North American 'Retaliator' & NR-349 Interceptor proposals

North American Rockwell NR-349 factory display model over Caliente Range, NV.
 

Attachments

  • NR-349 over Caliente Range.jpg
    NR-349 over Caliente Range.jpg
    131.9 KB · Views: 1,563
Splendid, circle-5! I sincerely hope this is but the first in a string of similar pictures of your models... It is a remarkable way to make them come alive.
 
Sundog said:
Has anyone seen any performance figures of the NR-349? It's obviously higher, speed wise, then the old Vigi, which was fast in it's own right. It would also be interesting to see if the added "bulk" allowed enough internal fuel to have good range with the third range. i.e., did it manage to still have the same range as the Vigi with the third engine?
Click to expand...

Steve Ginter’s book on the Vigilante (Naval Fighters 64) has brief mention of the NR-349. It says that the performance was estimated at Mach 2.5 at 80,000 feet with three J79-GE-10s. No range data but there was additional dorsal tanks in the extended hump and also behind each dorsal intake duct. It also has a cutaway picture of an NR-349 fitted out as an electronic intelligence platform. It has no less than 14 receiving antennas. In a ventral canoe are 12 with 360 degree rotation and two more in the nose radome.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Steve Ginter’s book on the Vigilante (Naval Fighters 64) has brief mention of the NR-349. It says that the performance was estimated at Mach 2.5 at 80,000 feet with three J79-GE-10s. No range data but there was additional dorsal tanks in the extended hump and also behind each dorsal intake duct. It also has a cutaway picture of an NR-349 fitted out as an electronic intelligence platform. It has no less than 14 receiving antennas. In a ventral canoe are 12 with 360 degree rotation and two more in the nose radome.
Click to expand...
Found a scan of that cutaway picture at the forum beyondthesprues.com
Picture:
Code: 
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o627/AGRA105/elint-vigi.png

Link: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2638.msg42515#msg42515
Original source: http://www.ginterbooks.com/NAVAL/NF64.htm


Due to copyright & forum rules I won't attach or insert the picture to this post.
 
circle-5 said:
Rockwell NR-349 Improved Manned Interceptor factory display model, from different angles. I imagine the performance (and sound pressure level on take off) would have been impressive, with those three J79s.
Click to expand...


Awesome model - missed this post!


Thanks, Circle-5.
 
Many people get fat as they get old. So does the Vigilante.
 

Attachments

  • NAA A3J-1 & NR-349 sml.jpg
    NAA A3J-1 & NR-349 sml.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 1,442
I was curious about the A3J/A-5 series' and the interceptor proposals' maneuverability. I've never read anything about it. regarding the interceptor version as a replacement for the F-106, I have read that in the hands of a capable pilot, the F-106 was quite the dogfighter. I imagine there are some tales about the RA-5C out-maneuvering something. ISTR reading where it at least out-ran some opponents. So, any thoughts on the Vigi's agility or lack of? Thanks.
 
famvburg said:
I was curious about the A3J/A-5 series' and the interceptor proposals' maneuverability. I've never read anything about it. regarding the interceptor version as a replacement for the F-106, I have read that in the hands of a capable pilot, the F-106 was quite the dogfighter. I imaging there are some tales about the RA-5C out-maneuvering something. ISTR reading where it at least out-ran some opponents. So, any thoughts on the Vigi's agility or lack of? Thanks.
Click to expand...

My understanding is the Vigi wasn't maneuverable, in the sense that a fighter is, but then it wasn't supposed to be, being a bomber. You also have to consider the Vigi wasn't designed with a very high G-Loading, and like the YF-12A, the interceptor version wouldn't have needed it since it's primary target would have been Russian bombers.

As for the Vigi being fast, over Vietnam they would routinely run away from their F-4 escorts while performing their recon mission.
 
Great pics of this model.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-North-American-Aviation-RETALIATOR-USAF-Attack-Bomber-Desk-Shelf-MODEL/400729558186
 

Attachments

  • $_57.jpg
    $_57.jpg
    170.7 KB · Views: 445
  • $_57 (9).jpg
    $_57 (9).jpg
    162.2 KB · Views: 232
  • $_57 (8).jpg
    $_57 (8).jpg
    158.6 KB · Views: 252
  • $_57 (7).jpg
    $_57 (7).jpg
    95 KB · Views: 258
  • $_57 (6).jpg
    $_57 (6).jpg
    115.9 KB · Views: 257
  • $_57 (5).jpg
    $_57 (5).jpg
    126.3 KB · Views: 299
  • $_57 (4).jpg
    $_57 (4).jpg
    133.6 KB · Views: 397
  • $_57 (3).jpg
    $_57 (3).jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 406
  • $_57 (2).JPG
    $_57 (2).JPG
    108.9 KB · Views: 424
  • $_57 (1).jpg
    $_57 (1).jpg
    91.3 KB · Views: 457
Has anyone found any specifications and/or a high res cutaway drawing of the proposed NR-349 IMI? -SP
 
According to a friend who used to drive a Vigilante, it was very manouverable in the original form but all that was lost when it became the RA3 due to all the extra weight.
 

Attachments

  • NA-246.jpg
    NA-246.jpg
    54.4 KB · Views: 388
This is the NA-246 (A3J-1 derivative), not the decade-later NR-349 trimotor. Oh well!
 
Paul, I have been trying to find out info. on this model. It is similar to a NAA A3J however it has clipped wings and older style intakes. Can you provide any info.?
 
Regarding Vigi performance, ISTR that only it and the F-105 were designed to be able to go supersonic "on the deck", i.e. at low altittude.
 
F-101BPilot said:
Paul, I have been trying to find out info. on this model. It is similar to a NAA A3J however it has clipped wings and older style intakes. Can you provide any info.?
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to dig through some boxes after we move next week, but I think I bought that model, or one like it, on Ebay a couple years ago.
 
It's difficult to fathom the purpose of clipping the outer wings and altering the intakes.
 
Base looks like a rather crude version of this - but hard to tell with the resolution of the picture. It should have a label on the base saying what it is, but it doesn't.
 

Attachments

  • H0018-L06650706.jpg
    H0018-L06650706.jpg
    61.6 KB · Views: 414
Skybolt said:
Mmmm, some confusion here. AFAIK, the Retailator was an attack bomber - land based version of the A3J. NAA was proposing it in 1959 to fill the role of light bomber left open in TAC inventory by the cancellation of the XB-68. There was much debate in the USAF on that role in 1958-1959, expecially for the European theatre. The discussion involved the succession to the F-105 as heavy strike aircraft. In 1960 the decision was: leave the purely nuclear role to missiles (and was the MMRBM), develop a new advanced strike aircraft, and this was GOR-183, later TFX, for coventional and minor nuclear roles.
Retailator model here: http://cgi.ebay.com/1959-TOPPING-A3...ryZ86954QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The interceptor versions of the A3J were a quite different story. Already covered in another topic thread here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=423.msg2813#msg2813

The Retailator concept was developed further by NAA and a derivative with the hunchback of the Aj3-2 (Later A-5B) was looked upon with interest by the RAF during the TSR-2 definition phase. It was proposed to the Aussies too. Our Elmayerle has a lot of info on inner NAA workings, so maybe he can help... Here a model photo of the RAAF Retailator with a couple of Bullpups and a score of iron bombs.
I think the confusion originated in the Aerofax Minigraph 9 by Grove and Miller (even the greatest lapse at times ;) ) when the Retailator line was conflated with another line of A3J-derived proposals for the USAF, i.e. those for the ADC, starting with the 1960 proposal of taking the basic plane and add a rocket to push high-altitude performance. The proposal probably was devised to try and hold the interceptor place for NAA following the F-108 cancellation (the advanced long-range interceptor remained alive for all the 60's decade and beyond).
Click to expand...
photo is caption is correct the it is A5 which the RAAF nearly bought before F111
 
circle-5 said:
Rockwell NR-349 Improved Manned Interceptor factory display model, from different angles. I imagine the performance (and sound pressure level on take off) would have been impressive, with those three J79s.
Click to expand...
circle-5, I am in utter awe of these NR-349 models, are they yours?

If so, I'm wondering if it would be possible to get an underview photo of the Aim-54 Phoenix carrying model, so as to assertain the Conformal Carriage system and the main landing gear doors location in relation to the Conformal Carriage system please?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Might seem an out there question, but does anyone know the name of the head design/ engineer who designed either the Vigilante and or Retaliator??

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Text from North American Aircraft 1934-1999 - Volume 2 by Kevin Thompson, Narkiewicz//Thompson 1999:

North American Aviation made a corporate decision late in 1952 to transfer the responsibility for acquisition of Navy-led programs from the Los Angeles Division to the Columbus Division. George Gehrkens, chief engineer at Columbus, requested Raymond Rice, the LAD chief engineer, to provide preliminary design and aerodynamics personnel to support the operational change. Early in 1953 Frank Compton assumed the title of weapons system advanced design manager and Mac Blair became the manager of advanced aerodynamics.
Technical teams were assembled from the ranks of the two divisions to take on forthcoming projects, including a request for proposal for a carrier-based advanced trainer, a study for the replacement of the F3H carrier-based fighter, and technical input to the Bureau of Aeronautics for an all-weather low-altitude attack aircraft system. Over the next four years the Gehrkens/Compton/Blair team pursued the three projects strenuously, their efforts culminating in contracts for the T2J/T-2 trainer, the FJ-4 fighter (described in Volume 1) and the NAGPAW (North American General Purpose Attack Weapon) A3J all-weather attack system.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
Text from North American Aircraft 1934-1999 - Volume 2 by Kevin Thompson, Narkiewicz//Thompson 1999:

North American Aviation made a corporate decision late in 1952 to transfer the responsibility for acquisition of Navy-led programs from the Los Angeles Division to the Columbus Division. George Gehrkens, chief engineer at Columbus, requested Raymond Rice, the LAD chief engineer, to provide preliminary design and aerodynamics personnel to support the operational change. Early in 1953 Frank Compton assumed the title of weapons system advanced design manager and Mac Blair became the manager of advanced aerodynamics.
Technical teams were assembled from the ranks of the two divisions to take on forthcoming projects, including a request for proposal for a carrier-based advanced trainer, a study for the replacement of the F3H carrier-based fighter, and technical input to the Bureau of Aeronautics for an all-weather low-altitude attack aircraft system. Over the next four years the Gehrkens/Compton/Blair team pursued the the three projects strenuously, their efforts culminating in contracts for the T2J/T-2 trainer, the FJ-4 fighter (described in Vulme 1) and the NAGPAW (North American General Purpose Attack Weapon) A3J all-weather attack system.
Click to expand...
George Gehrkens was previously Asst. Project Engineer on the P-51. It was a common career progression - Assistant Project Engineer, Project Engineer, Chief Engineer.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Arjen said:
Text from North American Aircraft 1934-1999 - Volume 2 by Kevin Thompson, Narkiewicz//Thompson 1999:

North American Aviation made a corporate decision late in 1952 to transfer the responsibility for acquisition of Navy-led programs from the Los Angeles Division to the Columbus Division. George Gehrkens, chief engineer at Columbus, requested Raymond Rice, the LAD chief engineer, to provide preliminary design and aerodynamics personnel to support the operational change. Early in 1953 Frank Compton assumed the title of weapons system advanced design manager and Mac Blair became the manager of advanced aerodynamics.
Technical teams were assembled from the ranks of the two divisions to take on forthcoming projects, including a request for proposal for a carrier-based advanced trainer, a study for the replacement of the F3H carrier-based fighter, and technical input to the Bureau of Aeronautics for an all-weather low-altitude attack aircraft system. Over the next four years the Gehrkens/Compton/Blair team pursued the the three projects strenuously, their efforts culminating in contracts for the T2J/T-2 trainer, the FJ-4 fighter (described in Vulme 1) and the NAGPAW (North American General Purpose Attack Weapon) A3J all-weather attack system.
Click to expand...
George Gehrkens was previously Asst. Project Engineer on the P-51. It was a common career progression - Assistant Project Engineer, Project Engineer, Chief Engineer.
Click to expand...
Thank you Arjen and Overscan, that's most helpful.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Skybolt said:
Mmmm, some confusion here. AFAIK, the Retailator was an attack bomber - land based version of the A3J. NAA was proposing it in 1959 to fill the role of light bomber left open in TAC inventory by the cancellation of the XB-68. There was much debate in the USAF on that role in 1958-1959, expecially for the European theatre. The discussion involved the succession to the F-105 as heavy strike aircraft. In 1960 the decision was: leave the purely nuclear role to missiles (and was the MMRBM), develop a new advanced strike aircraft, and this was GOR-183, later TFX, for coventional and minor nuclear roles.
Retailator model here: http://cgi.ebay.com/1959-TOPPING-A3...ryZ86954QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The interceptor versions of the A3J were a quite different story. Already covered in another topic thread here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=423.msg2813#msg2813

The Retailator concept was developed further by NAA and a derivative with the hunchback of the Aj3-2 (Later A-5B) was looked upon with interest by the RAF during the TSR-2 definition phase. It was proposed to the Aussies too. Our Elmayerle has a lot of info on inner NAA workings, so maybe he can help... Here a model photo of the RAAF Retailator with a couple of Bullpups and a score of iron bombs.
Click to expand...
I'd greatly appreciate more details of the NAA Retaliator proposal to the RAF, if anyone has anything further on it please.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    424 KB · Views: 248
Shared post

Cutaway North American NR-349 Retaliator Interceptor proposals, original author WEAL modified by Motocar
 

Attachments

  • Cutaway_North_American_A5_Fighter_tri_engine.jpg
    Cutaway_North_American_A5_Fighter_tri_engine.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 257
Last edited:
Reading that thread again and it makes my brain bleed in pain. Did we ever got the final word over TWO different things, same year 1958 ?

- Retaliator as a land-based Vigilante to replace the XB-68, with two J79s

- The Vigilante interceptor with a Rocketdyne XLR46 rocket between the J79s

? And both were for USAF ?

- Btw the 1968 proposal with three J79s was also called the Retaliator - or not ?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom