Type Spec 149: alternatives to the Grumman A-6

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
32,781
Reaction score
12,063
in 1957 USN issue a competition for carrier-based all weather attack aircraft,

the proposals submitted from eight companies as following:-


1-Grumman G-128 (A2F later A-6).
2-Vought V-416.
3-Douglas A-4J Model- ----?.
4-Bell model D- ----?.
5-Boeing Model- ----?.
6-Lockheed CL- ----?.
7-Northamerican Na- ----?.
8-Martin Model (may be Model-329,345,346 or 358).
 
Type Spec 149, February 1957

Boeing, Douglas, Vought, Martin (each offered two designs with single turboprop/single turbojet configurations)
Bell (VSTOL design)
Lockheed, North American submitted single designs.

December 1957, Douglas, Vought and Grumman were shortlisted.

On 30 December, Grumman Design 128 won.

Source:

Anthony M Thornborough & Peter E Davies, Modern Combat Aircraft 26: Grumman A-6 Intruder/Prowler 1987
 
Grumman 128F and 128M-4 configurations.

Source:

Aeroguide 15, A-6 Intruder, Linewrights 1986
 

Attachments

  • 128F.jpg
    128F.jpg
    39.3 KB · Views: 2,124
  • 128M4.jpg
    128M4.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 2,000
overscan said:
128F and 128M-4 configurations.

Source:

Aeroguide 15, A-6 Intruder, Linewrights 1986

Ah, the A-6 Intruder did start as a turboprop powered replacement for the A-1 Skyraider. It is amazing how close this early proposal resembles the later, and smaller Grumman Mohawk for the U.S. Army.

It is so easy to forget that the Skyraider was a big, heavy aircraft with tremendous endurance - and that a twin turboprop would have been considered as a direct replacement.
 
Greetings All -

Here's what I think is Vought's entry for the Intruder program. My Vought V list does not specifically reference this V number and the list noted in the Designation Systems references this as a low altitude attack system (if my French to English translation is correct!).

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • Vought V-416 Vigilante proposal 1 of 3.jpg
    Vought V-416 Vigilante proposal 1 of 3.jpg
    230.4 KB · Views: 1,708
  • Vought V-416 Vigilante proposal 2 of 3.jpg
    Vought V-416 Vigilante proposal 2 of 3.jpg
    131.9 KB · Views: 1,887
  • Vought V-416 Vigilante proposal 3 of 3.jpg
    Vought V-416 Vigilante proposal 3 of 3.jpg
    131.5 KB · Views: 1,951
Mark Nankivil said:
Here's what I think is Vought's entry for the Intruder program.

This looks substantially smaller and lighter than the eventual Intruder. The fuel load is very minimal for an aircraft with two J-52 turbojets. Was this design optimized for smaller carriers? With two J-52 turbojets, this design would have had a far more favorable thrust-to-weight ratio than any A-6 variant - but a far shorter range?
 
I think it is interesting that the VAM competition and RfP has many parallels similarities to the Royal Navy's NA.39 requirement that would eventually lead to the Blackburn Buccaneer.
Since the bringing to light and posting of the interesting information and drawings regarding the Vought V-416 design submission, I think it just as interesting that that during the Royal Navy’s NA.39 competition, Armstrong Whitworth submitted a design that was similar in layout to Vought`s V-416 (except for the cockpit arrangement of the two designs, and the swept-wing arrangement of the AW.168).
This was the Armstrong Whitworth AW.168 design.

Interesting!!!!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • Vought V-416 & Armstrong-Whitworth AW168.JPG
    Vought V-416 & Armstrong-Whitworth AW168.JPG
    58.1 KB · Views: 647
Would there have been any chance of the Buccaneer being built to meet this role for the USN?
 
I remember a beautiful Buccaneer model at whatifmodelers forum.

Tony Buttler wrote an excellent article about its development, may be he could add some info...

Personally, I think it could have been an excellent aircraft for the US carriers.
 
pometablava said:
I remember a beautiful Buccaneer model at whatifmodelers forum.

Tony Buttler wrote an excellent article about its development, may be he could add some info...

Personally, I think it could have been an excellent aircraft for the US carriers.
Maybe this drawing, by Maverick?
 

Attachments

  • buccaneer.jpg
    buccaneer.jpg
    72.5 KB · Views: 892
Maybe this drawing, by Maverick?

No, it was a model, not a drawing. BTW I love Maverick's profiles at whatifmodelers ;)

Tony Buttler's article I cited is "Choosing a pirate for the Navy" Air Pictorial March - April 1997.
 
overscan said:
Type Spec 149, February 1957

Boeing, Douglas, Vought, Martin (each offered two designs with single turboprop/single turbojet configurations)
Bell (VSTOL design)
Lockheed, North American submitted single designs.

December 1957, Douglas, Vought and Grumman were shortlisted.

On 30 December, Grumman Design 128 won.

Source:

Anthony M Thornborough & Peter E Davies, Modern Combat Aircraft 26: Grumman A-6 Intruder/Prowler 1987

As my dear Overscan mentioned before;

the Vought submitted two proposals,I think the second was V.406.
 
PMN1 said:
Would there have been any chance of the Buccaneer being built to meet this role for the USN?

Possibly more chances than one may think!
After all the Buccaneer was designed and developed with the financial assistance of the U.S Governments Military Assistance Program (MAP)!
Also I have read that the U.S Navy officials often and freely visited the Hawker Siddeley facilities to inspect the progress of the Buccaneer development - with it being stated in some circles that HS's progress and innovation to particular problem were taken back to Grumman, who was at the time developing the A-6 Intruder!
It was said that the US Navy officials liked what they sore!!

Regards
Pioneer
 
I had the chance to rescan some of the Vought V-416 brochure during my last visit.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • xModel V416 Vigilante - 1.jpg
    xModel V416 Vigilante - 1.jpg
    403.7 KB · Views: 538
  • xModel V416 Vigilante - 2.jpg
    xModel V416 Vigilante - 2.jpg
    287.1 KB · Views: 537
  • xModel V416 Vigilante - 3.jpg
    xModel V416 Vigilante - 3.jpg
    327.1 KB · Views: 661
I just LOVE that stuff! A great design, an original document with cool artwork and lettering, and excellent scans... Thank you so much!
 
What about the aircraft armament? In the drawing there are three larger bombs outlined beneath the fuselage and one smaller bomb under each wings. Are they 1000lb and 500lb respectively? Do you have any information regarding the issue?

Best regards,
Piotr
 
Hi Piotr -

There's no specifics on bomb/weapon sizes. Would be interesting to read the the Navy's type spec and seeing what they required for a load out.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Interesting detail of n.19, the "thrust deflector". Was it just to kill thrust while keeping the engine spooled up for a possible bolt, or did it actually have any thrust vectoring effect? I find the latter unlikely given the arrangement, but mention this nonetheless because the original A-6 prototype had limited vectoring nozzles.
 
A few bits of information on this competition:

There was a STOL requirement imposed by USMC land-based applications which proved difficult to meet. Vought proposed a cascade-type thrust deflector and Grumman, the tilting nozzle. Douglas combined a JATO takeoff with a parabrake for landing; in addition, the engine thrust line was permanently angled 10 degrees downward. None of the proposals met the short takeoff requirement although Vought would have if its design hadn't been required to meet OEI controllability at any point in the takeoff. Grumman came closest since its engines were located more inboard. Only Grumman achieved the landing distance, again benefitting from its better OEI capability.

When the RFP was issued, it did not specify the engine type, only a maximum speed of 500 knots, which was a bit fast for a turboprop. All three finalists proposed two J52s.

The program may have started as an AD Skyraider replacement, but it was in effect only a replacement for the AD-5N. The A-7 was the AD-6/7 replacement.

One armament requirement was for five pylons. I don't remember if there was any capability difference or if they were all required to carry 2,000#, but I suspect that they were. If I remember correctly, there was no requirement for an internal gun.

Vought came in second. Douglas' 715 (see attached) came in third.
 

Attachments

  • D-715-1.jpg
    D-715-1.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 971
  • D-715.jpg
    D-715.jpg
    322.9 KB · Views: 1,123
Thanks Tommy! Now I know what this artwork is depicting - seen on eBay about five or six years ago.
 

Attachments

  • Navy_dual_seat_bomber_concept_med_size.jpeg
    Navy_dual_seat_bomber_concept_med_size.jpeg
    255.3 KB · Views: 1,049
Thanks - nice artwork.

Did some editing to try and restore it.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas715.jpg
    Douglas715.jpg
    204.7 KB · Views: 872
  • Douglas D-715.jpg
    Douglas D-715.jpg
    254.2 KB · Views: 575
Tailspin Turtle said:
One armament requirement was for five pylons. I don't remember if there was any capability difference or if they were all required to carry 2,000#, but I suspect that they were. If I remember correctly, there was no requirement for an internal gun.

So I understand that none of the project submissions had an internal weapons bay. Am I correct?

As for the Douglas 715 (indeed, good looking an aircraft it might have been, somehow resembling the French Vautour), in the drawing you've posted there is only its wing span specified. What about other dimensions and weight information?

Piotr
 
Petrus said:
Tailspin Turtle said:
One armament requirement was for five pylons. I don't remember if there was any capability difference or if they were all required to carry 2,000#, but I suspect that they were. If I remember correctly, there was no requirement for an internal gun.

So I understand that none of the project submissions had an internal weapons bay. Am I correct?

As for the Douglas 715 (indeed, good looking an aircraft it might have been, somehow resembling the French Vautour), in the drawing you've posted there is only its wing span specified. What about other dimensions and weight information?

Piotr

I'm in Texas for the holidays and my files are in Connecticut. A dimensioned three-view is all I have on the hard drive that I brought with me...
 

Attachments

  • D-715-2.jpg
    D-715-2.jpg
    47.5 KB · Views: 761
pometablava said:
I remember a beautiful Buccaneer model at whatifmodelers forum.

Here is the model you're referring to, I think:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,8931.0.html
 

Attachments

  • 100_3623.jpg
    100_3623.jpg
    60.6 KB · Views: 712
Here is a V-416 General Arrangement Drawing
 

Attachments

  • xCVS-48870_V-416A_Gen_Arrangement.jpg
    xCVS-48870_V-416A_Gen_Arrangement.jpg
    201 KB · Views: 762

I'm in Texas for the holidays and my files are in Connecticut. A dimensioned three-view is all I have on the hard drive that I brought with me...
[/quote]

No wonder it turned off frickin cold and snowy. :)
 
Thanks for the excellent drawing, Bill!
Curious detail, that of the folding tails...I don't remember seeing that before on other CV aircraft. Did this project have a particularly tough spot factor requirement?
wait...why is it only on one side?
 
Here is the hoisting for external stores diagram for the V-416
With a look at the listing of stores that could be loaded.
 

Attachments

  • xCVS-48889_V-416_External_Stores.jpg
    xCVS-48889_V-416_External_Stores.jpg
    89.5 KB · Views: 1,071
  • xCVS-48889_V-416_External_Stores-a.jpg
    xCVS-48889_V-416_External_Stores-a.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 852
Bill S said:
Tailspin Turtle said:
I'm in Texas for the holidays and my files are in Connecticut. A dimensioned three-view is all I have on the hard drive that I brought with me...

No wonder it turned off frickin cold and snowy. :)
As a matter of fact, for the last couple of days it has been colder here than in Connecticut. But I assure that is not the way to bet...
 
AeroFranz said:
Thanks for the excellent drawing, Bill!
Curious detail, that of the folding tails...I don't remember seeing that before on other CV aircraft. Did this project have a particularly tough spot factor requirement?
wait...why is it only on one side?
What you think is a hinge is really a scale that is located at the aerodynamic chord of the tail. See also the wing and the vertical tail.
 
Right! now i see the line depicts the m.a.c. . Thanks for the clarification.
 
Cleaned the general arrangement. Looks great, excellent scan.
 

Attachments

  • V-416 3 View.jpg
    V-416 3 View.jpg
    336.5 KB · Views: 987
  • CVS-48870_V-416A_Gen_Arrangement.jpg
    CVS-48870_V-416A_Gen_Arrangement.jpg
    279.3 KB · Views: 657
XB-70 Guy said:
I never heard of a RAY WINDER missile before.

Ray Winder was a passive radar homing Sidewinder from 1957, put together by John Boyles and Tom Amlie at NOTS. It generated little interest as Russian fighters generally did not use radar at the time.
 
Tailspin Turtle said:
Bill S said:
Tailspin Turtle said:
I'm in Texas for the holidays and my files are in Connecticut. A dimensioned three-view is all I have on the hard drive that I brought with me...

No wonder it turned off frickin cold and snowy. :)
As a matter of fact, for the last couple of days it has been colder here than in Connecticut. But I assure that is not the way to bet...

...The disgusting part about the cold is that after two days of the local CenTex news channels predicting 2-3" of snow and sleet on Friday, 99% of the freezing precipitation literally jumped over the targeted area and hit Houston instead. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Indeed, very unorthodox arrangement in which the refuelling probe is mounted on an engine nacelle, not fuselage.

Piotr
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom