‘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.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

NAA A3J-1 Vigilante: The Amazing Anal Bomb-Dropper.

On a toy box artwork or on a serious drawing, I can’t get enough of its unique bomb delivery system.

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Why is this post in this topic?

 

[hesham]

Why is this post in this topic?

Sorry,wrong place,

we can transfer it to this one as I think,

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/%E2%80%98north-american-general-purpose-attack-weapon%E2%80%99-nagpaw-to-vigilante.659/#post-65797

 

[Pioneer]

Found the following interesting A-5 variable- geometry wing configurations studied by NAA and NASA.
The article and drawing is from https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the...-were-but-that-paved-the-way-for-tfx-studies/


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Basil]

Found the following interesting A-5 variable- geometry wing configurations studied by NAA and NASA.
The article and drawing is from https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the...-were-but-that-paved-the-way-for-tfx-studies/


Regards
Pioneer

Absolutley great find ... I always wondered if they were thinking about a VG version during the design phase ...

 

[Antonio]

The article and drawing is from https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the...-were-but-that-paved-the-way-for-tfx-studies/

This is Scott Lowther's art.

US SUPERSONIC BOMBER PROJECTS | Mortons Books

Bookazine - US Supersonic Bomber Projects

www.mortonsbooks.co.uk

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Can't find it, but we discussed the VG Vigilante NASA studies many years ago.

Stability and control characteristics at low subsonic speeds of an airplane configuration having two types of variable-sweep wings - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Static stability and control at low subsonic speeds of supersonic aircraft with variable sweep wings

ntrs.nasa.gov

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NASA-TM-X-303

Stability and Control Characteristics at Low Subsonic Speeds of an Airplane Configuration Having Two Types of Variable Sweep Wings
by Bernard Spencer

Subsonic and supersonic aerodynamic characteristics of an airplane configuration utilizing double-pivot variable-sweep wings - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Subsonic and supersonic aerodynamic characteristics of aircraft configuration using double pivot variable sweep wings

ntrs.nasa.gov

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NASA-TM-X-743

Subsonic and supersonic aerodynamic characteristics of an airplane configuration utilizing double-pivot variable-sweep wings
By Edward C. Polhamus, William J. Alford, Jr., and Gerald V. Foster

Subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of an airplane configuration utilizing a variable- sweep wing having a free-floating apex - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Subsonic longitudinal characteristics of variable sweep aircraft utilizing free floating wing apex for alleviation of longitudinal stability and supersonic performance problems

ntrs.nasa.gov

Subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of an airplane configuration utilizing a variable- sweep wing having a free-floating apex
By A D Hammond, A. D. & E. C. Polhamus

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

My feeling af the time was it was a purely academic exercise by NASA, not a manufacturer proposal.

 

[Pioneer]

My feeling af the time was it was a purely academic exercise by NASA, not a manufacturer proposal.

Yes, are you referring to Skybolt Post#47

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/long-road-to-the-f-111-tac-sor-183-sdr-17-ws-324a-tfx.526/page-2#post-11128

?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Found the following interesting A-5 variable- geometry wing configurations studied by NAA and NASA.
The article and drawing is from https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the...-were-but-that-paved-the-way-for-tfx-studies/


Regards
Pioneer

Looks like Scott Lowther's work - check with him.... Mark

 

[DesScorp]

Yes, are you referring to Skybolt Post#47

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/long-road-to-the-f-111-tac-sor-183-sdr-17-ws-324a-tfx.526/page-2#post-11128

?

Regards
Pioneer

That looks almost like a Backfire bomber. I wonder if these studies were an influence on the Tupolev engineers?

 

[Pioneer]

That looks almost like a Backfire bomber. I wonder if these studies were an influence on the Tupolev engineers?

View attachment 734248

Thanks for your observation DesScorp.
I think you'll find that the over-exposed photo of the VG A3J belies it's actual configuration, with the wings actually actuating similar in configuration to that of the F-111 (as shown in pic). Where as the VG configuration actuates from the fixed-wing component of the Tu-22M, using the same TsAGI engineering principle as that of the Su-17 - aka 'partial swing-wing' configuration.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Looks like Scott Lowther's work - check with him.... Mark

Thanks Mark Nankivil.
If so, full credit to Scott.

Regards
Pioneer