• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Grumman A-6 projects

gfi88

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
17
Reaction score
7
Found this on eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXCELLENT-GRUMMAN-US-NAVY-A6D-INTRUDER-DESK-MODEL-AIRPLANE-STAND-/350635442834?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51a3804292
 

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
697
Reaction score
97
Website
www.tommythomason.com
That is almost certainly a display model depicting the proposed tanker variant. It is loaded with five external fuel tanks and incorporates what looks like a refueling drogue housing on the underside of the aft fuselage. The tanker didn't need the attack radar so I'm guessing that the nose was reshaped to reduce drag. That feature didn't make it to the KA-6Ds that resulted.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
679
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Previously discussed model of Grumman A-6D Intruder tanker variant.
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqR,!hwFBfJJdl!uBQlbMHPHTQ~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqR,!hwFBfJJdl!uBQlbMHPHTQ~~60_57.JPG
    95.2 KB · Views: 1,393

Blaze1

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
The following is a cockpit photo of an A-6E SWIP Block 1A. This version took it's maiden flight in 1994 and featured composite wings, ASN-139 INS, ARN-118 TACAN, GPS, MFD for the B/N and a new HUD and warning lights. The Block 1A was never introduced to the fleet.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
2,972
Via a link (h/t Orion) at the Ryan Model 147S-2 thread, a couple of interesting images (courtesy of Tony Chong):
 

Attachments

  • C 5133w.jpg
    C 5133w.jpg
    50.8 KB · Views: 449
  • C 5166-Cw.jpg
    C 5166-Cw.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 458

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
2,972
The political side of the A-6F cancellation: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a200342.pdf
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
166
1959 Grumman manufacturer proposal model of their Design 128 (later A2F-1) with centerline Corvus missile by Temco, Bullpups and drop tanks. Note initial location of refueling probe, early canopy, nose radome, air intakes, etc. This was very close to the final configuration.
 

Attachments

  • Grumman Design 128 01.jpg
    Grumman Design 128 01.jpg
    92.2 KB · Views: 272
  • Grumman Design 128 02.jpg
    Grumman Design 128 02.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 271

Boxman

ACCESS: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
313
Reaction score
146
Among the recent San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archives Ryan Aeronautical postings on Flickr are these photos of an A-6 Intruder model configured with a wing-mounted trapeze to air launch (at least that's what I initially believed) a Ryan Firebee reconnaissance variant.

Strangely enough, the arrangement reminds me of the B-36/F-84 FICON trapeze, with what appears to be a small hook on the top of the Firebee that would fit into a loop in the front of the trapeze, and two braces on the trapeze that would straddle/support the rear of the drone. Also, Firebees of similar size and wingspan were frequently launched from Intruders simply from a wing hard point - which would seemingly make an arrangement such as this unnecessary. Perhaps, instead of solely being a launching mechanism, this is a recovery system?

Unlike FICON, where the parasite aircraft's hook faces forward, the hook on the drone here faces to the rear. If this is a proposed recovery system, it would require the A-6 to approach and snatch the drone from above and behind - which would explain the hook on the drone facing the rear. Also, when fully extended, the trapeze stretches forward so that that the "eye" for the hook would be almost perfectly parallel with the A-6 pilot's line of sight. Then again, my imagination has probably run wild, as this all strikes me as an extremely risky and dangerous maneuver ("How do you deploy the trapeze in a recovery without striking the drone's vertical stab?") that could just as easily send that same drone crashing into the "recovery" aircraft.

Anyway, here are the photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/34125292750/
34125292750_8f9a9e14e7.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/33700528143/
33700528143_675099a5f0.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/34122953590/
34122953590_8246cf44cd.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/34123287970/
34123287970_6c5feb9b8a.jpg


For comparison purposes, here's the typical arrangement for two Firebees on an A-6 (photo is posted at The Aviationist site - albeit sourced from SDASM):
https://theaviationist.com/tag/ryan-firebee/
teledyne-ryan_20-473x360.jpg
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
229
The Model appears to be in SEA Camoscheme. Navy-based reconaissance project for Vietnam? Fly the drones out to highly defended areas in North Vietnam, recover them with the A-6?
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,303
Reaction score
205
That would be one way to increase the mission radius of the drone...although i don't know that that would be enough to justify what is obviously a complicated recovery.
But i do agree with you that aerial recovery makes sense for the device shown here. The guidance systems required are just now becoming available, so i don't know how successful they would have been in their endeavor.
Very cool find!

edit: just took a second look at the device...with the vertical tail of the Firebee a few feet behind the rear portion of the recovery device, that doesn't seem to leave much room for maneuvering the device into place for a recovery.
 

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
637
Reaction score
97
Cutaway in free interpretation in progress...!
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqJHJCoE-0IWW1CHBP1!cj4TUw~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqJHJCoE-0IWW1CHBP1!cj4TUw~~60_57.JPG
    303.6 KB · Views: 621

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
320
Reaction score
194
My guess is that the trapeze device is a drone launch option conceived before launching from a fixed hardpoint was demonstrated. The illustrated mechanism would have helped ensure a clean separation any problems arose. It shows none of the alignment aids (for want of a better term) that would be necessary during recovery.
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
320
Reaction score
194
Triton said:
Previously discussed model of Grumman A-6D Intruder tanker variant.

I wonder what the purpose of the altered nose profile was. The actual KA-6D had a standard A-6 radome without the radar. The model's radome seems to have gunports, which seem like a useless addition to a tanker. Maybe the revised profile reduced drag.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,063
Reaction score
410
taildragger said:
Triton said:
Previously discussed model of Grumman A-6D Intruder tanker variant.

I wonder what the purpose of the altered nose profile was. The actual KA-6D had a standard A-6 radome without the radar. The model's radome seems to have gunports, which seem like a useless addition to a tanker. Maybe the revised profile reduced drag.

Isn't that a model of a proposed single seat "simplified" A-6 that competed against the Vought design that became the A-7 Corsair II? Or maybe a proposed A-6 variant that derived from that configuration?
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
320
Reaction score
194
No, the G-128 was the single-seat development proposed for the VAX competition won by Vought. The photos of the A-6D model I was referring to were posted by Triton on 11/5/2012 and depict a tanker-configured aircraft with a 2 seat cockpit.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
2,972
There's not a huge amount on non-built aircraft, but there is an awful lot of info to let you put design work in the context of the requirements and functions they were supposed to meet. For example there are big sections on early Cold War CAP requirements and the complications of trying to meet fairly onerous targets about not letting a mirror-imaged bombing threat get within launch range. CAP on deck couldn't reach intercept distance in the time from first detection, airborne CAP didn't have the endurance, and the carriers couldn't cycle them fast enough to keep them airborne. That kind of thing. Aircraft highlight for me was the description of the Outer Air Battle and what the A-6Fs were supposed to be doing during it (extra AIM-152 shooters) which I'd not seen clearly defined before, including the minor detail that a CVBG would need to put other ops on hold for a day to prep for a regimental strength Backfire raid. Of course it helps that Friedman was working for SecNav on precisely that at the time.

As an aside, I picked up my ebook copy ridiculously cheap (couple of pounds) in a recent Amazon sale, along with several other Friedmans. So worth keeping an eye open.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
291
I stumbled across this A-6A CCW demonstrator, which by this flew in 1979. I cant say I've heard of the program. Interesting what such an arrangement does to the the A-6's performance!

(Source: Some High Lift Aerodynamics Part 2 _ Powered Lift Systems (By W.H. Mason))

Regards
Pioneer
1592475722529.png
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,491
Reaction score
1,524
I stumbled across this A-6A CCW demonstrator, which by this flew in 1979. I cant say I've heard of the program. Interesting what such an arrangement does to the the A-6's performance!

(Source: Some High Lift Aerodynamics Part 2 _ Powered Lift Systems (By W.H. Mason))

Regards
Pioneer
View attachment 635539

Pretty impressive numbers. Would have been quite a useful thing for the Marines especially. So, what was the downside?
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
191
Reaction score
221
A whole pile of promising projects & programs died during the cesspool that was the Carter administration.
To add further insult to injury, I just found out there was a KA-6H proposed and cancelled during that time. A very straightforward design of using the EA-6B airframe and replacing the back seats with fuel tanks. Also mentioned a "KX" competition between the KS-3 and KA-6; Congress killed it and bought more KA-6D conversions.

1981 Congressional Hearing
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-12-03 at 1.00.25 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-12-03 at 1.00.25 PM.png
    1,003.5 KB · Views: 65

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,007
Reaction score
1,652
I stumbled across this A-6A CCW demonstrator, which by this flew in 1979. I cant say I've heard of the program. Interesting what such an arrangement does to the the A-6's performance!

(Source: Some High Lift Aerodynamics Part 2 _ Powered Lift Systems (By W.H. Mason))

Regards
Pioneer
View attachment 635539

Pretty impressive numbers. Would have been quite a useful thing for the Marines especially. So, what was the downside?
Range and probably speed... Camber provides an increase in lift but add also a lot of drag.
Look at that reconfigured tail plane to get convinced.
 

Similar threads

Top