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

Type Spec 149: alternatives to the Grumman A-6

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,251
Reaction score
1,050
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).
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
1,135
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
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
1,135
Grumman 128F and 128M-4 configurations.

Source:

Aeroguide 15, A-6 Intruder, Linewrights 1986
 

Attachments

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
10
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.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
185
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

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
10
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?
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,668
Reaction score
39
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

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
679
Reaction score
20
Would there have been any chance of the Buccaneer being built to meet this role for the USN?
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
50
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.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
107
Reaction score
14
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

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
50
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.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,251
Reaction score
1,050
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.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,668
Reaction score
39
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
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
1,135
Posts moved to new topic. Great scans, Mark, and an interesting design.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
100
I just LOVE that stuff! A great design, an original document with cool artwork and lettering, and excellent scans... Thank you so much!
 

Petrus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
523
Reaction score
32
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
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
185
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
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
27
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.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
13
Website
www.tommythomason.com
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

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
185
Nice Tommy - thanks! Mark
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
100
What a beautiful aircraft it would have been!
 

Petrus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
523
Reaction score
32
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
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
13
Website
www.tommythomason.com
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

Jschmus

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
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

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
521
Reaction score
96
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. :)
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
27
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?
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
13
Website
www.tommythomason.com
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...
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
11
I never heard of a RAY WINDER missile before.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
13
Website
www.tommythomason.com
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.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
27
Right! now i see the line depicts the m.a.c. . Thanks for the clarification.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
1,135
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.
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
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:
 

Petrus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
523
Reaction score
32
Indeed, very unorthodox arrangement in which the refuelling probe is mounted on an engine nacelle, not fuselage.

Piotr
 
Top