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

North Americal A3J Vigilante mock-up

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,492
Reaction score
2,789
Hi! Any one has the 3-view drawing of this North American Vigilante mock up? This mock up is historically and technically very important because this is mother shape of MIG25,F-15 and FA-18,etc. And please show me the reason why North American chose single vertical tail stabilizer design.
 

Attachments

  • vigilante.jpg
    vigilante.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 813

Merv_P

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
115
Reaction score
5
pometablava said:
is mother shape of MIG25

Is that true?

Not sure that it's true; but the Vigilante itself looks as though it derives from the North American WS-300A design, and went back to a single fin at some stage.
 

Attachments

  • ws-300a.jpg
    ws-300a.jpg
    58.6 KB · Views: 784

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,076
Reaction score
3,755
Hi,

I think it was a fighter derivative.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,492
Reaction score
2,789
Hi! I get this picture from the net, don't worry.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,085
Reaction score
982
Some extra mockup pics
 

Attachments

  • NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_2s.jpg
    NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_2s.jpg
    161.9 KB · Views: 759
  • NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_3.jpg
    NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_3.jpg
    122.2 KB · Views: 745

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,578
Reaction score
3,881
Supposedly, Mikoyan asked someone to sketch a layout "along the lines of the Vigilante" which led to the MiG-25.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,085
Reaction score
982
Regarding MiG-25 as copy-cat of A3J design - there are two theories:

"Rumour has it that the story of the MiG-25 began with a conversation between Chief Designer Artyom Ivanovich Mikoyan, who had just returned from the 1959 Paris Air Show, and project designer Yakov I.Seletskiy. Mikoyan ran into Seletskiy as he was passing along a corridor of the OKB-155 office and suggested that Seletskiy should 'draw an interceptor along the lines of the [North American RA-5] Vigilante but powered by two R15-300 engines, designed to fly at 300 km/h (186 mph) and without all-too-sophisticated high-lift devices'. At the time, such a phrase from the OKB chief was tantamount to an official go-ahead.

Other sources state that the aircraft's general arrangement was drawn up unofficially before any information on the Vigilante became available. The sketches were shown to PD section chief Rostislav Apollosovich Belyakov (who later succeeded Mikoyan as OKB-155 head), then to Nikolay Z. Matyuk and finally to Mikoyan. However, actual work did not begin until mid-1959. Other sections of the OKB were called on to help the PD section with the aircraft's unusual layout.
After a few weeks' hard work a design was born that obviously had good potential. However, it was immediately apparent that the development of this aircraft called for a new approach to designing the airframe, avionics and weaponry and, most importantly, new manufacturing technologies."

Source: Mikoyan MiG-25 Foxbat: Guardian of the Soviet Borders
Yefim Gordon
MIDLAND An imprint of Ian Allan Publishing

Personally, I still follow the first version...very strange switching from the 'flying supersonic tubes' to this arrangement.
 

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
In regards to the MiG-25's resemblance to the Vigi, do you think there's any relationship between the MiG-25 and Avro Arrow? It's been speculated (by The History Channel, FWIW) that the US worked so hard to kill the Arrow because the CIA learned of Soviet espionnage within the Arrow project. I would tend to discount this theory due to the Foxbat's more conventional layout. It should also be noted that the Foxbat represented a step beyond the Arrow and Vigi due to its higher speeds and the need for different structural materials and hydraulic fluids to compensate.

As for the single-tail vs. twin-tail study for the Vigi, I would speculate that it was due to the operational requirements. The Vigi flies fast and straight, and a single tail would be effective. Twin tails work better when you're in a nose-up attitude and the airflow around the vertical stabilizer is disrupted by the nose.
 

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
697
Reaction score
84
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Two tails versus one: In addition to the aerodynamic benefit, two tails apparently provided the hangar deck height clearance without requiring folding. I'm only speculating here but my guess is that when the North American engineers refined their weight estimate, they found that a single folding tail was lighter than two non-folding tails. So why did Grumman and McAir stick with two tails on the F-14 and F/A-18? Because the high alpha advantage was worth the extra weight, if the two tail design is in fact heavier. There is probably also a cost and complexity (reliability, maintainability, etc.) penalty for two tails versus one.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
1,600
flateric said:
Regarding MiG-25 as copy-cat of A3J design - there are two theories:

"Rumour has it that the story of the MiG-25 began with a conversation between Chief Designer Artyom Ivanovich Mikoyan, who had just returned from the 1959 Paris Air Show, and project designer Yakov I.Seletskiy. Mikoyan ran into Seletskiy as he was passing along a corridor of the OKB-155 office and suggested that Seletskiy should 'draw an interceptor along the lines of the [North American RA-5] Vigilante but powered by two R15-300 engines, designed to fly at 300 km/h (186 mph) and without all-too-sophisticated high-lift devices'. At the time, such a phrase from the OKB chief was tantamount to an official go-ahead.

Other sources state that the aircraft's general arrangement was drawn up unofficially before any information on the Vigilante became available. The sketches were shown to PD section chief Rostislav Apollosovich Belyakov (who later succeeded Mikoyan as OKB-155 head), then to Nikolay Z. Matyuk and finally to Mikoyan. However, actual work did not begin until mid-1959. Other sections of the OKB were called on to help the PD section with the aircraft's unusual layout.
After a few weeks' hard work a design was born that obviously had good potential. However, it was immediately apparent that the development of this aircraft called for a new approach to designing the airframe, avionics and weaponry and, most importantly, new manufacturing technologies."

Source: Mikoyan MiG-25 Foxbat: Guardian of the Soviet Borders
Yefim Gordon
MIDLAND An imprint of Ian Allan Publishing

Personally, I still follow the first version...very strange switching from the 'flying supersonic tubes' to this arrangement.


After the American Secret Fighters book came out I began to wonder if they got their inspiration from the WS300A instead. It was earlier than the Vigilante and from the same company, and the Mig-25 resembles it more than it does the Vigilante.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,492
Reaction score
2,789
Hi CFE and Tailspin Turtle! Thank you for excellent explanation for the reason why NAA chose single vertical tail stabilizer. I vote to your opinions. Here is another picture. Enjoy.
 

Attachments

  • A3J MOCK UP.jpg
    A3J MOCK UP.jpg
    244.6 KB · Views: 665

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,036
Reaction score
30
You know, I thought that WS300A was the Advanced A3J derivative with the J-58's in it. I wonder what that advanced A3J derivative with the J-58's in it actually looked like?


KJ Lesnick
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,085
Reaction score
982
NAGPAW was Model 233
WS-300 was Model 237

it can make some clue of what was the first.

P.S. Higher-res photo of mockup from the first post
 

Attachments

  • NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_1.jpg
    NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_1.jpg
    408.7 KB · Views: 258

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,492
Reaction score
2,789
flateric! Many thanks again. We can see slanted ramp in air intake. It generate lift due to air compression in supersonic speed and contribute total lift of this plane(compression lift). This intake shape is different from F-4 phantom and arrow's intake.
 

thunderwarrior

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
"Rumour has it that the story of the MiG-25 began with a conversation between Chief Designer Artyom Ivanovich Mikoyan, who had just returned from the 1959 Paris Air Show, and project designer Yakov I.Seletskiy."
This is not true.
The "Vigilante" was not exhibited at the Paris Air Show in 1959, but in the edition of 1961 and it was in that year that Mikoyan visited the exhibition.
This is proved by this picture of him in front of the mock-up of the "Super Caravelle" .....


I can say this because I was there in both the years.
 

thunderwarrior

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Further .....
In his book "Mikoyan OKB - A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft" (Midland Publishing - 2009) Yefim Gordon wrote something slightly different but, in some way, more precise ..... but thereby deepening his mistake .....

"Rumours has it that the story of the aircraft that would become famous as the MiG-25 began with a conversation between Chief designer Artyom I. Mikoyan, who had just returned from the 1959 Paris Air Show, where the North American RA-5 Vigilante had been on display, and project designer Yakov I. Seletskiy."

I confirm ..... year could not be 1959, because in that year the Vigilante was not displayed and the aircraft was not a RA-5 (which was yet to come) ..... but a A3J-1 (NATC Pax River - ST 852) ..... and, as I have already written, this occurred in 1961.
 

thunderwarrior

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
8
Reaction score
0


North American A3J-1 "Vigilante" - Paris Air Show - Le Bourget - 1st, or maybe, June 2, 1961
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,367
Reaction score
133
Tailspin Turtle said:
Two tails versus one: In addition to the aerodynamic benefit, two tails apparently provided the hangar deck height clearance without requiring folding. I'm only speculating here but my guess is that when the North American engineers refined their weight estimate, they found that a single folding tail was lighter than two non-folding tails. So why did Grumman and McAir stick with two tails on the F-14 and F/A-18? Because the high alpha advantage was worth the extra weight, if the two tail design is in fact heavier. There is probably also a cost and complexity (reliability, maintainability, etc.) penalty for two tails versus one.
Word I had from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from circa 1950 to the early 1970's is that the single vertical was a USN request; no details as to why. This is strictly my own opinion, but it could be that going to a single vertical made for a distinct reduction in the cost of the forged and machined frame that included all the tail surface spindles. From what he said, the cost of re-designing this frame was one reason Vigilante derivatives with engines larger than the J79 were not extensively considered.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
562
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1031260056914630&set=o.34366349783&type=1&theater
 

Attachments

  • 11233183_1031260056914630_7133437064219877726_o.jpg
    11233183_1031260056914630_7133437064219877726_o.jpg
    58.9 KB · Views: 307

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
246
elmayerle said:
Word I had from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from circa 1950 to the early 1970's is that the single vertical was a USN request; no details as to why. This is strictly my own opinion, but it could be that going to a single vertical made for a distinct reduction in the cost of the forged and machined frame that included all the tail surface spindles. From what he said, the cost of re-designing this frame was one reason Vigilante derivatives with engines larger than the J79 were not extensively considered.


I've previously read similar elmayerle!
What I read was along the lines that the USN was very uncomfortable with the advanced concept of twin tail arrangement.


Regards
Pioneer
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,492
Reaction score
2,789
Thanks a lot Triton-san. :) What a beauty.
 
Top