‘North American General Purpose Attack Weapon’ - NAGPAW to Vigilante

[Triton]

looks like the display stands between this and the USAF marked example have been swapped, oops

It certainly looks like it.

 

[Jemiba]

No wonder, iot's the same seller as for this item :
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16421.0.html

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Actual A3J-1 Retaliator model (on wrong stand)

 

[Stargazer]

What mistake are you guys talking about??

Second set of pictures shows a model in U.S. Air Force colors, but it couldn't possibly fit on the first stand, which says "A3J-1 Retaliator" and is supposed to hold the U.S. Navy version (before it was rechristened the "Vigilante").

Please also note that the first stand is typical late 1950s NAA, while the second looks more 1970s-ish and is most certainly not the one meant for that model in the first place.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Ummmm.....




The USAF marked model is a model of an late 50s USAF Vigilante proposal ("Retaliator"), the reshaped rear fuselage probably indicating deletion of the special store launch tube. Its on an RA-5C stand of later vintage.




The RA-5C model (ventral fairing clearly visible) is mounted on a late 50s vintage stand marked "A3J-1 Retaliator".


Occam's razor. The stands are swapped. :

 

[Stargazer]

My point is this: if the stands are swapped, then the USAF-marked model will end up on a stand depicting a US Navy variant (A3J-1).

So if you're telling me that both stands are wrong, fine. But swapped? I just don't get it...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Navy A3J-1 was never called "Retaliator" - "Retaliator" was only used for projected USAF variants. I would therefore expect this stand to mount a USAF marked early A3J-1 or derived airplane.


The balance of probability is that the stands are swapped. Both models make sense with the stands swapped.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

It would appear that the original NAGPAW was a North American design-study for a relatively small, twin-engine (two J46s!), subsonic carrier-based attack airplane that North American accomplished circa 1953. It was probably provided to BuAer as an unsolicited proposal in 1954. I don't know who prepared the attached summary description. I have yet to see an illustration of it. I'm all but certain that it did not have the bomb bay tunnel that was introduced with NAGPAW II, which became the A3J.

 

[Motocar]

Can you share the modified cutaways of projects based on the North Amercan A-5 Vigilante?

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

In response to a question about the original NAGPAW configuration, I took another look at the Gehrkens' weapons-delivery patent and the scribbled notes describing the original NAGPAW configuration (see previous posts) and decided that they both concerned the same unsolicited North American proposal for a single-seat, twin-engine (afterburning), transonic (not supersonic in level flight) attack airplane with a rearward weapons delivery system. I took Jens' multi-view drawing that was based on the patent illustrations and resized it to the dimensions provided in the note. My guess is that this was the North American alternative to the Douglas A4D and Vought F7U-3/A2U programs. At that point, BuAer, needing to respond to a requirement for an all-weather, supersonic, nuclear bomber requirement replacement for the McDonnell AH program that had been high-jacked to be a missile-armed fleet air defense fighter, asked North American to keep the weapons-delivery concept but make it a two-seat, supersonic airplane. Note that the instant-sunshine core of the Mk 7 matches the size of the tunnel.

Note: revised 10 March 2020 to change non-afterburning to afterburning.

 

[aim9xray]

It's a big help, thank you very much. It's apparent that North American assigned different model numbers to relatively minor configuration changes to the basic type whereas other companies, in most cases, kept the same model number for the same basic airplane.

No, not exactly. These are not model numbers. North American did not (in general) use model numbers (except in advanced design). These are charge numbers and a new base charge number was issued for each major contract received. Except for Downey/S&ID/Space Division and Rocketdyne who did their own thing.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Notional, based on the patent, span and length dimensions, J46 three views, and some assumptions/design requirements. More later,

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Notional, based on the patent, span and length dimensions, J46 three views, and some assumptions/design requirements. More later,

For more, see https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2020/03/north-american-general-purpose-attack.html

 

[Pioneer]

Notional, based on the patent, span and length dimensions, J46 three views, and some assumptions/design requirements. More later,

Great effort and many thanks Tailspin Turtle for time and effort!


Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I am pretty certain the only way to resolve the tail geometry on the NAGPAW patent perspective view is some reasonable anhedral on the horizontal tails, or to assume the artist was on drugs.

 

[starviking]

Notional, based on the patent, span and length dimensions, J46 three views, and some assumptions/design requirements. More later,

For more, see https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2020/03/north-american-general-purpose-attack.html

Great article, as usual Tommy.

“The vertical fin seems small given the one-engine-inoperative yaw control power required but its shape was the only element that was consistent among the patent illustrations”

Fin adjustments seem to be a common need in aircraft development, at least before the advent of computer simulations.