NR-349 - A Tri-Jet Interceptor thats a modification of a attack aircraft
Posted by Specific-Memory1756@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 76 comments
Posted by Specific-Memory1756@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 76 comments
ArgumentFree9318@reddit
Was the center engined drawing air from the side intakes?
jocax188723@reddit
Ah yes, the 'Vigilante but stuff the nuke chute with an engine'
zalurker@reddit
The Nuke Chute was so unreliable that they never used it operationally, Instead it was fitted with fuel tanks. There were three reported instances where the force of the catapult launch forced the tanks out the rear of the plane.
ArgumentFree9318@reddit
... reverse supository?...
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
The nuke chute held two tanks and a nuke. When bombing, they'd eject all of them in one go. That was as designed.
WarthogOsl@reddit
So your target gets free fuel tanks...briefly.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Dropping fuel tanks is a tradition going all the way back to WWII. It's the first thing you do with fighters before you engage others.
WarthogOsl@reddit
Um yeah, but they usually don't also come with a nuke. So you get to briefly enjoy your free fuel tank and then a moment later are vaporized.
Porschenut914@reddit
theyd presumably be empty so you could get back home.
Balmung60@reddit
I'm sure vacating rear chutes is a common occurrence on carrier takeoff and landing
zalurker@reddit
Especially if you are on deck while that is happening.
Balmung60@reddit
Have you ever heard of a pilot whose callsign wound up being STAB?
So you know how pilots are sometimes in the air for hours and sometimes nature calls? Yeah, sometimes shitting your flight suit is a thing that happens, and this guy did. Well, then he's coming home for a landing and fails to catch a wire and shits himself again before coming back around and landing the second time.
So they called him STAB for Shit Twice And Boltered.
mcm87@reddit
I once met a SHOAT. Shit himself over Afghanistan, twice.
Virtual_Area8230@reddit
It was a nuke. Of COURSE they never used it operationally. Same with the F-105's bomb bay.
willem_79@reddit
Just read about it and holy shit.
NoDoze-@reddit
Vigilante? I was thinking F111. I like the three row of Phoenix, looks cool, all business.
NullNeptune0@reddit
I hope the engine didn’t get dumped by accident like the nukes sometimes did
GlockAF@reddit
Simple, put the highest time / lowest TBO engine in the middle
Night_Chicken@reddit
So, the super-duper nuke pooper became a triple motor missile toter?
GlockAF@reddit
Oops! All AIM -54 Phoenix!
Raguleader@reddit
That was the proposal. In practice, it became a supersonic recon bird.
T65Bx@reddit
You mean a fast-flying photo fanatic?
404-skill_not_found@reddit
The Retaliator
Which, if I’m not paying attention, comes out like realtor.
ambientocclusion@reddit
When dropping nukes, its location, location, location
404-skill_not_found@reddit
You have a point!
atxbikenbus@reddit
"but stuff" takes on a whole new meaning.
SpruceGoose__@reddit
Close enough, welcome back Swatcats!!!
Spo_0n@reddit
the third engine is actually a motorcycle.
JimmyB_52@reddit
The TurboKat was so damn cool
NullNeptune0@reddit
Wasn’t Swatcats a F-14 that had been tricked out?
wintrmt3@reddit
The Turbokat was made from scrap they found on a scrapheap.
TheFlyingRedFox@reddit
How I wish that left the drawing boards.
teddyc88@reddit
Fund the program
NTolerance@reddit
You know what makes this bird go up?
Funding. Funding makes this bird go up.
sojuz151@reddit
Biggest advantage i can think of is that you can shut down one or two engines to save fuel
Gadgetman_1@reddit
Interceptors aren't about saving fuel. They're all about speed; getting to a point where they can intercept an enemy formation as soon as possible, and preferably before they can get close enough to their target to launch whatever they carry.
reddituserperson1122@reddit
Loiter time was always a major factor for navy interceptors starting with the F-111B. So that would have been a useful feature.
LordofSpheres@reddit
The F-111B wasn't an interceptor, it was a fleet defense fighter, because supersonic bombers and long-range nuclear cruise missiles began to mean that speed wouldn't be enough to defend the fleet, leading to the emphasis on loiter time that really began with the F-6D Missileer. The death of the interceptor is what lead to the emphasis on loiter time, loiter time didn't get added to interceptors.
reddituserperson1122@reddit
lol dude you’re embarrassing yourself. Give up. “Fleet Defense Fighter” is the term the Navy used for all of its mainline tactical anti-air aircraft. The Missileer — an incredibly slow airplane with zero BFM ability — was also a “Fleet Defense Fighter” as was TFX and Tomcat. The F-111B is an interceptor. Right there in the first line of the Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia not a good enough source for you? How about this? https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/tr/ADA547500
“Though the F-4 Phantom II interceptor set numerous world records starting in 1958, the Navy immediately started looking for a supplemental replacement fighter aircraft for fleet defense. Experience had shown that any aircraft would only last for a few years as a fleet defense bird and the F-4 was scheduled to take operational effect in 1960. The F-4 was a superior fighter aircraft, but it had poor loiter times and needed a tanker and more circuits to provide continuous fleet defense.”
Hey look it’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along.
That paper I linked is an excellent read. If reading isn’t your strong suit, watch this. https://youtu.be/FlNifUIqns8
LordofSpheres@reddit
You know what the Navy didn't call the F4D? A Fleet Defense Fighter. Because it was an interceptor. You know what the Navy didn't call the XF4H? A Fleet Defense Fighter. Because it was an interceptor. You know what the Navy didn't call the F-8? A fleet defense fighter. Gee, I fucking wonder why. Here's the Navy not calling the F-111B an interceptor in mission or description. And yet they call the F4D an interceptor. Funny how that works out, huh?
Could it possibly, possibly be because the term "Fleet Defense Fighter" was developed to describe how the F6D, and the programs that followed in its wake like TFX and the F-14, were different from the interceptors the Navy already had? Here's a fun distinction for you - The F-14D is both a fleet air defense fighter and a deck-launched interceptor. But how can that be, since they're apparently the same fucking role with no meaningful difference for the Navy, and every Navy fighter ever was a fleet air defense fighter?
Did you watch the video you linked? Because I already have. What does he discuss? Oh, right... how the Navy's demands shifted from interceptors to fleet air defense fighters with long loiter times. Gee fucking willikers.
But all of this is besides the point, because... none of the evidence you've provided disputes my point at all. To do that, you'd have to demonstrate two things: That the term "Fleet Air Defense" fighter wasn't newly applied to the F6D, and that the F-111B was called an interceptor by the Navy in their documentation at the time. Which you haven't done. The video and paper don't show that in any way. By all means, prove me wrong, I'm happy to learn - but you have to prove me wrong, not just pull irrelevant citations out and pretend you're not proving a different, irrelevant point instead of the one I'm raising.
Embarrassing.
reddituserperson1122@reddit
lol peak Reddit cope. It’s an interceptor. That’s its function. That’s how every aviation source and expert describes it. If there’s any distinction it’s about the distinction between land-based point defense aircraft and carrier aviation’s need for increased loiter time. This whole argument started because I said loiter time was a key consideration for the development of navy interceptors from the F-111 on. It was.
If you think a US Navy term-of-art from the 1960s magically makes it not an interceptor I’ve got some excursions and special military operations I’d love to sell you.
LordofSpheres@reddit
That's not how the Navy describes it, is it?
Because the role was different because it wasn't just an interceptor.
Which, if you could read... you'd know.
This whole fucking discussion is about terminology of the time, dude. It's the fundamental disagreement that spawned your first comment: Gadgetman pointed out that interceptors didn't care about fuel time, you said they did, and then brought up aircraft that were developed once interceptors had been eschewed for FAD planes with longer loiter time. I point out that you shouldn't call them interceptors, because the Navy didn't, because the role is different (interceptors are scrambled, FADs were intended to be in the air before threat detection). You provide evidence that supports my point and call them interceptors anyways.
Please, learn to read. The F-111B was a fleet air defense fighter which was intended to be in the air when the AWACS picked up the enemy. So was the F-14. So, especially, was the F6D.
reddituserperson1122@reddit
You seem to think FADs are a real thing. And I’m saying it’s an internal term of art that no one who matters cares about decades later. If you look through military history you can find hundreds of these faddish terms used by a single service for a few years. “Pursuit fighters?” Fighters. “Scout bombers?” Attack aircraft. “Destroyer escorts?” Frigates. Don’t get me started on “pocket battleships.”
The job of an interceptor is to rapidly climb and dash to intercept enemy bombers before they’re in range of the their target.
Is the job of a FAD to intercept enemy bombers before they’re in range of their target? Yes. They’re interceptors.
I have no doubt that there’s an army manual out there that describes the M-4 as a “personal ordinance projection system.” If you want to claim that means it’s not a gun, and that makes you feel smart, who am I to stop you?
The rest of us don’t give a shit.
LordofSpheres@reddit
God, I wonder who else thought the FAD was a real thing. Could it be the fucking Navy?
Roles determine doctrine and define the plane. Guess what? All those faddish terms you don't give a shit about? They were real and mattered and helped define a role. Just because you're too stupid to care about the history and the difference between them doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.
Fuck off now.
alettriste@reddit
Looking at soviet union interceptors or f104 BTW, I would say that speed WAS the major factor. Bomber attacks (in the 50s) would be by waves, so go up kill as much as you can and then, good luck. The movie Fail Safe (1964?) seem to make that point
reddituserperson1122@reddit
Those were land-based — very different considerations.
alettriste@reddit
Well it has an "air force" sign on it..
Gadgetman_1@reddit
Yes, it's useful, but not the most important factor. Being able to get there and do the job is always the most important factor. Getting the plane back is just a bonus. and extra fuel means extra weight which slows it down.
During WWII, (before they 'closed the gap in the Atlantic) they put catapult ramps on large cargo ships and launched fighters off them in order to stop the German Condor planes from reporting the position of the convoy. The planes could not be recovered, and whether or not the pilot could was... mostly up to chance. A float plane could have been used, but I'm not aware of any allied floatplane type fighters. The closest I can think of was the Northrop N-3PB Nomad, and they were limited to 250mph, and with just the .50" caliber forward facing guns, probably wouldn't even have dented the Condors. Not that they would ever have made it into range.
reddituserperson1122@reddit
By the 1960's the Soviets had supersonic bombers with supersonic AShMs. Meanwhile a carrier was limited by the number of catapults and the number of elevators, and those things break (often at the worst times) as do aircraft. When your enemy's AShM have nuclear warheads (i.e. you can't let a single missile through), hoping that you can get enough aircraft up in time to dash to meet a wave of Backfires and catch them before they launch was a very iffy proposition. That's why the Navy first wanted the Missileer, which was ALL loiter time, before the F-111 and then the Tomcat, which split the difference between dash speed and loiter time. In wartime they would have had as large a CAP as they could sustain with a follow-on force sitting on the deck ready to launch the moment the E-2s got a ping.
cleverkid@reddit
What about the Kingfisher?
Gadgetman_1@reddit
Really a pure observation plane, with a single forward facing 7.62 caliber gun,(and a single rear gun) not even a .50" and the max speed is 171Mph. Range 900miles, vas the P-3PB had 1000miles, Service Ceiling 18000', while the P-3BP did 24000'.
The Condor, which was Germany's long-range surveillance plane had a max speed of 240mph, and cruised at 208mph, at 15000'.
Crag_r@reddit
Loiter time was primarily such an issue because of design concessions to intercept speed.
Anyway, the 349 was a design for the air force, not navy.
Raguleader@reddit
Yep, why waste time getting off the deck and into the air when you can start at or above the altitude of the attackers?
ctesibius@reddit
That would be a point interceptor like the Me163 or the EE Lightning. If you’re doing interceptions out in the GIUK Gap, fuel economy matters, particularly for getting back.
zalurker@reddit
You all do know that some engineer had definitely drafted the design of a variant that swapped the middle engine out with a rocket booster...
ChocolateCrisps@reddit
The regular Vigi did have that proposed - idea was that the rocket motor could be fitted to the 'stores train' that carried the bomb, and ejected over the target along with the bomb and the fuel tanks.
According to George Spangenberg:
They gave up on that idea pretty quick!
murphsmodels@reddit
Nobody else getting "Colonial Viper Mark Zero" vibes?
WarthogOsl@reddit
I've actually wondered if they were a bit inspired by this.
Orthography_is_godly@reddit
"that's "
euanmorse@reddit
Where would they store the 5 litres of fuel?
cloudubious@reddit
Is that a 3 engined A5 with Aim-54?
haniblecter@reddit
listen to your boner. what does it whisper?
Lirdon@reddit
Yup.
SkitariusOfMars@reddit
Tri-engine jets would’ve been so cool
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
A-5, one of the most beautiful aircraft of the 60s. The machine just looks 'fast' and beautiful with that wing and intakes.
QuickSandwhich@reddit
Was this just supposed to be a dedicated platform for Phoenix missiles?
captainwacky91@reddit
That's a lot of weight.
jaddodd@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-5_Vigilante
Very good article, it seems very advanced for it's time and was the first US air raft with the slanted engine air intakes of so many subsequent fighters.
Does anyone have any accounts of what was it like to fly operationally?
AcidaliaPlanitia@reddit
Given the era, armament and mission, I guess you could say this thing is loaded for Bear.
waldo--pepper@reddit
Any idea how they engineered the third intake? That was the question I was going to ask. So I thought I bet I could find out without bothering people. The pictures at these links tell all.
https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234908343-a-north-american-vigilante-interceptor-nr-349-adc/
https://www.hyperscale.com/2011/features/nr349pb_1.htm
hc37_126@reddit
wait if even the center is an engine where tf would fuel be
Icy-Dealer7033@reddit
Dorsal hump, drop tanks, wings, there's a lot of places you can store fuel
Swisskommando@reddit
Flight time: 20 minutes
Acc87@reddit
The AIM-54 probably had a longer range than the jet itself
OkSatisfaction9850@reddit
The L-1011 version of fighter aircraft
Merker6@reddit
Surprised you would add the weight of another engine and just forgo it entirely for the normal fuel storage that they’d typically carry instead. Three engines seems like it’d really impede the range of the plane with what was probably a comparatively small increase in top speed