Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/17/2005 10:32:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2005 10:41:56 AM EDT by SorryOciffer]
It was one pretty looking plane in the air. I am looking at a set of plans for a ducted fan/turbine model with a 66" span.
It actually had a tube than ran part of the length of the fuse where the bombs went and ejected them out the back of the plane! They were Mach 2 capable and were widely used in the recon role in VN.


Info site with nice pics and diagrams.

www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html

"Once over enemy territory, the Vigilante flew continuously in full afterburner, keeping above Mach 1 at all times. It would fly into the target area at 2,100 to 2,400 meters (7,000 to 8,000 feet), and could in many cases use its oblique cameras and other reconnaissance gear to obtain information without flying directly over the target. The aircraft was fast and agile for its size, and was able to dodge surface-to-air missiles on many occasions. "



Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:41:20 AM EDT
I've forgotten about that plane.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:53:50 AM EDT
I think it was the aircraft that started my obsession with aviation. When I was VERY young dad gave me a model of it and I played with it until it fell apart. It was, for me, the epitome of what a wicked fast jet should look like.

To this day I still think it's one of the sexiest aircraft ever created, right up there with F-14's. Looks like it's going Mach2 sitting on the ground.





Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:57:23 AM EDT
Hmmmm....Take the 66" plan, scale it up 25%, add two 25# turbines.........
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:57:44 AM EDT
If I recall, it's the largest carrier-borne aircraft ever used... next to the A-3. Not sure which is bigger. KA3B could answer.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:59:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:
If I recall, it's the largest carrier-borne aircraft ever used... next to the A-3. Not sure which is bigger. KA3B could answer.



Same aircraft for the most part, just a differant designation.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 11:00:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2005 11:04:44 AM EDT by Phil_in_Seattle]
An absolutely awesome looking plane.






ETA

Quicktime Clip (no Audio)
www.rocket.aero/VigilanteTrailer.mov

Link Posted: 7/17/2005 11:01:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:
If I recall, it's the largest carrier-borne aircraft ever used... next to the A-3. Not sure which is bigger. KA3B could answer.



Same aircraft for the most part, just a differant designation.



Um, the A-5 and A-3 were very much different aircraft.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 11:02:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2005 11:02:41 AM EDT by Kharn]

It actually had a tube than ran part of the length of the fuse where the bombs went and ejected them out the back of the plane!
Thats what doomed it as a nuclear bomber. The Navy found out that the bombs would follow the airplane for an undeterminable distance until falling out of the slip stream, screwing up the accuracy. Imagine the first guy that figured it out, realizing it could have been a live nuke drafting behind him.

Kharn
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 11:05:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
I think it was the aircraft that started my obsession with aviation. When I was VERY young dad gave me a model of it and I played with it until it fell apart. It was, for me, the epitome of what a wicked fast jet should look like.

To this day I still think it's one of the sexiest aircraft ever created, right up there with F-14's. Looks like it's going Mach2 sitting on the ground.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/airwolf144/ra5c-5.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/airwolf144/ra5c.jpg






I agree. My dad got a ride in one. But he was a propeller multi-engine guy and was to old to transition to jets.


Link Posted: 7/17/2005 11:06:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:
If I recall, it's the largest carrier-borne aircraft ever used... next to the A-3. Not sure which is bigger. KA3B could answer.



Same aircraft for the most part, just a differant designation.



Um, the A-5 and A-3 were very much different aircraft.



Well, I am looking at pics of both and they look pretty damn similar, with only minor changes from what I have read so far.

Please enlighten me. Seriously.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 11:34:42 AM EDT
They were both nuclear bombers, but different aircraft.

A-3 Whale



A-5 Vigilante

Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:16:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:
If I recall, it's the largest carrier-borne aircraft ever used... next to the A-3. Not sure which is bigger. KA3B could answer.



Same aircraft for the most part, just a differant designation.



Um, the A-5 and A-3 were very much different aircraft.



Well, I am looking at pics of both and they look pretty damn similar, with only minor changes from what I have read so far.

Please enlighten me. Seriously.



I think you're just confusing the old style Navy Specific designations with the newer rationalized designations. The A5 started out as the A3J (J Manufacturer Code for North American) and the A3 started out as the A3D (D for Douglas). To add even more confusion, the A3 Skywarrior was used by the USAF as the B66 Destroyer. Kind of like how the Phantom started out as the F4H in USN service and F110 Spectre in USAF service before it was redesignated F4 Phantom.

Or think how the Grumman F4F Wildcat and Chance Vought F4U Corsair were totally different.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:22:02 PM EDT


My Father worked on those exact birds when he was in RVAH-12.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:30:48 PM EDT
I thought they were cooler than F-4's. I first became aware of them when building a Carrier model as a kid, and 6 came with the carrier.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:32:55 PM EDT
That is a pretty sweet looking aircraft! Looks like it could do just about anything.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:38:30 PM EDT
You can actually see the F-14 in it. It's almost as if it passed on its genes....
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:53:43 PM EDT
There is a resemblance between the F14 and the Vigilante, but keep in mind that:

F14 was manufactured by Grumman
Vigilante was a North American product

Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:57:27 PM EDT
Good Engineering is universal!
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:57:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2005 12:58:54 PM EDT by KA3B]
Remember, the A-5 is an ATTACK aircraft, not a fighter.
It could fly circles around the F-4 and gave the F-8 a hard time.
It too (like the F-4) used a pair of J-79's.

13 of the 14 A-5 "Viggi" squadrons were at one time A-3 squadrons.

The confusion from the aircraft designation, A3J-1/A vs A-5A is due to Sec Defense Robert McNamera's 1962 Tri-Service aircraft designation program.

Basicly he was (and still is) a complete dumbass and didn't realize that the F4H-1 Phantom II and the F-110A Spectre were the same aircraft.


The US Navy's designation system made (and still does) a lot more sense in the actual identification of Naval and Marine aircraft than does the USAF based system used today.

A = Attack
3 = Second Attack TYPE Aircraft Made for the US Navy By North American
J = North American Aviation
1 = First Subtype of the A3J
A = First Modification (minor) of the First Subtype
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 12:58:38 PM EDT
oh baby..fill up the tanks and give me 30 minutes with her!
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 1:10:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2005 1:17:20 PM EDT by Charging_Handle]
I always thought that jet looked wicked and mean. When I look at it, I see a slight resemblence to a mix of aircraft, including the F-111, F-8 and just a bit of F-14/15 for good measure.

Seems in Nam, it was mostly used for photo recon. But with it's speed, sleek design and powerful engines, it seems it would have been used more in the strike role. Was it not as advanced as F-4's, A-6's, etc in that role?
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 1:14:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2005 1:19:21 PM EDT by Rocklock]
Yep had a model of one of those W/ bomb eject . It would be a heck of an RC project , cool but scale airfoils ect ?.......pretty hot . My vote for coolest jet bomber is hands down B58 Hustler thats what comes to my mind as , IT . But I'm old . Four ducted fans insync ........I flew RC in the 80's and early 90's . Balsa USA Fly Baby Biplane was too crazy for me ! Good luck take a photo of it's landi....Arrival . RL

Edited to add The F101 Voodoo is a sharp looking plane .
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 1:34:25 PM EDT
It was an ATTACK aircraft, built as an ATTACK aircraft.
By the time is was being used in Vietnam the Navy wasen't going to pour more money down that black hole to turn an ATTACK aircraft into a strike or a fighter aircraft.
It had no external hard points for weapons and it was proven time and time again that the rear ejection nuclear bomb deployment system had a "few" bugs....

The Navy should have built the F-8 "Super Crusader" as a fighter and the F-4 as an attack aircraft.



Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Seems in Nam, it was mostly used for photo recon. But with it's speed, sleek design and powerful engines, it seems it would have been used more in the strike role. Was it not as advanced as F-4's, A-6's, etc in that role?

Link Posted: 7/17/2005 4:54:58 PM EDT
Bump for the night crew.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 7:35:46 PM EDT
Modellers, Trumpeteer models has just come out witha Vigilante in 1/48 scale.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 8:14:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Modellers, Trumpeteer models has just come out witha Vigilante in 1/48 scale.

And a Chineese company to boot!
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:04:12 PM EDT
That dome between the engine exhausts is the bombay cover.

Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:20:39 PM EDT
So how does the bomb bay system really work?

And how do you load it?
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:23:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeepster:

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:
If I recall, it's the largest carrier-borne aircraft ever used... next to the A-3. Not sure which is bigger. KA3B could answer.



Same aircraft for the most part, just a differant designation.



Um, the A-5 and A-3 were very much different aircraft.



Well, I am looking at pics of both and they look pretty damn similar, with only minor changes from what I have read so far.

Please enlighten me. Seriously.



I think you're just confusing the old style Navy Specific designations with the newer rationalized designations. The A5 started out as the A3J (J Manufacturer Code for North American) and the A3 started out as the A3D (D for Douglas). To add even more confusion, the A3 Skywarrior was used by the USAF as the B66 Destroyer. Kind of like how the Phantom started out as the F4H in USN service and F110 Spectre in USAF service before it was redesignated F4 Phantom.

Or think how the Grumman F4F Wildcat and Chance Vought F4U Corsair were totally different.



Yes, that is what happened. If one notices my topic heading I give the A3J moniker but when simply refering to the aircraft in the post I put just A3. I just thought people would know I was talking about the A3J and was confused when I was told I was talking about 2 differant planes.
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:24:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:
So how does the bomb bay system really work?

And how do you load it?



The bombs are ejected aft.
They are loaded very carefully.

Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:24:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
You can actually see the F-14 in it. It's almost as if it passed on its genes....



Yup. I actually see some F-111 too
Link Posted: 7/17/2005 10:26:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
It was an ATTACK aircraft, built as an ATTACK aircraft.
By the time is was being used in Vietnam the Navy wasen't going to pour more money down that black hole to turn an ATTACK aircraft into a strike or a fighter aircraft.
It had no external hard points for weapons and it was proven time and time again that the rear ejection nuclear bomb deployment system had a "few" bugs....



Actually, my sources say it had 2 hard points on each wing and I have seen pics of them with external bomb loads.

Link Posted: 7/18/2005 10:22:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2005 10:31:53 AM EDT by SorryOciffer]
Wow, the A-5 seemed to have been a pioneering aircraft.

"A radar computer with an associated "Pilot's Projected Display Indicator (PPDI)" one of the first "head-up displays" to be fitted to an operational aircraft. "

"A TV camera under the nose for daylight target sighting, with the imagery passed to the pilot's PPDI and the back-seater's radar display."

"A "Radar-Equipped Inertial Navigation System (REINS)", based on technologies developed for the "Navaho" intercontinental cruise missile."

"A digital computer system designated the "Versatile Digital Analyser (VERDAN)", which would later be referred to as a "Very Effective Replacement for a Dumb-Ass Navigator". It was one of the first solid-state computer systems ever fitted to an aircraft."

"The Vigilante was also one of the first aircraft to have a "fly by wire" flight control system. "

"On 13 December 1960, Navy test pilots Commander Leroy Heath and Lieutenant Larry Monroe took their Vigilante to Mach 2.1 and then nosed it up into a climb that brought it to a record 27,750 meters (91,000 feet). At that altitude, the aircraft was no longer aerodynamic and tumbled onto its back as it fell down the far side of the arc, the engines flamed out in the thin atmosphere. However, such problems had been encountered in practice flights leading up to the attempt. Heath simply neutralized the controls; once the Vigilante reached thicker air halfway through its fall, it naturally adopted a nose-down attitude, and Heath was able to relight the engines. "

"The Vigilante was also something of a handful to land on a carrier, being not only big but very sleek and "hot". On a hard landing, the aircraft would "bounce", with the nosewheel tire popping and tearing apart on the second strike to shed pieces of rubber into the engines. In addition, the nosewheel strut proved weak and had to be eventually reinforced. Some Vigilante pilots claimed that the aircraft's reputation for being difficult to land was exaggerated, but did admit that it was unforgiving. The aircraft acquired a reputation as something of a beast that required particular skill to fly, and of course Vigilante pilots were not quick to disagree. Egos were involved, which could be big and antagonistic in the male-oriented, hyper-competitive Navy Air culture.

Fighter pilots of course tended to look down on the big bomber, comparing it to an elephant, though apparently at least as much for the wild sounds made by the Vigilante's twin J79s when they were throttled up or down during landing approach, with jokers suggesting that the beast sounded like it was in heat. Leroy Heath, back in normal fleet service, picked up the comparison and ran with it, naming his Vigilante the PASSIONATE PACHYDERM. He also bought a wind-up toy elephant, painted the PACHYDERM's aircraft number "701" on its side, and took to setting it on strolls across the closed-circuit TV camera that gave the pilot ready rooms a view of carrier-deck landings.

One A-5A pilot, Lieutenant Commander Ken Enney, decided to fight back more aggressively by "bouncing" a Vought Crusader fighter. The fighter pilot eventually called out over radio: "I can't get rid of this guy!" This set off quite a buzz among the flight crews, though Enney himself later admitted that his Vigilante was lightly loaded and that he could only have gotten away with such a stunt at altitudes above 6,000 meters (20,000 feet). "

"F-4 pilots often had to call to the Vigilante pilots to slow down so the fighter could keep up. "


Link Posted: 7/18/2005 10:49:30 AM EDT
There was a North American proposal to create an interceptor variant of the Vigilante for the USAF in the late-60's/early-70s. It would have been armed with six AIM-54s. The kicker is that the interceptor proposal featured an additional J79 (!!!) in the space of the former "bomb bay" tube.
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 10:59:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TLWrench:
There was a North American proposal to create an interceptor variant of the Vigilante for the USAF in the late-60's/early-70s. It would have been armed with six AIM-54s. The kicker is that the interceptor proposal featured an additional J79 (!!!) in the space of the former "bomb bay" tube.



Talk about fuel consumption and knocking on the door to mach 3! The Acceleration would have been intense for the 10 minutes you had fuel!
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 11:06:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2005 11:12:57 AM EDT by SorryOciffer]







Link Posted: 7/18/2005 2:20:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2005 2:32:40 PM EDT by Jeepster]

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
You can actually see the F-14 in it. It's almost as if it passed on its genes....



Yup. I actually see some F-111 too



The aircraft I see alot of in it is the MiG25. Replace the single rudder with a dual set-up and it's really close. Same wing shape, same style of inlets, basic proportions are very similar. Wouldn't surprise me if the Soviets borrowed heavily from the design - the performance was close and if you fitted the A5 with single-use, super high-thrust engines it may have even equaled it in speed and climb, judging from what I've read in this post:

"On 13 December 1960, Navy test pilots Commander Leroy Heath and Lieutenant Larry Monroe took their Vigilante to Mach 2.1 and then nosed it up into a climb that brought it to a record 27,750 meters (91,000 feet). At that altitude, the aircraft was no longer aerodynamic and tumbled onto its back as it fell down the far side of the arc, the engines flamed out in the thin atmosphere. However, such problems had been encountered in practice flights leading up to the attempt. Heath simply neutralized the controls; once the Vigilante reached thicker air halfway through its fall, it naturally adopted a nose-down attitude, and Heath was able to relight the engines. "

That's EXTREMELY impressive for 1960. Yeager set a record with the rocket assisted NF104 to 103K ft about that time, but it was specially prepared. Hell of an airplane...
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 2:46:51 PM EDT
My neighbor helped design the Vigilante. He once told me about one day at Paxtuent River where he saw a LCDR buzz the tower and the adjacent hangar at 20 feet at .92 mach. He blew every window out in the tower and hangar. When the pilot landed, he was met by the AOD and the base commander where he was told to promptly hand over his wings. The last my neighbor heard the LCDR was assainged as a gunnery officer on a tin can bombing North Vietnam.
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 5:13:37 PM EDT
Well I'll be dipped in dog-shit!
I never knew that, and I missed that when I read the armament specs.
Thanks for pointing that out.


From what I read they modified the A-5B/C for two hard points under each wing, for a total of four.



Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:
Actually, my sources say it had 2 hard points on each wing and I have seen pics of them with external bomb loads.

Link Posted: 7/18/2005 5:17:45 PM EDT

And you can see that it really did use a pair of J-79 engine for power....
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 5:30:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2005 5:36:55 PM EDT by GunnyG]

Originally Posted By Airwolf:



WHOA!!! Thanks for the flash back!!! I used to live in the barracks right behind that aircraft!!

I did a google search for the NSA Millington website, and found this...


What is the history of.....
What’s the story behind the static aircraft in front of the Joe Dugger Fitness Center?

The Vigilante A3J/A-5 aircraft is a Navy Reconnaissance Attack plane (RA5C) produced by the North American Rockwell Company of Columbus, Ohio. This particular plane, bureau number 156608, was removed from active inventory on Nov. 20, 1979. The nose number, 610, was assigned by the air wing, and the tail letters, “NE,” were those of Pacific Fleet Air Wing Two. At that time it was the largest aircraft ever operated routinely from the deck of of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. Its first deployment was to Vietnam in 1964, and the height of its use was during that war in the years 1964-73. This aircraft was last operated by Reconnaissance Attack Squadron Seven while deployed to WestPac on USS Ranger (CVA-61.)
The “Vigilante” original design and purpose was as a long-range nuclear delivery platform operated from aircraft carriers. This plane had a mach two-- twice the speed of sound--capability. The weapon was carried internally in a “linear” bomb bay between the two engines, and it was ejected rearward. Extra fuel tanks were also carried in the bomb bay.
When the reconnaissance Vigilante was produced with many recon packages both external and in the bomb bay, the speed was limited to just over the speed of sound. Some of the recon packages included many camera types and flasher pods for night photo work. There was also an in-flight refueling system that could be carried in the bomb bay.
—Contributed by Lt. Cmdr. John Williams, USN (Ret.)
www.nsamidsouth.navy.mil/publications/bluejacket/2002/bj020613.htm



Of course, in '84 the piece of land referred to as being the fitness center was occupied by the chow hall....

Gunny(never stood "Plane Watch")G
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 5:31:20 PM EDT
I had a model of this aircraft I built as a kid. The kit even had a spring in it to eject the bomb load. I worked on that kit for weeks. It was one slick looking model when I finished it. To me it was the ultimate plane.

At least until the next kit.
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 5:58:11 PM EDT



I'll have to send my Dad a link to this thread, he will enjoy. My Dad was a Hydralics mate in RVAH-12 and has always loved the "Viggie". I even got to sit in the cockpit of IIRC the 603 bird, I was only 2 or 3 at the time.

My Dad was a personal favorite of one of the Pilots in the squadron, my Dad probably saved his life. On a particular night launch, my dad was walking around doing some checks and noticed he was getting wet. IIRC, the Hydralic oil was gushing out, the plane would have lost all hydralics moments after launch. My Dad signaled abort the launch, one particular asshole chief tried to continue the launch, my Dad went forward to were the pilot could see him and gave the abort signal. The Pilot shut her down right there. When the pilot saw the leak, he knew that big bird would have been doomed. The particular Chief had to go see the old man himself and was gone the next day. That pilot paid my Dad back in typical sailor fashion, to a bunch of beer and fun at port call in Subic Bay.
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 10:16:38 PM EDT
This is what I want to build, if only I could afford the turbines for it......







All photos are of the model. There is a guy working on bring this kit back specifically made for turbines. This was an early kit, no longer in production, that was for ducted fan use.
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 10:21:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2005 10:23:13 PM EDT by SorryOciffer]
The realism getting into these jets models is insane.

This is a model of ARFCOM's favorate J.O.A.T.

www.dreamworksrc.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=2&products_id=392

Take a look at the pic blown up....
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 10:29:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

"On 13 December 1960, Navy test pilots Commander Leroy Heath and Lieutenant Larry Monroe took their Vigilante to Mach 2.1 and then nosed it up into a climb that brought it to a record 27,750 meters (91,000 feet). At that altitude, the aircraft was no longer aerodynamic and tumbled onto its back as it fell down the far side of the arc, the engines flamed out in the thin atmosphere. However, such problems had been encountered in practice flights leading up to the attempt. Heath simply neutralized the controls; once the Vigilante reached thicker air halfway through its fall, it naturally adopted a nose-down attitude, and Heath was able to relight the engines. "




Pretty sure I'd need new shorts after that little adventure.

Sheep
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 11:00:41 PM EDT
Shit loads of them parked at DMAFB during the 70's. Wonder if they're all cut up now. I'll look for some pic's (pretty sure I took some of them).
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 11:07:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GunnyG:

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/airwolf144/ra5c-5.jpg


WHOA!!! Thanks for the flash back!!! I used to live in the barracks right behind that aircraft!!

I did a google search for the NSA Millington website, and found this...


What is the history of.....
What’s the story behind the static aircraft in front of the Joe Dugger Fitness Center?

The Vigilante A3J/A-5 aircraft is a Navy Reconnaissance Attack plane (RA5C) produced by the North American Rockwell Company of Columbus, Ohio. This particular plane, bureau number 156608, was removed from active inventory on Nov. 20, 1979. The nose number, 610, was assigned by the air wing, and the tail letters, “NE,” were those of Pacific Fleet Air Wing Two. At that time it was the largest aircraft ever operated routinely from the deck of of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. Its first deployment was to Vietnam in 1964, and the height of its use was during that war in the years 1964-73. This aircraft was last operated by Reconnaissance Attack Squadron Seven while deployed to WestPac on USS Ranger (CVA-61.)
The “Vigilante” original design and purpose was as a long-range nuclear delivery platform operated from aircraft carriers. This plane had a mach two-- twice the speed of sound--capability. The weapon was carried internally in a “linear” bomb bay between the two engines, and it was ejected rearward. Extra fuel tanks were also carried in the bomb bay.
When the reconnaissance Vigilante was produced with many recon packages both external and in the bomb bay, the speed was limited to just over the speed of sound. Some of the recon packages included many camera types and flasher pods for night photo work. There was also an in-flight refueling system that could be carried in the bomb bay.
—Contributed by Lt. Cmdr. John Williams, USN (Ret.)
www.nsamidsouth.navy.mil/publications/bluejacket/2002/bj020613.htm



Of course, in '84 the piece of land referred to as being the fitness center was occupied by the chow hall....

Gunny(never stood "Plane Watch")G




I was at NAS Memphis in 83 and remember it in front of the mess hall.
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 11:08:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Noname:
Wonder if they're all cut up now.



Yep, with the exception of museum pieces and a few on poll displays, they are now history. Phased out fully in 1979.
Link Posted: 7/18/2005 11:31:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2005 11:31:45 PM EDT by ARDunstan]
The Vigilante was also one of the very few Navy aircraft that
tested dark green and tan or gray camouflage during the Vietnam war.
It was abandoned when it was realized that the AAA gunners could
acquire and track the plane more easily than with the traditional gull gray
and white camo.



Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top