North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante (2024)

* The rapid evolution of aircraft design in the 1950s led to new aircrafttypes with sleek lines and impressive performance. One such aircraft was theNorth American A-5/RA-5 "Vigilante". The Vigilante was designed as acarrier-based strategic nuclear bomber, but would see action over Vietnam asa fast reconnaissance aircraft. This document provides a history anddescription of the Vigilante. A list of illustrations credits is included atthe end.

[1] ORIGINS / A3J-1 (A-5A)

* In the postwar period, the US Navy was determined to obtain a nuclearstrike capability, first acquiring the North American AJ "Savage" and DouglasA-3 "Skywarrior" bombers. These were both subsonic aircraft, and sinceaircraft design was evolving quickly at the time, both soon became obsoletefor the missions for which they had originally been designed.

North American Aviation (NAA) felt they could provide a more capable nuclearstrike platform, and in November 1953 the company's Columbus, Ohio, divisionbegan a program on their own initiative using company funding to build suchan advanced carrier-based nuclear-strike bomber. The development team wasled by Frank G. Compton.

The new aircraft was originally referred to as the "North American GeneralPurpose Attack Weapon (NAGPAW)" and later given the company designation of"NA-233". After discussions with the Navy, the NAA-233 concept took shape asa twin-engine aircraft with advanced combat avionics, Mach 2 performance, andan interesting "linear bomb bay" in which a nuclear weapon was popped out thetail to give the aircraft a better chance of escaping the atomic blast.North American engineers also considered fitting the aircraft with anauxiliary rocket engine powered by jet fuel and hydrogen peroxide for anadditional burst of speed over the target area -- but the Navy didn't likethe idea of handling a nasty, toxic, reactive, and unstable substance likehydrogen peroxide on board a ship, and so it didn't happen.

* The Navy gave North American the go-ahead for two prototypes in mid-1956.The first prototype of the "YA3J-1 Vigilante", as it was formally designated,was rolled out on 16 May 1958. Initial flight was on 31 August 1958, withNorth American chief test pilot Dick Wenzel at the controls.

The Vigilante was long and sleek, with a relatively small high-mountedswept-back wing, and all-moving slab tailplanes and tailfin. The aircrafthad tricycle landing gear, with the main gear retracting into the fuselage.All three gear had single wheels and retracted forward, with the main gearrotating 90 degrees during retraction to fit into the wheel wells. TheVigilante was powered by twin General Electric YJ79-GE-2 engines, with enginebays made mostly of titanium, and covered with gold film to reflect heat.The aircraft had a large fuel capacity to give it long range and permitextended flight in afterburner.

The aircraft achieved good low-speed landing performance through the use oflarge flaps. The ailerons were eliminated to make room for the flaps, withroll control provided by differential movement of the tailplanes and aninnovative scheme of spoilers. There were three spoilers on each wing, justforward of the rear flight control surfaces. There were actually spoilers oneach surface of the wing, with a spoiler on one surface hinged at the frontmatched to a spoiler on the other hinged at the rear; when a spoiler wasdeployed, it formed a "vent" of sorts through the wing. The two topsideinboard spoilers were hinged at the front, while the topside outboard spoilerwas hinged at the rear. A "boundary layer control (BLC)" scheme wasincorporated, in which air bled from the engines was automatically blown overthe flaps when they were extended, in order to lower landing speed.

The wingtips folded up for carrier hangar storage. North American hadconsidered twin tailfins to meet the height restrictions of a carrier hangardeck, but although such a configuration is common now, it was too bold forthe Navy at the time. North American went with a single tall tailfin thatfolded to one side.

The Vigilante featured a long list of new technologies, including wing skinsmade of aluminum-lithium alloy; critical structures made of titanium;variable ramp engine inlets; a windshield of stretched acrylics; and aretractable mid-air refueling probe. The two crewmen flew in tandem co*ckpitswith individual "clamshell" canopies, sitting in North American HS-1rocket-boosted ejection seats. The pilot could control ejection for bothcrewmen, though the back-seater could also eject on his own if necessary.

While the pilot had a good forward view, the "bombardier-navigator" in theback seat had only a small window to each side. Originally, North Americanengineers hadn't intended to provide any windows for the back-seater, onthe assumption that he would be able to see his displays better in the darkand would be protected from nuclear flash -- but feedback on the idea fromprospective bombardier-navigators was very negative. The engineers added thetwo little windows as a concession.

The Vigilante had the advanced North American Autonetics "AN/ASB-12 BombDirecting Set", which included:

• A multi-mode radar. The nose radome had a power mechanism to allow it to pivot upward, not only for service access but to reduce the aircraft's "footprint" when stowed in a carrier hangar. The radar unit itself pivoted downward for service when the nose was lifted.
• A radar computer with an associated "Pilot's Projected Display Indicator (PPDI)" one of the first "head-up displays" to be fitted to an operational aircraft.
• A TV camera under the nose for daylight target sighting, with the imagery passed to the pilot's PPDI and the back-seater's radar display.
• A "Radar-Equipped Inertial Navigation System (REINS)", based on technologies developed for the unsuccessful Navaho intercontinental cruise missile.
• A digital computer system designated the "Versatile Digital Analyzer (VERDAN)" -- which some prankster redefined as "Very Effective Replacement for a Dumb-Ass Navigator". It was one of the first solid-state computer systems ever fitted to an aircraft.

The Vigilante was also one of the first aircraft to have a "fly-by-wire"electronic flight control system.

* The second prototype flew in November 1958. The flight test program wentwell, though the second prototype was lost on 3 June 1959 when its hydraulicand electrical systems failed. The crew presumably survived, sources notmentioning any fatalities associated with the accident.

The first production "A3J-1" Vigilante flew in 1960. Production aircraftwere progressively fitted with more powerful J79 engine variants, leading toJ79-GE-8 engines, with 48.5 kN (4,945 kgp / 10,900 lbf) dry thrust and 75.6kN (7,710 kgp / 17,000 lbf) afterburning thrust. These were the same enginesused on many of the Navy's McDonnell Douglas F4H-1 (F-4B) Phantom fighter,simplifying logistics and maintenance.

Carrier trials began in July 1960. To promote the Vigilante with the USCongress, the Navy also established several speed and altitude records withthe aircraft. On 13 December 1960, Navy test pilots Commander Leroy Heathand Lieutenant Larry Monroe took their Vigilante to Mach 2.1 and then nosedit up into a climb that brought it to a record 27,750 meters (91,000 feet).At that altitude, the aircraft was no longer aerodynamic and tumbled onto itsback as it fell down the far side of the arc, with the engines flaming out inthe thin atmosphere. However, such problems had been encountered in practiceflights leading up to the attempt, and the flight crew knew what to expect.Heath simply neutralized the controls; once the Vigilante reached thicker airhalfway through its fall, it naturally adopted a nose-down attitude, andHeath was able to relight the engines.

[2] VIGILANTE INTO SERVICE

* Deliveries of the A3J-1 to operational units began in 1961, with lastdeliveries of the type in 1963. By that time it had been redesignated the"A-5A", due to a Defense Department decision to come up with a commondesignation scheme for all US military aircraft, implemented in September1962.

Carrier air group commanders were not entirely pleased with the Vigilante.Although the aircraft had excellent performance and the airframe provedreliable, it was full of "bleeding edge" electronic technologies and was amaintenance headache. During the testing phase, the VERDAN computer had a"mean time between failure (MTBF)" of 15 minutes! However, within a fewyears the computer's MTBF was up to a reasonable 240 hours.

The Vigilante was also something of a handful to land on a carrier, since itwas not only big but also very sleek and "hot". On a hard landing, theaircraft would "bounce", with the nosewheel tire popping and tearing apart onthe second strike to shed pieces of rubber into the engines. In addition,the nosewheel strut proved weak and had to be reinforced. Some Vigilantepilots claimed that the aircraft's reputation for being difficult to land wasexaggerated, but did admit that it was unforgiving. The aircraft acquired areputation as something of a beast that required particular skill to fly, andof course Vigilante pilots were not quick to disagree. Egos were involved,which could be big and antagonistic in the male-oriented, hyper-competitiveNavy Air culture.

Fighter pilots of course tended to look down on the big bomber, comparing itto an elephant, though apparently at least as much for the wild sounds madeby the Vigilante's twin J79s when they were throttled up or down duringlanding approach, with jokers suggesting that the beast sounded like it wasin heat. Leroy Heath, back in fleet service, picked up the comparison andran with it, naming his Vigilante the PASSIONATE PACHYDERM. He also bought awind-up toy elephant, painted the PACHYDERM's aircraft number "701" on itsside, and took to setting it on strolls across the closed-circuit TV camerathat gave the pilot ready rooms a view of carrier-deck landings.

One A-5A pilot, Lieutenant Commander Ken Enney, decided to fight back moreaggressively by "bouncing" a Vought Crusader fighter. The fighter piloteventually called out over radio: "I can't get rid of this guy!" This setoff quite a buzz among the flight crews -- though Enney himself lateradmitted that his Vigilante was lightly loaded, and that he could only havegotten away with such a stunt at altitudes above 6,000 meters (20,000 feet).

The US Navy was the only military user of the Vigilante, but in late 1962,one A-5A was loaned by the Navy to the US National Aeronautics & SpaceAdministration for research into supersonic transport (SST) technology --specifically, to determine how an SST would operate in a normal commercialair traffic environment. 21 flights were performed over a year's time, andthen the machine was returned to the Navy.

* By this time the last A-5As were delivered to the fleet, there was nointerest in using the Vigilante for nuclear strike, or even conventionalattack. Partly the issue was political, partly it was technical.

The political issue was that the Navy's Polaris submarines were coming online, and the Navy decided to focus on Polaris as the service's strategicnuclear strike weapon. The Vigilante development program cost about $200million USD in contemporary dollars, with the pricetag of each aircraftrising to about $10 million USD, and the Navy felt that their other existingstrike aircraft, such as the new Grumman Intruder, were more cost-effectivefor conventional strike missions.

The technical issue was that the Vigilante wasn't looking very promising inthe strike role anyway. The linear bomb bay scheme sounded nice on paper,but it was a nightmare in practice. The bomb bay tube ran up the fuselagebetween the engines, and since it was much longer the nuclear store,expendable fuel tanks were tacked on in the rear of the store. During astrike, the entire assembly was popped out the tail with an explosivecartridge driving it down launch rails. Not only did the scheme proveunreliable, the store also tended to "draft" behind the aircraft, preventingthe pilot from laying it down accurately.

The linear bomb bay would never actually be used for weapons delivery inpractice. Incidentally, the nuclear store assembly that was held in thelinear bomb bay on the A-5A could be replaced by a large buddy refueling packfor probe-and-drogue refueling. This item appears to have seen little or nooperational use, probably because the Vigilante wasn't cost-effective in thetanker role either -- in comparison with, say, a KA-3 Skywarrior.

The Vigilante, in short, had become an expensive aircraft without a clearmission. However, instead of simply dumping it, the US Navy decided that theVigilante should be used for a different mission, the fast reconnaissancerole. That would prove a wise decision.

[3] A-5B / RA-5C

* The decision to develop the Vigilante strictly as a reconnaissance aircraftwas taken at a time when efforts were already being made to enhance itsattack abilities, as well as adapt it to the reconnaissance mission. Animproved attack variant, the "A3J-2" (later "A-5B"), and a reconnaissanceversion, the "RA-5C", were both built.

Work began on the A-5B in 1961, with the first example flying at the end ofApril 1962. The most visible change from the A-5A was a modified "humpback"fuselage that offered a substantial increase in fuel capacity. Longer andwider flaps were fitted, as well as a new BLC scheme, in which high-pressureengine bleed was fed to the front of the wing instead of the back. Fourstores pylons were fitted, two under each wing, each with a load capabilityof up to 950 kilograms (2,000 pounds). The engine inlet ducts were alsomodified, and the brakes were improved to handle the increase in aircraftweight.

18 A-5Bs were ordered -- but by the time the first of them was flying, theNavy had given up on the Vigilante as a bomber. Only six A-5Bs werecompleted. They were used in an interim training role for the reconnaissanceversion, the RA-5C, and never reached fleet service. The remaining twelvemachines in the batch were completed as RA-5Cs.

* The RA-5C was developed in parallel with the A-5B, and first flew on 30June 1962. The RA-5C incorporated all the new features of the A-5B, such asthe humpback fuselage, the big flaps, and the leading-edge BLC system. Thenew BLC scheme proved a little tricky, since it required more engine power.Since the RA-5C was substantially heavier than the A-5A, once the BLC systemwas engaged the aircraft lost power and tended to drop abruptly.

The tunnel-store system was retained, and in fact it appears that the RA-5Cwas still capable of carrying the old primary store train, and could also befitted with the four stores pylons. In practice, however, the RA-5C wasnever armed.

The major difference from the A-5B was the RA-5C's equipment fit, whichfeatured a suite of reconnaissance gear that was state-of-the-art for thetime. The TV camera under the nose became part of the reconnaissance suite,but most of the gear was carried in a long slender "canoe" on the bottom ofthe aircraft's fuselage, running from the nose gear back towards the tail.The reconnaissance suite consisted of the following sensor systems, listedfrom front to rear:

• KA-51A/B forward-looking oblique angle film camera.
• KA-50A, KA-51A, or KA-62A vertical film camera.
• Passive electronics countermeasures (PECM) antenna for the AN/ALQ-61 Electronic Reconnaissance System. The AN/ALQ-61 was an "electronic intelligence (ELINT)" system that would pick up radar emissions and pin down their coordinates, frequency, and pulse pattern. The ELINT data was recorded on magnetic tape, with storage capacity for 112 minutes of continuous ELINT observations.
• Various combinations of panoramic, vertical, or oblique film cameras. Camera fit included KA-58A panoramic camera for medium- to high-altitude work, or a KA-57A panoramic camera for low-altitude work. The cameras shot through prisms in the canoe that could be pivoted to permit shots straight down or from side to side.
• AN/AAS-21 infrared sensor, which could provide a continuous film strip of thermal targets, such as hidden trucks, over a field of view 140 degrees wide.
• Antenna for the Westinghouse AN/APD-7 "side looking airborne radar (SLAR)" system, which shot radar pulses out to the side of the aircraft and stored the return echo on a long film strip, permitting all-weather, day-night imaging.
• Another PECM antenna for the AN/ALQ-21 system.

An electronic strobe flash pod, powered by a spinner on its tail, could becarried under one wing to provide illumination for night reconnaissance. Thesensor systems on the RA-5C worked in conjunction to bring back a flood ofinformation from a reconnaissance mission, stored on magnetic tape andphotographic film.

The RA-5C's reconnaissance systems were under control of the back-seater, whowas designated the "reconnaissance-attack navigator (RAN)". The AN/ASB-12system was retained, to be used for navigation and camera targeting.

An RA-5C's mission was conducted by an aircraft carrier's "IntegratedOperational Intelligence Center (IOIC)". Electronic intelligence expertsstudied the information stored on magnetic tape, while the film was passedthrough a one-hour film processing system, which at the time was a classifiedsystem. The processed film was then inspected by photographic intelligencespecialists.

 ___________________________________________________________________ NORTH AMERICAN RA-5C VIGILANTE: ___________________________________________________________________ wingspan: 16.2 meters (53 feet 2 inches) wing area: 70.05 sq_meters (754 sq_feet) length: 23.3 meters (76 feet 7 inches) height: 5.9 meters (19 feet 5 inches) empty weight: 17,000 kilograms (37,500 pounds) max loaded weight: 36,100 kilograms (79,600 pounds) maximum speed: 2,125 KPH (1,320 MPH / 1,150 KT) service ceiling: 15,900 meters (52,100 feet) range: 3,300 kilometers (2,050 MI / 1,785 NMI) ___________________________________________________________________

The RA-5C entered fleet service in 1964. 43 RA-5Cs were built, following the12 A-5Bs that had been completed as RA-5Cs. After this batch of 43 wascompleted, the 43 surviving A-5As and A-5Bs were rebuilt to RA-5C standard,and the production line was shut down.

The RA-5C proved so useful in Vietnam that the Navy ordered 46 more RA-5Cs in1968. Only 36 were actually completed, however, the last rolling off theproduction line in August 1970. This final batch featured J79-GE-10 engineswith 79.46 kN (8,100 kgp / 17,860 lbf) afterburning thrust, as well as aleading-edge wing extension trailing back from the air intakes, plus slightlymodified air intakes. By this time, the RA-5C had plenty of power and it wasno longer such a handful on carrier deck landings. These were the lastVigilantes built.

* North American proposed advanced versions of the Vigilante to the US AirForce an interceptors. One, known as the "Retaliator", added a liquid-fuelrocket engine to the two J79s, but the Air Force didn't pursue the concept.

Later, in 1972, in response to an Air Force requirement for an advancedinterceptor, North American proposed adding a third J79 engine in the centerbay and arming the "NR-349", as the new aircraft was designated, with sixAIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles. The Air Force didn't follow up on thatconcept, either.

[4] VIGILANTE IN OPERATION

* After the RA-5C's introduction to fleet service in 1964, the aircraft wasalmost immediately sent into combat over Southeast Asia, with the firstreconnaissance missions flown in August 1964. Initially, the Navy was soconcerned about the secrets of the Vigilante falling into enemy hands thatoperations of the aircraft were restricted to South Vietnam -- but an assetis no good if it can't be used, and the Vigilante was soon sent north.

RA-5Cs were used to observe enemy troop concentrations and movements; obtainpre-strike information on a target and post-strike evaluations on the sametarget; and, in one large-scale endeavor early in the war, obtain imageryfor the construction of detailed maps of all of South and North Vietnam.

The RA-5C was generally the last aircraft launched from a carrier during anoperations cycle, since it was one of the fastest aircraft the Navy had. TheVigilante was heavier than the F-4 Phantom but used the same engines, so theRA-5C had a poorer thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-4, making itunderpowered on paper. However, the Vigilante always flew "clean",unencumbered by external stores, which was never the case for acombat-configured F-4. The Navy assigned F-4s to protect the valuable RA-5Csfrom North Vietnamese MiGs, as well as provide additional "eyes", since aVigilante pilot's rear view was nonexistent. F-4 pilots often had to call tothe Vigilante pilots to slow down so the fighter could keep up.

Once over enemy territory, the Vigilante flew continuously in fullafterburner, keeping above Mach 1 at all times. It would fly into the targetarea at an altitude of 2,100 to 2,400 meters (7,000 to 8,000 feet), and couldin many cases use its oblique cameras and other reconnaissance gear to obtaininformation without flying directly over the target. The aircraft was fastand agile for its size, and was able to dodge surface-to-air missiles (SAM)on many occasions.

A number of Vigilantes were painted in disruptive camouflage schemes for atime, but such colors were really only a defense while flying at low altitudeagainst enemy fighters attacking from above. Since the Vigi could generallyoutrun enemy interceptors that wasn't a big problem, and at high altitude thecamouflage simply made the aircraft more visible. The paint scheme revertedto the neat standard light gray topside and white underneath.

The electronic strobe system devised for the Vigilante was not generally usedin combat, since it attracted too much unwanted attention. During nightmissions, infrared and SLAR were used instead. Veterans say that the strobewas used a few times in 1967 for low-level night missions over HaiphongHarbor, but that the "flights drew a lot of flak until the point at which theflashers were turned on, when the amount of flak became incredible." Theimagery results using the strobe were poor and did not indicate that anythingunusual was going on under the cover of darkness, so the low-level strobemissions were given up.

Although the optical cameras in the sensor suite worked reliably, theelectronic sensor systems proved troublesome under operational conditions.One Vigilante squadron circulated a fake advertisem*nt for the "RA-5CVigilanTOY", saying: "You can't afford to buy less than a dozen -- that wayyou can have one to fly while the others are being repaired." However, someVigilante ground crew say that the problem was not so much the reliability ofthe gear as inadequate training of the techs, who often simply did not knowhow to keep the systems running.

The old tunnel store system, now reduced to accommodating fuel tanks, wasalso sometimes a source of trouble. On a few occasions, the fuel tanks cameloose during catapult shots, smashing through the tail cone to fall back onthe deck, causing a fire. In most cases, the fire was quickly extinguishedand the Vigilante was not much the worse for wear, but at least one went outof control and was lost in such an incident, the two flight crew punching outsuccessfully.

* 18 RA-5Cs were lost in combat during the war, giving it the highest lossrate of any Navy aircraft in the conflict. 13 Vigilantes were shot down byflak, two were shot down by SAMs, one was shot down by a MiG-21, and theother two were lost to unknown causes over enemy territory.

The loss rate was high because the missions were unusually hazardous.Vigilantes were used for both pre-strike and post-strike reconnaissance.Pre-strike missions were relatively safe, but the North Vietnamese quicklyrealized after a target was bombed a reconnaissance aircraft would soonarrive to evaluate the damage, and so post-strike missions were generallyconducted in the face of an enemy that was thoroughly alert and waiting.Vigilantes flying post-strike reconnaissance missions tried to follow thestrike elements in just after the last bombs fell to reduce the risk.

Only 9 of the 36 of the aircrew shot down were rescued, with others eitherkilled or taken prisoner. In one case, the rescue was a grim adventure likesomething out of an action movie. Lieutenant JG Francis Prendergast was theback-seat RAN on an RA-5C that was shot down over North Vietnam on 9 March1967. According to one version of the story -- there are other versions thatdiffer slightly in details -- he was captured near the seashore by NorthVietnamese militiamen, with two of them assigned to guard him. One was armedwith a rifle, the other with Prendergast's own 0.38-caliber revolver,standard equipment for aircrew and carried externally in a shoulder holster.

Prendergast carried the revolver with the first two chambers unloaded as asafety measure, and as a backup also had a small 0.22 caliber automaticpistol hidden inside his flight suit. When a rescue helicopter and supportaircraft showed up, strafing drove off all the North Vietnamese except theguards, who felt safer staying with Prendergast than running for cover.

That proved a fatal mistake. While the two North Vietnamese were distractedby the noise and confusion, Prendergast pulled out the little automatic,co*cked it, and shot the militiaman with the rifle in the head. The othermilitiaman tried to shoot Prendergast with the revolver, only to find thatthe hammer fell on an empty cylinder, and was shot himself an instant later.Prendergast swam out to the rescue helicopter and was retrieved.

* As the war wound down in the mid-1970s, so did Vigilante reconnaissancesquadrons. With the aircraft out of production, obtaining spares becameincreasingly difficult, and so did keeping a complicated machine like theRA-5C flying. The Navy also increasingly regarded a dedicated reconnaissanceaircraft as something of a luxury, preferring to fit fighter-attack aircraftwith reconnaissance pods, trading capability for operational flexibility.

Vigilante squadrons began to be disbanded in 1974, and by 1979, the Vigilantewas out of service. Most were sent to the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AirForce Base in Arizona. A number were used as nonflying targets, includingone that was used a target for the Tomahawk cruise missile whose destructionis documented in a well-known video.

A total of 156 Vigilantes was built, including prototypes. A number areknown to survive as gate guards and static museum exhibits, including one atthe Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida; another at the INTREPIDAir-Sea-Space Museum in New York City; a third at the Pima Air Museum inArizona; two more at the Naval Air Test & Evaluation Center Museum atPatuxent River, Maryland; one at the Sanford, Florida, airport; and one atwhat used to be the Subic Bay naval base in the Philippines.

[5] COMMENTS, SOURCES, & REVISION HISTORY

* It's always a bit troublesome when writing up a Navy aircraft to have toconvert the designation from the old-style ("A3J-1") designation to thenew-style ("A-5A") designation. This particular decision came down fromDefense Secretary Robert McNamara and his aides, the "Whiz Kids", and isstill slightly controversial.

McNamara and his Whiz Kids were, and remain, thoroughly despised by themilitary establishment for their attempts to apply corporate and academicbureaucratic methods to military affairs. They tended to be condescending tothe military brass -- who admittedly could be hidebound fossils to deal with-- and they've never been forgotten or forgiven. The designation change isrumored to have come down because McNamara embarrassed himself in ahigh-level briefing by confusing Navy and Air Force aircraft types.

Personally, I tend to be sympathetic to the change, since except for havingto translate version numbers from old to new, I find it much less confusing.Navy partisans are quick to point out that the old Navy designation schemewas a bit more informative. Either way, it's an indication of the bitternessfelt towards McNamara that this minor issue is still a source of complaint.

* Being a bookish sort and absolutely an aviation hobbyist, I make nopretensions of being very much like a combat-jet jock. However, I have toadmit that after reading about Leroy Heath's pranks with his toy "pachyderm"I had to think: "Now this is my sorta guy!"

As it turned out, Leroy Heath's daughter, Mary Jo Heath, surfed the internetand came across an earlier version of this document; she contacted me to saythat she was planning on using excerpts from it at Leroy's 80th birthdaycelebration, before his death in 2003. Mark Monroe, the son of Larry Monroe,Heath's copilot on the altitude-breaking flights, also contacted me later fora chat. It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it.

* Sources include:

• A/RA-5 VIGILANTE, by Terry Love, Squadron/Signal Publications Mini In Action Series Number 3, 1995. The v1.0 version of this document was essentially an outline of this publication.
• "North American Rockwell A3J (A-5) Vigilante" by M. Hill Goodspeed, WINGS OF FAME, Volume 19 (2000), 38:103. The v1.1 version of this document owed much to this article.

* Illustrations details:

• BANNER: North American RA-5C Vigilante / 1976 / US Navy
• XA3J-1 Vigilante prototype / North American
• A3J-1 / A-5A Vigilante at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center / 1962 / NASA
• North American RA-5C Vigilante / 1962 / US Navy
• RA-5C reconnaissance pallet detail, Midway Museum, San Diego CA / 2007 / author
• NA-349 manufacturer's model / North American Rockwell
• North American RA-5C Vigilante / 1979 / US Navy
• North American RA-5C at Midway Museum, San Diego CA / 2007 / authorl* Revision history:

   v1.0 / 01 mar 99 v1.1 / 01 may 01 / Major update. v1.2 / 01 jun 01 / Typo corrections. v1.2.1 / 01 dec 01 / Review & polish. v1.2.2 / 01 dec 03 / Review & polish. v1.2.3 / 01 dec 05 / Review & polish. v1.2.4 / 01 jun 06 / Review & polish. v1.2.5 / 01 apr 07 / Comments on strobe use as per Rod Anderson. v1.2.6 / 01 mar 09 / Review & polish. v1.2.7 / 01 feb 11 / Review & polish. v1.2.8 / 01 jan 13 / Review & polish. v1.2.9 / 01 dec 14 / Review & polish. v1.3.0 / 01 nov 16 / Review & polish. v1.3.1 / 01 jul 18 / Review & polish. v1.4.0 / 01 jun 20 / Minor rearrangement, new illustrations. v1.4.1 / 01 dec 21 / Review & polish. v1.4.2 / 01 oct 23 / Review & polish.

  BACK_TO_TOP

  INDEX | SITEMAP| GOOGLE| UPDATES| BLOG| CONTACT| $Donate?| HOME