EKA-3 "Whale"

[Mike71]

50, 000 lb max trap weight, Cambered Leading Edge wing/slats ("CLEO" wing), full flaps (36 deg) speedbrakes out, approach power -123 KIAS with an "donut" in the indexer. unfortunately a lot of the stuff in the Alpha/Virtavia aircraft cfg is a mixture of B-66 and A-3 stuff as well as some nonsense.

Full flaps on an A-3 was 36 degrees, no intermediate positions except a STOP feature - 1/2 flaps selected with STOP for SE approaches.

The Virtavia model has the improved CLEO full LE slats, which, like the A-4 were totally aerodynamic - no connection to flap position, only responding to angle of attack. Their simulation is not perfect, but reasonable.

Seems like you are making a gliding approach. speedbrakes in, maybe flaring - DON'T FLARE!! DRAG the airplane on approach - typically only 10% above stall speed in the real world, flying the back side of the power curve with the boards OUT! On speed, the hookpoint should be level or lower than the MLG - you DO NOT take a cut in a jet - you land with approach power at approach rate of descent. At touchdown, you go full power and retract the speedbrakes simultaneously; if you caught a wire, you ain't a-goin' ANYWHERE! Otherwise, your engines spool to full power quickly and the boards are in for a bolter with adequate speed. If you trap, pull throttles to idle and the gear tugs the plane aft to create slack so the hook can be raised (on signal from the director), followed by wingfold and taxi clear of he landing area (both on signal).

I think a long term solution to this decent model is to break it up into several different aircraft - I am starting with the KA-3B. The aircraft.cfg files need to be different. For one thing, fuel capacities are different, as well as tank arrangements. Also, flap position and lift factors need changing to get proper speeds. Also annotations as to max weights for airfield vs carrier ops.

I should caveat my comment about jets (and E-2/C-2) taking a cut - this is for an Angle Deck Carrier; early jets on straight deck Carriers did take a cut, there was no bolter capability. Also, for a barricade arrestment, the plane ideally touches down short of the barricade, the LSO calls for a CUT to lessen the stress on the webbing on engagement. Obviously, no bolter option - only a waveoff option - on an approach with the barricade rigged.

On Angled Deck Carriers, we operated piston props well into the 70's at least. The S-2, C-1 and A-1 series specifically. These airplanes did take a cut to land, but on a bolter, engine acceleration and deck run required was not a problem. The turboprop E-2 and C-2 do, however, go to full power on touchdown. They do not have any speedbrakes, but engine spool up is very quick compared to a pure jet engine.

[Flapsfull]

Bjoern,

not exactly the very picture that you mentioned, but along the same lines or even better
if one likes the whale:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...A4_tanking.jpg

Though the accompanying text in wikipedia mentioned this as a publicity stunt staged for
the photograph, as this chain refueling normally isn't done.

However Wikipedia isn't always right or correct in its information.

I'm sure the knowledgeable guys like Mike71 could tell you about it
with more certainty.

Kind Regards,

Oliver

[Mike71]

Bjoern,

not exactly the very picture that you mentioned, but along the same lines or even better
if one likes the whale:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...A4_tanking.jpg

Though the accompanying text in wikipedia mentioned this as a publicity stunt staged for
the photograph, as this chain refueling normally isn't done.

However Wikipedia isn't always right or correct in its information.

I'm sure the knowledgeable guys like Mike71 could tell you about it
with more certainty.

Kind Regards,

Oliver

Yeah - just for publicity. However, tankers normally do tank other tankers - called "consolidation" - when the tanker "low" on fuel ( not much more to give away, must keep the remainder for himself), will land during the normal recovery, the oncoming tanker will top off from the offgoing tanker to keep max fuel in the air. The oncoming tanker would have burned a couple thousand pounds of fuel during taxi/launch/climb and rendezvous. Standard practice.

[Bjoern]

Bjoern,

not exactly the very picture that you mentioned, but along the same lines or even better
if one likes the whale:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...A4_tanking.jpg

Though the accompanying text in wikipedia mentioned this as a publicity stunt staged for
the photograph, as this chain refueling normally isn't done.

However Wikipedia isn't always right or correct in its information.

I'm sure the knowledgeable guys like Mike71 could tell you about it
with more certainty.

Kind Regards,

Oliver

Yeah - just for publicity. However, tankers normally do tank other tankers - called "consolidation" - when the tanker "low" on fuel ( not much more to give away, must keep the remainder for himself), will land during the normal recovery, the oncoming tanker will top off from the offgoing tanker to keep max fuel in the air. The oncoming tanker would have burned a couple thousand pounds of fuel during taxi/launch/climb and rendezvous. Standard practice.

Thanks, guys!

I dove off into the web again to find that photo, but no joy. Will upload it once I get back to my desktop PC.

Instead found a rather hilarious setup of an EA-3B sucking a poor A-4B dry: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...VQ-2_1967.jpeg
The Wikimedia page generally has some cool shots of the Whale in all its glory: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...A-3_Skywarrior

[Mike71]

Good picture, and no joke. As small as the A-4 was, it had a reasonable amount of "give" for recovery. The Whale needed about 900 lbs per pass at night, maybe 700 day. A hit on an A-4 could give him two more passes in most instances (maybe only one other plane needing fuel). The D-704 "buddy store" held 2000 lbs on its own, and internal fuel could be transferred into it.

This looks like an A-4C, not an A-4B. The B had a very short nose, the A-4C had a radar with a slightly longer nose and a discernible radome. I got a lot of time in the A-4 series, just about all of them except the A-4A.

[Bjoern]

Good picture, and no joke. As small as the A-4 was, it had a reasonable amount of "give" for recovery. The Whale needed about 900 lbs per pass at night, maybe 700 day. A hit on an A-4 could give him two more passes in most instances (maybe only one other plane needing fuel). The D-704 "buddy store" held 2000 lbs on its own, and internal fuel could be transferred into it.

This looks like an A-4C, not an A-4B. The B had a very short nose, the A-4C had a radar with a slightly longer nose and a discernible radome. I got a lot of time in the A-4 series, just about all of them except the A-4A.

But didn't such a small fuel margin put the tanker in dire straits? Who'd land first, Whale or tanker?


Any retrofitted B models?

[Mike71]

The Whale would land first; the tanker would keep a decent amount of fuel for itself - probably 3 passes max, but if he really had to help out too many airplanes, a standby tanker would have been launched off the waist in the middle of the recovery (takes two planes going around to make the time/space to shoot and button up the waist cat again). Remember - the tanker has more than 2000 lbs to give away - an A-4 could transfer about 3500 lbs total if necessary and still land with max fuel for himself. An A-7, KA-6D or KS-3, much better. Also, the tanker has flown overhead at max endurance for its whole cycle, except when it would accel out a little to 250 KIAS to refuel (standard refuel speed). In the end, the tanker lands last, and everyone knows he / she is the hero of the night if the pilot gets aboard, a little tight on fuel, on the first pass.

[Bjoern]

How often was the buddy store flown on the Scooters? The KA-6Ds were reportedly the most (ab)used airframes aboard and therefor had a rather short life, so was the standard practice putting it on older A-4s that were slated for retirement anyway?

[Mike71]

How often was the buddy store flown on the Scooters? The KA-6Ds were reportedly the most (ab)used airframes aboard and therefor had a rather short life, so was the standard practice putting it on older A-4s that were slated for retirement anyway?

First - a buddy store is a removable item; it hangs on a station with two-way plumbing. It can be moved/removed easily from any type of plane equipped to carry it - A-4 series, A-7 series, A-6 series, S-3 series, and a newer type for the F/A-18. These buddy stores were always stashed for ready use on the Hangar Deck or Flight Deck, and only took a few minutes to rig an airplane with one. A buddy store has electrical hookups to the airplane electrical system, and a small control panel that was placed in the left side console easily with a quick disconnect cannon plug. However, the hose reel is a hydraulic system, independent of the airplane, self contained within the store housing and driven by a Ram Air Turbine that turns at constant speed. I think we could get down to 220 KIAS and it would still spin fast enough, and I recall about 300 KIAS being about the max speed to stay within the RAT governing range.

On a converted ESSEX Class, there were two cases:

1 Mid-late Vietnam, arresting gear was upgraded and typically 4 plane KA-3B dets deployed on these "27 Charlie"s as strike tankers. Usually an A-4 (later A-7A or A-7B) would also launch and stay overhead as a recovery tanker for the recovery immediately following completion of that launch. A strike Whale would head out with the strike, top off the planes that would definitely need it while the strike was enroute outbound. The Whale then would hang outside the threat area, the strike would meet it on the way back, taking on fuel as needed. Depending on the size of the strike package, maybe two Whales and some A-4 or A-7s would also have buddy stores. The A-7 had no centerline station, so the D-704 was carried on the inboard starboard wing station as I recall. This station provided the plumbing to transfer aircraft fuel into the buddy store as needed.

2. In almost any case, an A-4 or A-7 would also be launched for tanker duty with a buddy store, if nothing else than to keep pilots proficient for practice tanking while waiting for recovery. A baby tanker would launch, immediately rendezvous with the off going tanker, consolidate fuel and take station at 5000 MSL and max endurance to "hawk" the recovery to help out where needed.

Large deck Carriers - when the A-6 came along, it really helped. A straight bomber could carry 4 drops plus a D-704 on the centerline station - that was a lot of gas in the air. The A-6 also took up a lot less room than an A-3 and was easier to handle on the Flight Deck and a good airplane for carrier approaches. Older A-6As were reworked into KA-6Ds by ripping out the weapons system and putting in a high capacity hose reel system in the rear fuselage. This hose system pumped gas faster than a D-704 and was very reliable. A KA-6D would also normally carry a D-704 on the centerline as a backup in case the main hose failed. A D-704 held the same amount as a standard Aero 1D 300 gal drop tank anyway - 2000 lbs. The KA-6D was around for quite awhile, extremely successful and well liked. A-6 squadrons might deploy with 10 A-6Es and 4 KA-6Ds.

The D-704 was not perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better than nothing - especially with an airwing that had F-8s and F-4s, which typically got in trouble after at most, two bolters. usually fuel pump transfer failure would be the problem, but not that big a deal. if the package was checked out right after launch and it worked during consolidation, it would stay in good shape. if a hydraulic failure occurred with the hose out, it could be guillotined - Yup! You either did that or pickled the whole store because the damage to the aircraft on deck would be considerable if a tanker landed with it extended. Same with a Whale or KA-6D or KS-3B. Hoses all could be cut. However you can't pickle an internal package from a Whale, KA-6D or KS-3B, so a major evolution of getting as much deck space cleared as possible has to be carried out before landing one of those with a trailing hose.

[Bjoern]

Wonderful info, thank you!


Guillotining unresponsive hoses is still current. Although more modern pods tend have a jackscrew mechanism or something that unscrews the hose connector to obtain a cleaner separation.

[expat]

Coincidentally have this week been "returning again" to the Skywarrior - now have it working well in P3DV4. One of Ed Heinemann's great designs. Don't mean to hijack this thread but with this rare veteran's discussion I am curious to know what altitudes ECM in SEA flew, in particular the EA-3, and nearer the end of war EA--6B aircraft? Any other info on ECM mission profiles?Also a fan of the RA-5C which I have read in Vietnam flew feet dry at 7-8,000 feet in light AB (to reduce smoke) usually with an F-4 on its wing.Thanks!

[PhantomTweak]

I hope the Phantom flying wing was in AB 1 too, or there would have been SMOKE!
We all know how much the Phantom smoked. A LOT!
Good ol' Smokin' Joe
Pat☺

[Mike71]

Sorry, but I do not know to much about ECM profiles, but most likely very target - subject oriented. maybe some web searches might reveal some sea stories.

The RA-5C was a magnificent airplane - a true "STAR SHIP", and probably the most beautiful airplane I have ever flown formation on; truly awesome to look at from any angle.

Unfortunately, they suffered incredible losses over the North (something like 18 out of 60 as I recall). Flying pre-and post strike missions required a run in at high speed and low altitude, full burner over the target, snapping photos the whole way, many times at night, popping flash bulbs like popcorn. The Phantom went in only on the first part of the run so the Viggie would not get jumped by a MiG. The RA-5C crew was too busy setting up their photo gear and route to be pre-occupied with looking for enemy aircraft. They would both go in toward the coast in basic engine, but once they approached "'Injun' Territory" the F-4 stayed back, the Viggie hit burner and headed down hill toward its photo run. Coming back out across the coast it would usually join up with it's F-4 escort again. often an A-4/A-7/A-3 tanker would be orbiting between the Carrier and the coast to give the returning flight some gas if needed (usually did!).

Tweaker is right - an RA-5 and F-4 flying together in basic engine is a hell of a lot of smoke, especially at lower altitudes!

The Viggie was probably the most difficult plane we had to operate from a carrier. It had very advanced, but analog, systems that were maintenance intensive. It was very large, heavy, and making safe carrier approaches was no easy task. getting slow and developing too high a sink rate was the typical cause of several fatal "ramp strikes". It certainly was not underpowered - it was fast as hell. An F-4 could never keep up with it in full burner.

However, like any high performance airplane flying in landing configuration at critically low speed, just a little deceleration results in a rapidly developing sink rate that takes a large power addition to overcome, and the pilot starts overcorrecting and everything goes to hell. he starts getting fast and high on the ball, sucks too much power, starts to get slow and settling, etc. The LSO is helping on the radio, the pilot (and his RAN!) are sweating bullets, the ship's Captain on the bridge, the Air Boss and squadron CO are sucking up their seat cushions watching all this as it transpires. The Flight Deck Chief is praying for it all to just come out OK, he only needs a couple of more years to retire. At night, a bunch of young sailors working the various jobs on deck are thinking "what the hell did I get myself in to?? I could be at the drive in with my girlfriend, rather than risking getting killed out here!".

Everyone held their breath and watched the PLAT when an RA-5C was on final at night. In my day, the very few newly designated Aviators who went to RA-5s were in the top of their classes. Likely they wanted to go to F-4s or F-8s, but as is always the case in the military, the order is "needs of the service/training performance/personal request".

[Bjoern]

Were the losses combat related or operational?

Great writeup, as usual!

I think the RA-5 would have benefitted from variable geometry wings, not only for better low speed handling, but also in terms of looks.


- E:

Here's a great A3J training video. It sure was space age technology back in the day.
But those engine gauges on the left hand side...oh dear!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dwtO38HmlM

[Mike71]

There were 91 total RA-5Cs, some rebuilt from original A3Js. 60 deployed to Vietnam at various times, in 4 plane dets. They only operated from large deck Carriers, so their exposure was less than typical VA and VF squadrons (the numerous ESSEX 27 Charlies used RF-8Gs). Also remember, the cold war in the Atlantic Fleet required their deployed presence as well. There were 18 combat losses. Several other losses were operational accidents.

As you see in the A3J film, the RA-5C had much improved looks due to the streamlined dorsal hump, which added fuel.

Engine gauges on the left side of the instrument panel, forward of the throttles, is typical for single pilot military jets in my experience.

As to variable sweep - this idea was in the works for many years, but requires a heavy carry-through wing center section structure. Eventually it was refined in the TFX/F-111/F-14 program, but we must remember that the A3J was developed in the era of Hudsons and Studebakers!

[Bjoern]

As you see in the A3J film, the RA-5C had much improved looks due to the streamlined dorsal hump, which added fuel.

Well, the recce "canoe" below the fuselage negated that advantage a bit.

Still, I find the large wing a bit off-putting, but that's purely subjective.

Engine gauges on the left side of the instrument panel, forward of the throttles, is typical for single pilot military jets in my experience.

F-4s, F-16s and just about most other planes have them on the right. Probably because the pilot in command sits on the left in twin-seaters. Hence my surprise.

As to variable sweep - this idea was in the works for many years, but requires a heavy carry-through wing center section structure. Eventually it was refined in the TFX/F-111/F-14 program, but we must remember that the A3J was developed in the era of Hudsons and Studebakers!

Fair enough.

[Mike71]

[QUOTE]
F-4s, F-16s and just about most other planes have them on the right. Probably because the pilot in command sits on the left in twin-seaters. Hence my surprise.
QUOTE]

I'm getting senile; starboard/right is typical

[Bjoern]

I'm getting senile; starboard/right is typical

Apparently not as much as you think. Take a look at this:
http://www.antsairplanes.com/screenshots/t28d/BC03.jpg
https://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraf...ps_f-8a_02.jpg
https://www.avsim.com/pages/0506/F4D/007.jpg
http://a4skyhawk.info/sites/default/...4b-cockpit.jpg

It seems like the Navy air arm tried really, really hard to be more than the shipborne USAF prior to ~1960? I can't find any aircraft with left-hand engine indicators afterward.

[Mike71]

See my above --

[MrZippy]

Sorry to jump in so late! Speaking of Whales and Viggies..I have 2 shots taken on my 1969 Med Cruise aboard Saratoga. I was with VAH-10 and the Viggie was
with RVAH-1. Sorry, these were Polaroids (latest and greatest at the time!).

[Mike71]

As anyone who ever has seen them on deck, they all took up a lot of room!

Polaroids or not, you did capture some history. Last I saw of SARA she was a chalking hulk at a storage pier near Newport RI, but believe she was towed down to the Texas Gulf in the recent past.

[MrZippy]

As anyone who ever has seen them on deck, they all took up a lot of room!

Polaroids or not, you did capture some history. Last I saw of SARA she was a chalking hulk at a storage pier near Newport RI, but believe she was towed down to the Texas Gulf in the recent past.

Very true, Mike. Sara's a coral reef somewhere off the Atlantic coast. They didn't call her "The sucking 60 from Dixie" for nothing I did get one flight
on one of our Whales. We were flying what we called "spins". The whale was the first launch and flew up to tanking altitude to top off the returning
Phantoms, Corsairs, and Intruders so they had enough in case of botlers while trying to land. The whale landed at the end of that recovery and gassed up
for the next launch.

Charlie

[Mike71]

Yeah, SARA got screwed due to poor funding in the FORRESTAL Class SLEP program, had lots of propulsion problems, many because of poor work in SLEP in the old Philly Navy Yard. She had some good COs though, later VADM Bob Dunn being the best of them IMHO.

That type of tanker cycle was also referred to as a "YOYO" tanker as well. Problem at night, for the last recovery, was occasionally the pilot would get tired / a little rattled and start boltering himself. SOOOooo - who saves the tanker?? Pull one out of the pack, man up and shoot it off the waist in the middle of a recovery (the bow cats are normally clobbered during a recovery). Done it a couple of times myself. Of course I NEVER boltered (wink), but many of my close personal friends occasionally did.

[Bjoern]

Since it happens to be on my second monitor at the moment, here's that AAR matroshka. And I found where I originally got it from:
https://zona-militar.com/foros/threa....9997/page-152


(Kudos to the original photographer. Hard to get such a gread shot.)

[MrZippy]

I kinda like this daisy-chain too!