figlik@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Jim Figlik) (01/19/89)
In article <3210@cbnews.ATT.COM> smb@ulysses (Steve Bellovin) writes: >I seem to recall, many years ago, a Navy jet that could launch a torpedo >to the rear. The torpedo tube exit was between the two engine exhausts, >which in itself would make for some interesting engineering problems. >Does anyone remember any more details about this plane? There was a carrier jet called Vigilante that had a rear exit for its ordenance. I remember reading about it way back when (early '70s 8-). But it featured a tail cone that was jettisoned and a passage between the twin engines, but as I remember it was for a nuclear payload. Jim -- Name/Number: Jim Figlik (312) 979-3478 Organization: CAP Gemini America @ AT&T Bell Labs, Indian Hill, IL Elec.Address: {world}!att!ihlpl!figlik Phys.Address: 2000 N. Naperville Rd/IH 6U-212, Naperville, IL 60566-7033
msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Michael S. Fischbein) (01/19/89)
In article <3210@cbnews.ATT.COM> smb@ulysses (Steve Bellovin) writes: > >I seem to recall, many years ago, a Navy jet that could launch a torpedo >to the rear. The torpedo tube exit was between the two engine exhausts, >which in itself would make for some interesting engineering problems. >Does anyone remember any more details about this plane? > Sure. You're thinking of the first plane designed to be a carrier based nuclear bomber, the A-5. Turned out the rear exit resulted in the bomb (not torpedo) being carried behind the aircraft in its turbulence for an indeterminate amount of time. In addition to the obvious Cep (accuracy) problems this caused, it tended to upset the aircrews when they were followed by an armed nuclear weapon. Or even HE. Or even an inert practice bomb. Anyway, all the A-5's were converted to carrier based recon planes, called the RA-5 Vigilante. They are rather large carrier based planes, too. This is all based on off the cuff remembrances, so others may have more or more accurate details. mike Michael Fischbein msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov ...!seismo!decuac!csmunix!icase!msf These are my opinions and not necessarily official views of any organization.
esco%tank@oddjob.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) (01/20/89)
In article <3243@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: : :In article <3210@cbnews.ATT.COM> smb@ulysses (Steve Bellovin) writes: :>I seem to recall, many years ago, a Navy jet that could launch a torpedo :>to the rear. The torpedo tube exit was between the two engine exhausts, :>which in itself would make for some interesting engineering problems. :>Does anyone remember any more details about this plane? : :There was a carrier jet called Vigilante that had a rear exit for its :ordenance. I remember reading about it way back when (early '70s 8-). : :But it featured a tail cone that was jettisoned and a passage between :the twin engines, but as I remember it was for a nuclear payload. Sounds like the A-3 Whale, the Navy's strategic bomber. Ross P. Weiner Former Helo Control Officer esco@tank.uchicago.edu Think up new disclaimers, they also apply.
smithj@marlin.nosc.mil (James Smith) (01/21/89)
In article 3244@cbnews.ATT.COM msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Michael S. Fischbein) writes: > >...first plane designed to be a carrier based nuclear bomber > In fact, the first carrier-based nuclear bomber was the Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior, which entered operational service in the early fifties. (During the sixties, the remaining A-3's were converted into tankers, KA-3C 'Whale', or into VIP transport aircraft.) There were two problems with the A-5C Vigilante: 1) the bomb, once ejected, would sometimes trail behind the aircraft in its turbulent wake; and 2) after repeated carrier launches and recoveries, the airframe would become sufficiently deformed to cause the bomb to get stuck in the launch chute, resulting in an unacceptable center-of-gravity condition (too far aft), not to mention having an up to 2000# bomb sitting between two tremendous heat sources. Jim Smith smithj@marlin.nosc.mil
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (01/23/89)
>Sure. You're thinking of the first plane designed to be a carrier based >nuclear bomber, the A-5... Nope, sorry, it wasn't the first, it was about the fourth. The first was the AJ [?] Savage. Second was the A-3 Skywarrior. Third was either the A-5 or the A-4. (Yes, the Skyhawk was a nuclear bomber, although with primarily tactical missions rather than strategic like the others.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) (01/24/89)
In article <3244@cbnews.ATT.COM> msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Michael S. Fischbein) writes: : :Anyway, all the A-5's were converted to carrier based recon planes, called :the RA-5 Vigilante. They are rather large carrier based planes, too. : :This is all based on off the cuff remembrances, so others may have more :or more accurate details. : : mike : I saw a report last year (Av Leak?) that showed the last RA-5 being retired from service. Lee -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA| |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| |UUCP: {ames!cit-vax,psivax}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem | |ARPA: jpl-devvax!leem!@cit-vax.ARPA -or- leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- :