VIGILANTE FACTORY MODELS - Part 2, cool modeling treasures from North American Aviation Corporation!

Sign up for our FREE Celebrating Aviation with Mike Machat VIP Newsletter and receive new photos and exciting content twice a month!: celebratingaviation.com
PART 1 - NAA FACTORY MODELS: • FACTORY MODELS OF THE ...

[@sheph7]

Second seat was a RAN (Reconnaissance Attack Navigator), 1,000 hrs. in RA5C and never saw one fly with tanks in Vietnam or anywhere except for required proficiency training.

[@johnplaninac9980]

The models are great. Another great video.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks John!

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

I really wish that 3 engine Vigilante went into production; it's totally unique, and looks extremely cool.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Mach 3 capable.

[@yanktornado5121]

Love the Viggy and love your channel Mike 👍🏼

[@mikealexander4166]

Spent 2 days, weathered in, with Ed Gillespie back in 1997 waiting to fly him back to NAS Meridian MS so he could get a NATOPS check in the T-2C Buckeye. Ed was a retired test pilot for NAA and not only did the test series on the T-2A,B and C but did the test work on the Vigilante (Ed at the time was coming up on 50 years of flying Navy aircraft). Fascinating man and stories as well. This has always been 1 of my favorite aircraft of all times.

[@marcbrasse747]

That Na349 is something else indeed! I think the RA5C is one of the most beautiful shapes of the cold war. It almost suggest that looking right was one of the main concerns. That hump actually made it look better because it balances out the huge vertical tail, which also make it look even more like a giant seabird. They should have called it Sea Eagle or Eagle Eye.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Some say, that the MIG-25 losely copied the planform, and layout.

[@uberduberdave]

There's a few things I'd like to point out here. I'll start with the difference between Navy and Army Air Force designations. Many people have heard of such US Navy airplanes such as the PBY. The PBY was the first patrol bomber accepted by the Navy produced by Consolidated. PB stood for Patrol Bomber, Y was the company letter designator for Consolidated, Curtiss had already gotten the "C." The Navy figured that an all letter designation like "PBY," would indicate that it was the first of its type made by a specific company. Consolidated was also manufactured the Army Air Force's B-24 bomber, the Navy needed a long range bomber and reworked the B-24 into what ultimately became the PB4Y-2 Privateer. In this case, PB meant the same as in "PBY," but the Privateer was the fourth of that type made by Consolidated, the -2 meant a model change similar to the Air Force B model designation. North American started life as Berliner Joyce, so they were assigned the company letter designator "J" since Boeing had already been assigned the "B." Thus, when North American turned out it's first Navy Attack plane, it was called the AJ, its successor, the XA2J was beat out by the Douglas A3D Skywarrior, so that's how the Vigilante became the A3J. Had the Navy designation system not changed, the RA-5C would have been the A3J-3P, the P being for photo. You mention the Air Force buying the F-4 and they had. In the 1930s, they bought the Boeing F4B biplane as the P-12. Over the years, the Navy bought several aircraft designated F4. Grumman's F4F, The Vought F4U (Vultee already had the V company designator until it was absorbed by Consolidated and became Convair so Lockheed was given the V by BuAer) and the Douglas F4D Skyray, just to name a few. After WWII, many aircraft companies were struggling with military cutbacks, but the small McDonnell company was making some early jets and the Navy needed some. BuAer had given them the company designator H and they produced the FH-1 Phantom in short order, though limited amounts. The Korean War created opportunity for many military contractors and McDonnell's next airplane, the F2H Banshee shined, their next project, the F3H Demon, not so much. The Navy had contracted Westinghouse as their prime jet engine contractor, but after a couple of early successes, their engines became turkeys. The Westinghouse J40 was a disaster that nearly caused the cancelation of many promising Navy jets, the F3H Demon among them. The Demon had a slender design for the equally slender J40, but with its failure, it had to be redesigned for to accept the Allison J71, making the Demon tubby and pedestrian. McDonnell needed a hit with the next Navy fighter in the pipeline, the F4H-1 Phantom II and the US Air Force came to the rescue with the engine they developed for the B-58 Hustler, the GE J79. The J79 transformed the Phantom II into a stellar performer and everyone took notice. The Air Force sat down with McDonnell engineers and turned out their own Phantom II, even adopting the Navy's gull gray and light grey paint scheme. They dubbed the machine the F-110A Spectre, not realizing they were about to create a congressional fire storm. Political bean counters saw what they perceived as the same airplane and and they commissioned a congressional investigation into the procurement of the Phantom II, after spending a few million dollars, they made the F-110A Spectre the unofficial end of the line of the Century series fighters. Legislation required the Navy to adopt the Air Force's designation system and the Air Force had to start over from one, the reason we have C-130s and C-5s. Also, I feel a kinship to the Vigilante since my dad was part of the heavy attack community in the Navy. The Navy was very put out by the upstart Air Force getting the lion's share of the nuclear pie and heavy attack, like my dad's AJ Savage outfit at NAS Sanford was meant to lift the 10,000 pound, 8 foot wide modified "Fatman" bomb off of a carrier deck to strike the Soviet Union. The A-5A Vigilante was meant for the same basic job, I didn't see in the video where you mentioned that the bomb in the tunnel was a nuke. It would have worked beautifully had it been needed, thankfully it was not, but the airplane would go up, the bomb would slide out and arch over one way, the Vigilante would do an Immelmann and escape the blast at a very high rate of speed in the other direction. They did have an issue with the airplane being so fast it had a tendency to draft the bomb but I believe they cured that with a drogue chute. What really killed the Navy's carrier based nuclear strike mission was those bean counters in congress again. They told the Navy they could either have submarine launched ballistic missiles or carrier strike and they chose the subs. The A-5 was just too cool to outright cancel so they gave it the recce job, in the end, it was the Vigilante that discovered the Hanoi Hilton prison so that it wouldn't be accidentally bombed. All that said, I'm an avid modeler and learned about the NR-349 "Retaliator" about 15 or so years ago, it would have been a much less expensive alternative to the YF-12. But in the Cold War the Soviet Bomber force was reduced to the point that the F-106 did the job well enough on its own. Anyway, the manufacture's models are always cool...

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Great comment, thanks!

[@uberduberdave]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 I forgot to mention that the military had already used its confusing designation system to bamboozle congress. During the Korean War, the Marines love their late production Corsair, the F4U-5. That model of the Corsair could carry a truck load of rockets and bombs, with a longer loiter time to protect mud Marines in a tough fight, but they were wearing them out. Congress had an open checkbook for military procurement and the Marines asked for more Corsairs, the bureaucrats said "no, jets are the new thing, we'll give you jets." It went back and forth like that for a while and the Marines went back to Vought engineers, doubled the wing hard points, added some horsepower and designated it the AU-1. They told congressional bureaucrats they had a brand new airplane and they rubberstamped it. Speaking of Corsairs, during WWII three manufacturers made Corsairs, Vought, Goodyear and Brewster. You could three identical looking Corsairs parked side by side on the ramp, the Vought bird would be a F4U-1d (the lower case d differentiated between the "birdcage" and the bubble canopies) The Brewster was an F3A and the Goodyear was an FG. Goodyear also made the F2G "Super Corsair" with the tear drop canopy and Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major engine you've mentioned in other videos.

[@Airsally]

Cool stuff , I learn something from every vid you do. The Vigilante was ahead of its time. The F-14 & 15 barrowed from it.

[@glennweaver3014]

Wow! This Part II video is incredible. The Vigilante is another one of those aircraft that looks stunning from any angle and in any configuration. And that NA-349, Wow! what could have been. Another great one Mike.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks Glenn!

[@awritenthat]

Great , those models are tremendous . Many thanks for a very enjoyable presentation Mike .😁

[@barek257]

Thanks for the episode. Beautiful bare-metal finish on some of these models (at least as far as I could see on my small screen, while making breakfast, when Your episode premiered a few days ago, haha). Vigilante was always by far one of my favorite machines, not only (but mainly) for the looks. Slim, slender, long fuselage, with a bit flattened nose. And the trademark flush, dorsal fuselage part behind the cockpit, all up till the all-moving vertical stabilizer / stabilator. I forgot how it is called - chicken coop, or something. You told that in one of episodes about Republic Aviation, but I could not find it. It is a pity that it served so short. But it was replaced by even better F-14. As the fellow C.W. Lemoine likes to shout, here on KZbin: “T-T-TOMCATS!!” ;-)

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

'Don't know why, but that long hump behind the cockpit is referred to as the Turtle Deck.

[@barek257]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Many thanks, 😊🐢👍

[@maxsmodels]

A Vigi tri-jet? AWESOME!!!!

[@joeschenk8400]

Great models and video. If I remember right, the Monogram A-5 has a spring that launched a bomb from the tail tunnel. . I always learn something new in every video. Thanks as always.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Yes, that's correct!

[@martinpennock9430]

Great video as always! Mr Machat you've done it again. Awesome information. I never knew much about the Vigilante, but I do now. Thanks so much! Yes, that is a really neat surprise. Who knew? Anyway, can't thank you enough. As always God bless you and yours and thanks again for everything you do! Take care always Sir!

[@stevecausey545]

This is why I always grin when I see a new episode! 3 engine Viggie?....she's beautiful... Thank you again for all your efforts and for the info and grins they bring!

[@scottwhitmire6613]

Wow, Hidden History. Thanks Mike & Crew!

[@Commander-McBragg]

Hey Mike, do you think you could do one episode per day? I just can’t get enough of this. Great job!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks David, and we will soon be adding videos mid-week. Appreciate the comment!

[@stevefriswell5422]

I had never heard of the NA 349 before this, thanks for showing it.

[@Anlushac11]

Love the A-5 Vigilante. IMHO one of the most beautiful jet aircraft of its era. Built several of that Revell kit. I know it never carried underwing missiles and drop tank under the wings in combat but that never stopped a 12 year old frpm dreaming.

[@GustavoMonasterio]

One more excellent video Mike! I had never heard about a 3 engine Vigilante! Cold War times were really fascinating. Thanks for bringing this knowledge to your viewers! Greetings from Brazil! 🇧🇷

[@bbrf033]

So, there you have it. Thank you Mike; this was stellar

[@cecilpotter1229]

Outstanding, My Dad flew them for flight test for the US Navy in pax River Maryland in the early sixties.

[@Initial_Gopnik]

I used to have an EA-6B prowler factory model, got “lost” in a move, havent seen it in 10 years. I always loved looking at it, it was so frickin huge and hefty compared to my plastic kits.

[@jjojo2004]

Wow, those factory models are LARGE! 👍😎👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@ejharrop1416]

Thank you for another thoroughly enjoyable video. Packed full of very interesting facts and images. What fun it would be to sit with a small group of pilots and listen to the stories about the aircraft on display. Cheers!

[@robertjones7419]

I was stationed at NAS Key West FL. They had an A-5 on static display just inside the gate. It was painted up in the classic Navy white on top and haze grey underneath. Beautiful airplane.

[@absea7918]

Great video! It's interesting to see the evolution of thought on design and mission requirements.

[@PopsP51]

Wow Mike, that interceptor version was something else! I had never heard of it that I recall. Now I need to crack open my F-14 book and see if it is mentioned in there. Thanks for the great video!👍

[@chuck9987]

Thanks, another great video. The Vigilante was a beautiful plane. There is a striking resemblance to the proposed F-108 Rapier in the intakes and nose/main fuselage. It almost seems that the three engine NA-349 is like a Phoenix (the bird, not necessarily the missile) rising from the ashes of both the 108 and A5 programs.

[@viksaini]

The A-5 proposal for conventional attack certainly looks formidable with iron bombs and Bullpup missiles, but the interceptor version takes the cake with six Phoenix missiles!

[@bertg.6056]

Wow! The NA349 is incredible. May I assume that it is powered by three J-79s? If so, that would be unique in the annals of aviation history. Another fabulous presentation, Mike.

[@lancerevell5979]

Those missiles on the one model are the Bullpup-C, a larger longer-ranged version of the command guided AGM missile. Used in Vietnam.

[@ralf00001]

Wow that Na349 is very cool👍

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Just discovering your channel, Mike. I am a long time devotee of Wings & AP, and even had a letter published one time. I am really enjoying your content. Congrats.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks, and welcome aboard!

[@cruzcontrol1504]

number 2 at the gate...I always was into the builders of the X-15

[@findo12]

Thanks Mike. Another really interesting episode. Great information on aircraft I know very little about.

[@CraigLYoung]

Thanks for sharing 👍

[@roderickcampbell2105]

Thanks!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Greatly appreciate your support of the channel, thank you!

[@raynus1160]

Very cool. One would wonder how much of the (cancelled) XF-108's design went into all versions and proposals of the A-5, especially the interceptor.

[@Chilly_Billy]

If the Air Force had purchased the Retaliator, I doubt there ever would have been an F-111.

[@marshallwhite7324]

The coolest model ever!!!

[@zodszoo]

Super cool, really enjoyed!!

[@Crabby303]

I wonder what the projected specs were on the 3-engine proposal? Touching mach-3 maybe? Amazing, love the A3, such a great-looking aircraft - thanks for the vid :)

[@Wannes_]

4:32 isn't Shrike-like, it's a Bullpup B missile, AGM-12C

[@craiglordable]

Wow, the NA349 is slick.

[@無我-u3d]

outstanding !!!

[@Mishn0]

@4:33 Those aren't "Shrike-like anti-radiation missiles", they're AGM-12B "Bullpup" air to surface guided missiles. They had a 1000 lb warhead and were command guided by radio control by the WSO with a joystick. They were only marginally successful.

[@alexandrecaviquioli5219]

Excelente vídeo! Não sabia da proposta do Vigilante com três motores, sempre aprendendo coisas novas por aqui! Obrigado por compartilhar! Congrats from Brazil 🇧🇷

[@ElsinoreRacer]

The last production batch had LERX. Prettiest of the bunch.

[@stevenhoman2253]

The Vigilante was a very sleek and beautiful aircraft, reminiscent superficially of the British, cancelled TSR-2, to my eyes.

[@paulbervid1610]

Very nice

[@pittpattex858]

Thank you for showing these beautiful models of a striking aircraft type. Too bad that especially the A3J is so poorly served by kit manufacturers. If there was a decent 72nd scale kit I would buy 3...! That NA-349 looks vicious.

[@lancerevell5979]

As a kid decades ago, I had the 1/72 Monogram A3J kit. Later I got Hasegawa's RA-5C kit. Okay kits at the time, but very basic by today's standards.

[@Quadrant14]

@@lancerevell5979 Trumpeter kits in 1/72 and 1/48th scale are the zenith of the Vigilante at present

[@youtube.youtube.01]

Mike, those Vigilantes were highly under-rated. The swing-wing craze bit and arrested development of advanced aircraft for 10-11 years and caused many missed opportunities. If the Vigilante had been allowed to advance further, we would have had more advanced aircraft flying today. Also, the rear-missile egress systems were revisited and successful in other aircraft. To put it mildly, the US Navy and Air Force used the wrong criteria to make their choices and threw away one of their greatest vendors over a dreamy and unrealistic idea.

[@kenshores9900]

Mike: Great episode. Where do you find these models. Wasn’t there a move toward returning to aircraft that could dog fight as the result of the experience in South East Asia?

[@Monika-ft5bw]

5:24 - fuel tanks are too large in this model...

[@chuckcawthon3370]

Great Story

[@decam5329]

I think that missile is a AGM-12 Bullpup on the outer pylori.

[@ivoryjohnson4662]

I just found this one !!!

[@johnosbourn4312]

Those missiles aren't AGM-45 Shrikes, instead, those are AGM-12 Bulpups, Mike.

[@drawn2myattention641]

I can’t resist any of them. Glad I wasn’t the purchasing agent-I would’ve bought ‘em all, even if it meant another penny increase on the income tax!

[@get2dachoppa249]

Those missiles look everything like AGM-12 Bullpups, not AGM-45 Shrikes. That tri-jet version looks like a souped-up version of the Colonial Viper from Battlestar Galactica.

[@HootOwl513]

I'm wondering how a resin moldel is built? Obviously there are no premade parts. Do they carve a wooden form, then build a mold around it, then pour resin in the mold? Purely fantastic! Why was the model shop in Ohio, when the plant was in Inglewood? On the long range RA-5C, did they drop the external tanks as they were spent, or did they keep them to be refilled for the next mission? Four 300 gallon tanks create a LOT of drag. I have a conspiracy theory: that pressure from Canadian extremist groups killed the NA-349.

[@johnpinckney4979]

IIRC, didn't North American also build aircraft in Columbus? Perhaps a WWII-era factory to reduce exposure on the Pacific Coast in case of Japanese attack? Sort of like Douglas in Tulsa, Boeing in Wichita, Lockheed in Georgia? Not to mention an aid in getting Congressional support for the local product!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

@@johnpinckney4979 All of North American's Navy aircraft (AJ-1, FJ Fury, T2J Buckeye, and A3J Vigilante) were built at their Columbus, Ohio facility.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Yes, that's correct on the resin mold process, and all of North American's Navy aircraft (AJ-1, FJ Fury, T2J Buckeye, and A3J Vigilante) were built at their Columbus, Ohio facility. That photo with the four fuel tanks was a promotional shot at the factory. Actual long-range missions were flown using aerial tankers both inbound to the target and again upon return to the carrier. Thanks for watching!

[@HootOwl513]

@@johnpinckney4979 Besides Inglewood, Calif., I knew North American built Mustangs in Dallas, Tex., and Mitchells in Kansas. The Columbus, Ohio plant I was unaware of.

[@HootOwl513]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 The Columbus plant would be a lot closer to NAS Patuxent River, MD. Pax is where all new Navy birds are tested. Also home to NAVAIR, Navy Test Pilot School, and the Atlantic Test Range.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

The NA349 would have been a monster interceptor. It possibly would have eclipsed all other interceptors, in everything but fuel economy. Those three engines must be very thirsty on an intercept mission.

[@sewing1243]

NAA had always had a "Recce" version of the Vigilante planned (A3J-P3 under the old designation system) which is why they were able to start building (and converting existing aircraft) RA-5Cs almost immediately after the nuclear strike mission went away (the Navy's part of the Nuclear TRIAD was taken over by the Polaris Missile Subs). The hump was actually a change that led to a new designation of A3J-2/A-5B (along with some other changes to improve flight characteristics, especially during landings on the "boat") that was already in production at the time of the mission change to Recce. The last batch of Vigilantes built by NAA in the late 60s should have been RA-5Ds because NAA made a number of changes that should have resulted in a designation change. Politics reared its ugly head and the new aircraft remained designated as RA-5Cs Those were referred to in the Recce/Heavy Community as 156xxx series aircraft. Bonus info: The original Vigilante design and mock-up had twin tails. For reasons that have been lost over time the Navy Brass didn't want a twin tailed aircraft. Bonus #2: NAA prepared one of the new 156xxx aircraft for the Daily Mail's New York to London air race in the late 60s. NAA didn't install the Recce Canoe (closed the opening with blank panels) and "race tuned" the GE J79-10 engines for balanced and max trust for the race. The Naval Aviator chose to make the attempt in practice was consistently reaching Mach 2.5 and said that a little more time to perfect flight trim he believed the aircraft would have gone a lot faster. Nervous Navy Brass cancelled the attempt for fear of losing such an expensive aircraft.

[@joeljenkins7092]

Stylistically, the Vigilante's looks compared to its Mach 1 predecessors is comparable to when Detroit phased out tail fins, and introduced the slim-lines of the early Sixties coupes and sedans.

[@wkelly3053]

Perhaps as incredible as the Vigilante used as an interceptor was the Vigilante potentially converted to a variable geometry wing attack aircraft. An NACA/NASA report from 1966 documented the history of VG studies up to its employment on the F-111. That report describes discussions between NACA and the Navy with serious recommendations for converting the Vigilante to a VG configuration. Can anyone imagine, had that gone forward the role reversal of not the F-111B being forced on the Navy, but instead a VG Vigilante being forced on the Air Force? Consider no F-111 in that case, and furthermore a clear playing field ahead for the Navy to develop an earlier F-14-like successor to the F-4 without having to battle an Air Force airplane. Might an F-14 ‘like’ airplane have made it into the Vietnam war in a significant way? How would a VG Vigilante have weathered the AF?

[@trumanstumo1718]

Sadly i witnessed a vigilante we were testing at pax river naval air station coming in for a landing fliped over at around 40 feet above the runway killing both pilot's 😢😢

[@747-8F]

Thanks!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Belated thanks for your kind support of the channel - greatly appreciated!

[@mateostaplez7497]

Thanks!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate your supporting our channel - many thanks!