![]() ![]() Initial design and wind tunnel testing led to the mockup inspection in September 1958. These exhaust outlets angled down 23 degrees for short-field or carrier take-offs and landings without producing undesirable pitching moments. A unique feature of Grumman's design that played a role in its selection was tilting exhaust nozzles on the mid-fuselage J52 engines. The first Intruder featured long span flaps, tilting exhaust nozzles and black speed brakes which opened into the retracted tail pipes' exhaust. But if a warplane should sport aggressive lines, especially when carrying its lethal weapons, the Intruder measured up with a beauty all its own. With its engines and exhaust nozzles at mid-fuselage instead of at the rear end, an ample cockpit canopy over the crew and a bulbous radome nose, it was often described as being pointed at the wrong end. The Grumman A-6 Intruder could never have won a beauty contest. The adage "form follows function" is appropriate in the Intruder's case. Extensive internal changes and replacement of the original wings with new composite construction made little difference in the basic external appearance - once some initial design quirks were ironed out. The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Air Warfare) staff, the Bureau of Aeronautics (BUAER) personnel who prepared the type specification for the airplane's design, and the Grumman team who put together the winning proposal all played a part in creating a configuration that remained almost unchanged through 30 years of production. Grumman's proposal was selected in December 1957, with contract go-ahead for the now designated A2F-1 early in 1958. Would require the winning contractor to be responsible for the totally integrated weapon system.Įight companies submitted 11 designs, ranging from turboprop-powered designs to a supersonic jet and a vertical/short takeoff and landing airplane. Typically, various system components and equipment, such as the engines, would be Navy procured and furnished and the proposed contract With range and short-field/carrier takeoff and landing requirements, either jet or turboprop engines would be acceptable in the design. Early in 1957, BUAER set forth the demanding mission and operating performance requirements, along with appropriate current design features, such as ejection seats for the aircrew. The complex avionics would require a second crewman for its effective use.Īn operational requirement was established by the office of the Chief of Naval Operations in 1956 for an all-weather tactical airplane, combining the carrier attack mission with the Marines' close-support, short-field capability. However, their limitations - including no all-weather attack systems in the A4D and the adverse impact of the A3D's large size in carrier operations - led to studies showing that the application of new avionics technology could produce a carrier-based, all-weather attack aircraft capable of long-range conventional or nuclear strike missionsįlown at low terrain clearance altitudes, below radar interception. Both of these attack types were designed for nuclear strike missions, as well as being capable of delivering conventional ordnance. These ranged from the smallest attack jet - the A4D (A-4) Skyhawk-through various fighters, to the long-range, heavy attack A3D (A-3) Skywarrior. Meanwhile, the Navy was introducing the first of a new generation of jet carrier aircraft. By the mid-1950s, the Marine Corps defined its need for an all-weather close support airplane capable of operating from the shortest possible expeditionary field runways. The Navy's Korean War experience, with no jet all-weather strike capability and limited carrier air group night or all-weather effectiveness, prompted research on avionics systems to overcome this deficiency.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |