airfix 1/72 RA-5C

[PR19_Kit]

.....and lead the hose through a retractable arm that lowers it well below the jet nozzles before paying it out. Closed up, it'd have no more drag that the RA-5C's canoe fairing.

Thatr's how the Fletcher wing pods some airforces use on the 707 work. Neat idea to retract theboom into the Vigi's canoe, I like it.

How come the USN never did make a tanker Vigi anyway? With all four wing tanks it could have carried a fair load of fuel.

[GTX]

Try something like this:



Regards,

Greg

[B777LR]

.....and lead the hose through a retractable arm that lowers it well below the jet nozzles before paying it out. Closed up, it'd have no more drag that the RA-5C's canoe fairing.

Thatr's how the Fletcher wing pods some airforces use on the 707 work. Neat idea to retract theboom into the Vigi's canoe, I like it.

Similar to the boom on the French KC-135s?

[B777LR]

How come the USN never did make a tanker Vigi anyway? With all four wing tanks it could have carried a fair load of fuel.

Looking at the wiki page, the A-6 is was introduced only 2 years later, carried twice the payload at more than twice the range...

[elmayerle]

I should point out that the existing refueling setup on the Vigilante was successfully trialed and cleared without the problems mentioned here.  There's a great pic in the Ginter book of of one A3J-1 with the buddy refueling system refueling another A3J-1, also with a buddy refueling system, refueling yet a third A3J-1.  I could see a KA-5C for when you need a refueler that can get in and out faster than a KA-6D.

[elmayerle]

If you're going for a re-engined Vigi, keep the two engines and upgarde to a pair of PW1120s or, somewhat more modern, a pair of F414s (though those would most definitely require some careful installation to deal with cg issues with the shorter engines).  If I can get hold of the nozzles from a 1/100 F-15, I can do reasonable 1/72 PW1120 nozzles using some other bits and pieces.

Hi Evan!,

that's more or less what I have in mind for an upgraded Vigi, use PW1120's, I've already got the 1/100 scale F-15 nozzles in safekeeping. Mine will be a one off testbed developed as part of a 80's proposal for the RAAF as the "Vigilante 2000" to upgrade RAAF Vigi's in my "RA-5C in RAAF service theme". It will feature a new, carbon fibre wing and the Norden synthetic aperture radar intended for the Phantom 2000, however the whole program becomes a costly fiasco and is abandoned when first the USAF kills off the Phantom 2000, then Israel cancels the Lavi, leaving the RAAF as the only customer for both radar and engines.

Later this is superseded by a less ambitious proposal that zero hours the wings, adds F414 engines and the radar from the Super Hornet as the "Super Vigilante".

Given the problems that the carbon-composite wing for the A-6 gave the USN (it's seems it was much stiffer than the original wing and dumped a lot more aero loads into the fuselage.  I suspect that was one reason the A-6F was cancelled (that the A-6F was to have F404s built under license by P&W, and they managed to produce the first F404 ever to stall, probably didn't help either)).  THe differences in weight and length of the F414 vs the J79 will likely require some upgrades to the Vigi's flight control system.  *chuckle* Going from engines with gearboxes mounted on them for accessory drives to engines that take a power takeoff shaft to an airframe mounted accessory drive (AMAD) gearbox will take a bit of redesign that would be subtly seen on the underside of the Vigi (let me know if you wnat to go to that much deail and I'll see what I can work up for you).

[B777LR]

I should point out that the existing refueling setup on the Vigilante was successfully trialed and cleared without the problems mentioned here.  There's a great pic in the Ginter book of of one A3J-1 with the buddy refueling system refueling another A3J-1, also with a buddy refueling system, refueling yet a third A3J-1.  I could see a KA-5C for when you need a refueler that can get in and out faster than a KA-6D.

Why would you need a refueler to get anywhere fast? A tanker should always stay out of harms way

[Weaver]

My immediate thought is what about the jetwash? The drogue might bounce around too much in the turbulence, and/or the reciever might drift sideways whilst connected, thus dragging the pipe into the exhaust flow. My inclination would be to put the HDU at the front of the former bomb bay and lead the hose through a retractable arm that lowers it well below the jet nozzles before paying it out. Closed up, it'd have no more drag that the RA-5C's canoe fairing.

I was thinking that myself, after thinking the idea through a little. If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting something rather like the buddy refueling pack proposed for the TSR-2, as illustrated in the SAM book? That would seem the logical way to go. I will add that idea to my list of options for my RAAF Vigi theme.  



Duncan

I'll take your word for it, since I don't have the book. Kit correctly identified my inspiration:

Thatr's how the Fletcher wing pods some airforces use on the 707 work. Neat idea to retract theboom into the Vigi's canoe, I like it.

How come the USN never did make a tanker Vigi anyway? With all four wing tanks it could have carried a fair load of fuel.

And GTX's pic shows a similar system.

 

[elmayerle]

I should point out that the existing refueling setup on the Vigilante was successfully trialed and cleared without the problems mentioned here.  There's a great pic in the Ginter book of of one A3J-1 with the buddy refueling system refueling another A3J-1, also with a buddy refueling system, refueling yet a third A3J-1.  I could see a KA-5C for when you need a refueler that can get in and out faster than a KA-6D.

Why would you need a refueler to get anywhere fast? A tanker should always stay out of harms way

I'm thinking either a tanker that can get out there quickly when needed or one that can travel with the fast-movers as close to the target as feasible and tank 'em up before retreating to either a safe distance, back to the carrier, or to another tanker, or two, to be prepared to top off the returning strike.

[B777LR]

I should point out that the existing refueling setup on the Vigilante was successfully trialed and cleared without the problems mentioned here.  There's a great pic in the Ginter book of of one A3J-1 with the buddy refueling system refueling another A3J-1, also with a buddy refueling system, refueling yet a third A3J-1.  I could see a KA-5C for when you need a refueler that can get in and out faster than a KA-6D.

Why would you need a refueler to get anywhere fast? A tanker should always stay out of harms way

I'm thinking either a tanker that can get out there quickly when needed or one that can travel with the fast-movers as close to the target as feasible and tank 'em up before retreating to either a safe distance, back to the carrier, or to another tanker, or two, to be prepared to top off the returning strike.

I would say that any mission requiring that would be a badly planned mission. A fully loaded fighter will have problems going fast anyway, so the A-6 could also keep up with those...

[Weaver]

Sometimes, emergencies will leave a fast mover short of fuel when short of safe airspace, and a decision has to be made whether or not to send a tanker into harm's way to save it. It's an easier decision to make if the tanker can outrun a goodly proportion of the harm that comes it's way.

I recall that in the first Gulf War, British fast jet crews noted how the Victor tankers were more willing to take risks than the Tristars.

[GTX]

I should point out that the existing refueling setup on the Vigilante was successfully trialed and cleared without the problems mentioned here.  There's a great pic in the Ginter book of of one A3J-1 with the buddy refueling system refueling another A3J-1, also with a buddy refueling system, refueling yet a third A3J-1.  I could see a KA-5C for when you need a refueler that can get in and out faster than a KA-6D.

Why would you need a refueler to get anywhere fast? A tanker should always stay out of harms way

I'm thinking either a tanker that can get out there quickly when needed or one that can travel with the fast-movers as close to the target as feasible and tank 'em up before retreating to either a safe distance, back to the carrier, or to another tanker, or two, to be prepared to top off the returning strike.

I would say that any mission requiring that would be a badly planned mission. A fully loaded fighter will have problems going fast anyway, so the A-6 could also keep up with those...

Easy way of dealing with that in the Whiffverse - have the A-6 not enter service and thus the Vigi undertakes the role.

Regards,

Greg