Type Spec 149: alternatives to the Grumman A-6

hesham · 4 August 2006

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 (PaulMM) · 10 August 2006

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 (PaulMM) · 16 March 2007

Grumman 128F and 128M-4 configurations.

Source:

Aeroguide 15, A-6 Intruder, Linewrights 1986

Orionblamblam · 16 March 2007

overscan said:
128F and 128M-4 configurations.

Was there dimensional data, or just the drawings?

TinWing · 16 March 2007

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 · 2 August 2007

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

TinWing · 2 August 2007

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 · 28 December 2007

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

PMN1 · 28 December 2007

Would there have been any chance of the Buccaneer being built to meet this role for the USN?

Antonio · 28 December 2007

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 · 28 December 2007

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?

Antonio · 28 December 2007

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 · 31 August 2009

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 · 18 September 2009

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

Mark Nankivil · 2 December 2009

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

Enjoy the Day! Mark

overscan (PaulMM) · 3 December 2009

Posts moved to new topic. Great scans, Mark, and an interesting design.

Stargazer · 3 December 2009

I just LOVE that stuff! A great design, an original document with cool artwork and lettering, and excellent scans... Thank you so much!

Petrus · 3 December 2009

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 · 3 December 2009

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 · 3 December 2009

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 · 3 December 2009

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.

Mark Nankivil · 3 December 2009

Nice Tommy - thanks! Mark

aim9xray · 3 December 2009

Thanks Tommy! Now I know what this artwork is depicting - seen on eBay about five or six years ago.

overscan (PaulMM) · 4 December 2009

Thanks - nice artwork.

Did some editing to try and restore it.

Stargazer · 4 December 2009

What a beautiful aircraft it would have been!

Petrus · 4 December 2009

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 · 4 December 2009

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Jschmus · 4 December 2009

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

Bill S · 5 December 2009

Here is a V-416 General Arrangement Drawing

Bill S · 5 December 2009

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 · 5 December 2009

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?

Bill S · 5 December 2009

Here is the hoisting for external stores diagram for the V-416
With a look at the listing of stores that could be loaded.

Tailspin Turtle · 5 December 2009

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...

Click to expand...

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 · 5 December 2009

I never heard of a RAY WINDER missile before.

Tailspin Turtle · 5 December 2009

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 · 5 December 2009

Right! now i see the line depicts the m.a.c. . Thanks for the clarification.

overscan (PaulMM) · 5 December 2009

Cleaned the general arrangement. Looks great, excellent scan.

overscan (PaulMM) · 5 December 2009

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 · 5 December 2009

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...

Click to expand...

No wonder it turned off frickin cold and snowy.

Click to expand...

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.

Petrus · 5 December 2009

Indeed, very unorthodox arrangement in which the refuelling probe is mounted on an engine nacelle, not fuselage.

Piotr

Type Spec 149: alternatives to the Grumman A-6

ACCESS: USAP

Administrator

Administrator

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Seek out and close with the enemy

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Moderator

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

Moderator

ACCESS: USAP

Seek out and close with the enemy

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

Administrator

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

Administrator

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Confidential

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Aviation History Writer

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Administrator

Attachments

Administrator

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.