PLAN Q-5 82254 displayed at the Tong Ji University.
Despite the cold winter, the pathetic condition of the Q-5, and other difficulties and requirements, the staff worked on-site for two weeks, and delivered it on 25 January 2010.
Back in 2007, the Centre restored a retired MiG-15 at the Fu Dan University.

(Usually, at universities in Red China and Taiwan, such retired warbird displays get scrapped and sold for a few bucks.)

http://bbs.news.163.com/bbs/mil/165836412.html

[emile]

In my view, the Nanchang Q-5 was the most successful light attacker bein its era.
Perhaps, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk would be a considerable rival, but there was no comparison ever made.

[MSphere]

I don't see anything on the Q-5 that could be described as "most successful". It was obsolete before it entered service, in the first place.

[emile]

For same class, the Q-5 got the fastest top speed, the amount of pylons at most, even maybe the most maneuverable for air-combat.

[Klargplutten]

For same class, the Q-5 got the fastest top speed, the amount of pylons at most, even maybe the most maneuverable for air-combat.

Saab A-32A could not be intercepted at all by ME-109E or Spitfire Mk.1 nor couldn´t any surface ship protect itself from RB-04 in 1940 , Lansen is just an awesome plane.

[J-20 Hotdog]

For same class, the Q-5 got the fastest top speed, the amount of pylons at most, even maybe the most maneuverable for air-combat.

that's because the Q-5 was derived from a fighter jet.

[SpudmanWP]

The Q-5 was a CAS jet. As such it was inferior in bombload, range, and numbers produced by a 2:1 factor when looking at the A-4.

[MSphere]

For same class, the Q-5 got the fastest top speed, the amount of pylons at most, even maybe the most maneuverable for air-combat.

Q-5 Fantan was produced in 1969-1982. J32 Lansen was produced in 1953-1959. Don't quite see how they are of the same era.

If you want to make a comparison, take Sepecat Jaguar and A-4 Skyhawk.
In my opinion, the Q-5 is the least successful light attacker of its era and by far the worst one of all..

[Quickie]

The RMAF had some errie experiences with the A-4 Skyhawks. In their short service with the RMAF, the A-4 had frequent crashes killing a few of their pilots.

The A-4 is not a successful aircraft, at least to the RMAF, measured on the reliability and safety factor alone.

[MadRat]

MiG-19, the basis of Q-5 is considerably more powerful engine-wise than what it is being compared with. The A-4 in its later renditions was superb for light attack, better than most anything in its weight class until AMX hit the scene. I'm not so certain an AMX is obsolete even in the modern arena. Unlike Q-5 it was procured with survivability in mind. By the time you tried to fit AMX level of gear in the Q-5 you run out of internal volume and have to redesign the layout. May as well go Frogfoot at that point. Q-5 has one main attribute, its inexpensive to procure and relatively easy to set up its ground footprint.

[swerve]

The RMAF had some errie experiences with the A-4 Skyhawks. In their short service with the RMAF, the A-4 had frequent crashes killing a few of their pilots.

The A-4 is not a successful aircraft, at least to the RMAF, measured on the reliability and safety factor alone.

Since several other air forces some of them highly respected (e.g. Israel) have considered the A-4 an excellent aircraft I think that says more about the RMAF at the time than it does about the A-4.

[Quickie]

Since several other air forces some of them highly respected (e.g. Israel) have considered the A-4 an excellent aircraft I think that says more about the RMAF at the time than it does about the A-4.

Not sure The Republic of Singapore Air Force still considered the A-4 an excellent aircraft but the RSAF, the RMAF's neigbour, lost 1/4 of their A-4 Skyhawks before the aircrafts were finally decommisioned.

[swerve]

How long were they in service?

It's attrition rate that matters, not total.

[Quickie]

How long were they in service?

It's attrition rate that matters, not total.

Just for clearity, the 1/4 figure includes only those aircrafts that falled from the sky and not those that were grounded before they even flew again.