Author Topic: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante  (Read 66757 times)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2013, 07:42:18 AM »
Well there is this one created by Nils_D:



Although an UltraHornet, there is a distinct Vigi look there as well.

Yes, definitely a Vigi look there too.  Hmm, 1/48 Super Hornet intakes and LERX as a starting point for the mod.  Go back to the original twin verticals and make the nozzles of the upgraded engines LO in finish and with the LOAN sawtooth (as shown here).  That'd go a good ways toward upgrading the Vigi.  For a new canopy, how would the F-14's canopy do if set at an angle.  You'd definitely want to go with the frameless "blown" windscreen, too.

On second thought, after looking at F-14 and Vigi side views, I don't think the F-14 canopy would work well.  At this point, I'm be tempted to go for the blown, frameless, windscreen and a similar canopy for the second seat.  Adding windows to the structure in between would be optional for a strike aircraft but likely necessary for a fighter/interceptor.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 01:41:34 PM by elmayerle »

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2013, 08:32:48 AM »
The Vig was just gorgeous, so it's no surprise that these derivatives are fantastic, too.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2013, 08:44:01 AM »
As some pointed out on the "What If" forum, the wings from the Avro Arrow fit the Vigilante fuselage beautifully.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2013, 10:29:53 AM »
This fighter proposal has a hint of Vigilante, too.  At least I think so.
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2013, 01:28:01 PM »
If you want a customer for some of the nozzles let me know as I want some for another Vigilante build and a few other projects on the drawing board.
Chris
I'll keep that in mind.  It takes a bit of hybridizing.  You need the exhaust nozzle(s) from a good 1/100 F-15 and the bogus "Spey" exhaust(s) from one of the early, lame, attempts at doing a British Phantom.  With the nozzle mated to that bogus exhaust, it comes out looking very much like the pics of the PW1120.  It's definitely easier, and cheaper, than buying a Lavi kit to clone the exhaust nozzle.   Oh, and yes, I do have all the parts in hand, I just don't yet have the RTV and resin.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2013, 06:13:53 PM »
Diameter of the J-79 38.4" and the Spey 43", could the Vig fit an extra 4.6" or not?

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2013, 10:26:33 PM »
As some pointed out on the "What If" forum, the wings from the Avro Arrow fit the Vigilante fuselage beautifully.

Hmm! interesting ---- 

And the TSR2 too Evan --

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2013, 12:12:04 AM »
Quote

As some pointed out on the "What If" forum, the wings from the Avro Arrow fit the Vigilante fuselage beautifully.




Hmm! interesting ---- 

And the TSR2 too Evan --





Presumably that's also true in 1/72...

I'd do that in 1/48 as I have a some Arrows, a Vigi, and the TSR kits but the dollar cost is a bit, well it's  :o
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2013, 12:20:04 AM »
Diameter of the J-79 38.4" and the Spey 43", could the Vig fit an extra 4.6" or not?
Not without major structural redesign.  There's a major forged fuselage frame that has holes for the engines, the bomb bay, and the spindles for all three all-moving tail surfaces.  That would have to be totally redesigned to fit the Spey, or any other alternate engine.  One reason no alternate engines were ever considered was that NAA-Columbus did not want the upfront design and tooling costs for that; I can't truly blame them.  To put it in perspective, re-doing that forging to go from a single vertical tail spindle to spindles for twin vertical tails would be a major change, but not a major redesign.  Enlarging the engine bays would enlarge the outer mold lines and force a major redesign of, at a SWAG, the aft half of the fuselage structure.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 12:28:55 AM by elmayerle »

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2013, 10:00:37 PM »
Why not place the Speys in front of the forging and have the exhausts narrow by 5 inches through the forging and then expand to their proper diameter?  If you placed the afterburners, after the forging and the engines in front of it, I suspect it wouldn't have made things too hard for the engine exhausts.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2013, 08:43:44 AM »
Why not place the Speys in front of the forging and have the exhausts narrow by 5 inches through the forging and then expand to their proper diameter?  If you placed the afterburners, after the forging and the engines in front of it, I suspect it wouldn't have made things too hard for the engine exhausts.

But then how do you get them out for maintenance?  What might have been interesting would have been the development of a leaky J-79 a sort of turbo fan, but how would you do that without increasing the diameter for the new fan stages?

Actually this is a Whif site so what about a Super Vig with two TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was), a conventional weapons bay and TFR as a low risk alternative to the F-111.  When the F-111 hit its development issues the Vig could have pulled its underpants on over its tights and entered production as a gap filler for the USN and USAF.  Later version with F-100, F-101 or F-110 combined with updated avionics could have served into the 90s, maybe even negating the need for the F-15E and serveing even longer until an FB-22 or 23 was developed.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 08:56:33 AM by Volkodav »

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2013, 09:13:53 AM »
Why not place the Speys in front of the forging and have the exhausts narrow by 5 inches through the forging and then expand to their proper diameter?  If you placed the afterburners, after the forging and the engines in front of it, I suspect it wouldn't have made things too hard for the engine exhausts.

But then how do you get them out for maintenance?  What might have been interesting would have been the development of a leaky J-79 a sort of turbo fan, but how would you do that without increasing the diameter for the new fan stages?

Removalable fuselage panels?  How did they get them out on the real A-5?  Through the forging?  If you're going to give the tubular bombbay over to fuel, put a strengthened spine in there as well and make the entire tail removable.

Quote
Actually this is a Whif site so what about a Super Vig with two TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was), a conventional weapons bay and TFR as a low risk alternative to the F-111.  When the F-111 hit its development issues the Vig could have pulled its underpants on over its tights and entered production as a gap filler for the USN and USAF.  Later version with F-100, F-101 or F-110 combined with updated avionics could have served into the 90s, maybe even negating the need for the F-15E and serveing even longer until an FB-22 or 23 was developed.

In Whiffdom, there is always a way...  ;D

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2013, 10:21:26 AM »

 TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was)

The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #38 on: February 10, 2013, 11:43:13 AM »

 TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was)

The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.

I've never quite understood why Americans think it was a failure.  Seemed to work quite well in the F-111.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2013, 11:46:37 AM »

 TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was)

The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.

True, I should have said "as more modern engines became available to expand the envolope"  :-[

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #40 on: February 11, 2013, 03:12:18 AM »
The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.
I've never quite understood why Americans think it was a failure.  Seemed to work quite well in the F-111.

I think this view may have more to do with the combination of the F-14 and the TF30 than with the engine on its own. It may have worked well on the F-111, but was apparently not that suited to the flight regimes of a dog-fighting aircraft. What may add to that view is that the F110 later used on the F-14 was not only more reliable in these flight regimes, but also much more powerful (finally giving the F-14 a thrust-to-weight ratio better than 1). So, in hindsight, the engine gets an inordinate share of the blame for having been used in an airframe and role it wasn't that suited to.
Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2013, 07:48:28 PM »
For anyone considering modelling a North American N.R.349, may I recommend you look here
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2013, 01:48:52 AM »
Why not place the Speys in front of the forging and have the exhausts narrow by 5 inches through the forging and then expand to their proper diameter?  If you placed the afterburners, after the forging and the engines in front of it, I suspect it wouldn't have made things too hard for the engine exhausts.
The engines slide out through that forged frame, so that approach wouldn't work (I understand just that approach was used for a cartooned J93-powered version within NAA-Columbus' Advanced Design Group).

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2013, 02:22:41 AM »

 TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was)

The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.

I've never quite understood why Americans think it was a failure.  Seemed to work quite well in the F-111.
After considerable development and refinement.  Initially, the TF30 in the F-111 was as troublesome as the TF30 in the F-14 was.  The TF30 was originally designed as a non-augmented medium-bypass turbofan for the F6D-1.  It was picked up for the TFX and developed as an afterburning turbofan.  It's bypass ratio was not that well suited, hence all the problems.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2013, 01:01:03 PM »
I have never heard any horror stories from the RAAF employment of the TF30 on their pigs, even from the early days.  Perhaps Greg can confirm?

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2013, 01:38:14 PM »
AFAIK, the problems were sorted out before the RAAF ever got their F-111s; we're talking about the late 1960's and early 1970's.  P&W went through a whole bunch of effort to get the engine fixed.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #46 on: March 25, 2013, 11:08:09 AM »
Not according to the RAAF studies.  Greg posted sometime ago a link to the RAAF report comparing the various contenders to the competition that the F-111 won.  The Vigilante lacked the range and performance requirements that were set out by the RAAF.  They wanted an advanced, supersonic attack aircraft with terrain avoidance radar that could reach southern China from Butterworth.  The Vigilante was a high altitude, supersonic attack aircraft without terrain avoidance radar.  It was also already IIRC already out of production, which is always the kiss of death as far as the ADF is concerned.

The RAAF recommended the Vigilante to the Menzies Government because it was in service, in production and could meet the requirements. The Government thought the RAAF was trying to do them over and then ask for another aircraft in the 1970s so chose the developmental F-111 which was sold as far cheaper and more capable than it was.

The Vigilante the RAAF looked at was the A3J-2, later renamed the A-5B, which fitted with a recce package was produced as the RA-5C. The Vigilante had a low altitude attack capability and the A-5B was ordered specifically to boost this after the withdrawal of the nuclear attack role in 1961. The A-5A had an automatic terrain avoidance system and with the pilot’s HUD (first aircraft to have one) was the best high speed low altitude aircraft until the F-111 came along. It didn’t have a specific terrain following radar because they didn’t exist at the time.

As to radius of action the A-5B on a hi-hi-hi mission with buddy refuelling rom another A-5B can reach 1,530 NM with the last 100 NM at Mach 1.5 and >50,000 feet (which uses about the same fuel as 100 NM at sea level and max speed). This is enough range to hit anywhere in coastal Canton flying from RAAF Butterworth in Malaysia with a dog leg around Vietnam.

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #47 on: March 25, 2013, 11:13:16 AM »
Wouldn't that have been something if they had adopted Viggies, kept them in service as long as the F-111s, and retained their carrier capabilities/training.  We could have seen Aussie Viggies cross decking with CVNs alongside Hornets and maybe even Super Bugs!  Might have even inspired the USN to keep the Viggies around as something other than a photo bird.
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #48 on: March 25, 2013, 11:36:53 AM »
What it might also see is upgraded A-5's of various types having their J79s replaced by F404s or PW1120s as well as general system upgrades.  I still think KA-5 conversions of the A-5B/C airframe would make sense from certain roles.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #49 on: March 25, 2013, 07:28:28 PM »
Wouldn't that have been something if they had adopted Viggies, kept them in service as long as the F-111s, and retained their carrier capabilities/training.  We could have seen Aussie Viggies cross decking with CVNs alongside Hornets and maybe even Super Bugs!  Might have even inspired the USN to keep the Viggies around as something other than a photo bird.

What would have been very interesting is if the RAAF and RAN cooperated on the acquisition of both the Vigilante and the Phantom, the RAAF operating the bulk of them with the RAN FAA flying a smaller number from a pair of 1960s new build carriers.  The Raaf aircraft would still be carrier capable and able to provide a surge capability to support the FAA. :D