Register here

Author Topic: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7  (Read 38831 times)

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1150
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2011, 11:06:34 pm »
Additional photos of the North American Aviation NA-295 / AF-1F / VAL factory presentation model -- the ultimate Sabre development. Absence of main landing gear doors is noteworthy.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2011, 11:51:17 pm »
Extremely nice pictures Circle Five.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1150
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2011, 01:59:54 am »
Extremely nice pictures Circle Five.

Thank you Abraham. Of interest is the model's nameplate, which indicates the AF-1F was a Columbus Division project. NAA Los Angeles Division (at LAX / Mines Field) would have been my first guess.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #33 on: May 02, 2011, 02:54:48 am »
Thank you Abraham. Of interest is the model's nameplate, which indicates the AF-1F was a Columbus Division project. NAA Los Angeles Division (at LAX / Mines Field) would have been my first guess.

Wouldn't NAA California be flat out with the XB-70? NAA Ohio would have come off the Vigilante with a good understanding of Navy attack and be well suited to the customer. Those bombs look like the 250lb Mk 81 which were finer (ratio) than the 500 lb Mk 82. But that's still 8,000 lbs plus the two Sparrow/Skrikes and Sidewinders (+1,200 lbs). The scabbed on wheel wells is likely because of the wider TF30 engine consuming most of the fuselage barrel. No covers saves weight and stores volume for a plane that has already added so much drag it would hardly notice the exposed wheels. The guns are scabbed on as well.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1722
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #34 on: May 02, 2011, 01:12:05 pm »
What's with the 'fat lip' air intake?
I'm assuming it's for the radar, but why at the bottom?
I would have thought they'd have have used a similar arrangement to the F-86D...


cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline aim9xray

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #35 on: May 02, 2011, 03:58:27 pm »
Several thoughts -

1)  NAA Columbus Division had its own design staff although wind tunnel facilities and expertise were undoubtedly shared with LAD.

2)  The radome appears to have been moved to the bottom of the intake so as to not adversely affect "over the nose" visibility (compared to the FJ-4) during carrier landing.  However, what this radome would have done at higher AOAs to the airflow distortion pattern at the face of the TF30 engine...probably would have been very ugly, particularly as sensitive as the TF30 proved to be.

3)  Do not think for a moment that the loadout displayed on the model could have been employed tactically in real life.  Just by eyeballing it, there are several weapons release interference problems in ejecting the stores from the adjacent MERs.


Offline Artie Bob

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 153
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #36 on: May 02, 2011, 05:19:15 pm »
IIRC, all the FJ swept wing series was engineered and manufactured at Columbus, I remember my brother working on the FJ-3 engineering there during the early 50s.  Also the T2J, alias T-2 "Buckeye" (appropriate).

Artie Bob

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2150
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2012, 09:32:57 pm »
Just a couple things caught my attention on the AF-1F model pics.

I'm looking at the model and I see bulges on either side of the intake. Is there any info on what gun armament it would've carried? I'm also curious about the slight bump in front of the canopy.

Also wondering which variant came first: the one with wingtip hardpoints or the version with landing gear fairings?

At Jared, would this Fury variant warrant an article?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 09:37:53 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 675
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2012, 04:27:18 am »
Just a couple things caught my attention on the AF-1F model pics.

I'm looking at the model and I see bulges on either side of the intake. Is there any info on what gun armament it would've carried? I'm also curious about the slight bump in front of the canopy.

Also wondering which variant came first: the one with wingtip hardpoints or the version with landing gear fairings?

At Jared, would this Fury variant warrant an article?


1) This AF-1F stuff material should probably be merged with the VAL competition thread (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,143.msg789.html#msg789).


2) The bulge on the side of the fuselage is for a 20 mm cannon. The bump in front of the canopy is probably a fairing over a retracted inflight refueling probe.


3) I don't know which came first, but my guess would be that it was the FJ-4 derivative (strictly speaking, the change in the designation system was yet to occur) with the forward retracting main landing gear. The competition favored a minimal change to an existing aircraft and lots of external stores capability, which suggests that the final proposal was the one with the inward retracting main landing gear and many stores pylons.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2150
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2012, 05:53:22 pm »
Cool deal!
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline andy_d

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #40 on: May 03, 2012, 09:03:28 am »
Was the Buccaneer ever considered by the US Navy?

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1536
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #41 on: May 04, 2012, 04:21:00 am »
Was the Buccaneer ever considered by the US Navy?
An interesting question!!
Especially so when one considers that the U.S funded the Buccaneer's development via U.S Government / military aid (....sorry I have forgotten the correct title of the funding program). Not to mention that with this funding came very transparent and frequent U.S Navy appraisal and inspections. But I assume that you might already be aware of this fact  :)
Would the Buccaneer have been somewhat to big and heavy a design?

Regards
Pioneer   
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2798
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #42 on: May 04, 2012, 07:31:40 am »
The US did briefly evaluate the Buccaneer (in fact, there was a USN pilot on secondment as part of the RN 700Z Flight evaluators), but the A-6 was selected for that requirement.   The Bucc was never a contender for VA(L), AFAIK.

PS: If the Bucc had been adopted by the USN,  the process would have been something like the USAF adoption of Canberra.  A US builder would have been found and a lot of redesign would have followed.  At a minimum, there would have been US engines and avionics.

« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 07:34:27 am by TomS »

Offline andy_d

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2014, 05:29:36 am »
The Allison TF41 was a licence-built Spey, I believe - so would it have been simple to replace the Buccaneer's RR Speys? And might the Buccaneer subsequently have gone through a similarly extensive programme of development to the B-57? EW and reconnaissance versions...?

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1150
Re: VA (L) Competition - alternatives to the A-7
« Reply #44 on: March 09, 2016, 11:53:27 pm »
NA-295 from another angle.  The stand describes this one as a Night Attack Aircraft.
 
Note main undercarriage wing fairings, horizontal stab dihedral, wing fences, no cannon, no wingtip missile rails, etc.  This airplane is quite different from the AF-1F.

Sorry about the focus (not my shot).