RA-3B Skywarrior in 1:72, Hasegawa

[Teeradej]

Outsanding work Hajo!

[Rich in name only]

Looks great! Outstanding job on the canopy!

I hope you can show a lot of folk and tell them the plane's story.

Did you know that a German firm (some outfit called "Messerschmidt") overhauled these?

When they did the last one they commented how their work on DC-3s was an advantage because of common parts! http://www.a3skywarrior.com/photos/--last-a-3-overhaul.html

[Hajo L.]

Thanks guys, never knew about that Messerschmidt-contract!

HAJO

[Joel_W]

Hajo,

A most impressive build with a complex paint scheme. Very nicely done.

Joel

[SERNAK]

Really nice work

[polar bear]

Excellent build! I love this camo.

[11bee]

Done! :)/>

What a big bird, hard to believe that this huge aircraft operated from carriers...

Hard to believe it did as well. It also suffered some of the highest loss rates of any Navy tactical jet. Which would be bad enough but when you realize the crew didn't have ejections seats.... :(

Great work on a very unique subject!

John

[Hajo L.]

I read that they had to bail out the old-fashioned way by getting out of the aircraft though a door in the belly...

Thanks for the kind words, I´d love to do an "E"-bird (ERA-3 or EKA-3), but at the moments these kits are rare and expensive...

HAJO

[Rich in name only]

The loss rate actually wasn't particularly different from other Navy types. The high-loss rate was in the early years during a difficult period of introduction not related to the plane. It was reportedly the most demanding to fly correctly on approach to a carrier but in skilled hands was no problem. Later, the decision to use loft-bombing created new demands for very exacting precision.

As changes were made in picking crew members for carrier ops, as experience developed, and initiation of NATOPS, the loss rate dropped substantially and became one of the lowest of carrier types.

The crew entry was through two hatches from the rear of the cockpit through the bottom. The lower hatch opened down and forward and is visible in photos. The upper hatch came down from the cockpit, lining up with lower hatch and, when closed, forming part of the cockpit floor (which crew members preferred not to stand on).

Entry was by steps built in to the hatches. Normal exit was by using those steps or sliding down.

Escape was by blowing the outer hatch (explosive bolts), dropping the upper hatch normally, and sliding out (same as F3D).

The hatch on top of the canopy was for ditching, escape on ground if the lower hatches were not usable, for the 3d crewman to stand through for visibility while taxiing (like C-124), and ventilation on the ground/deck.

The Trumpeter kit has the entry/exit hatches as separate parts but the steps are incorrect. Also, the hatches were different for the bombers vs the versions---they put version hatches on the bomber/tanker kits.

The Hasegawa kit has the lower hatch as a separate piece but without the inner sheet metal that was the slide/steps---it's ridged on the kit part. The inner hatch is scribed on the cockpit floor with the steps correctly oriented but the upper step is too close to the upper edge.

A number of crewmen have said that the lack of ejection seats probably kept the loss rate lower than it might have been. Crewmen were inclined to stay with the plane as long as possible. It is believed that crews tended to eject from B-66s rather than work to save the plane.

The plane at the Air Zoo (just the nose, actually) was in a collision with an A-7 which was lost. The A-3 landed with most of one outer wing panel gone, was repaired (wing panel replaced), and flew on with no apparent problems. It also made almost 50 flights at a stretch during one cruise with only routine servicing/maintenance.

[11bee]

The loss rate actually wasn't particularly different from other Navy types. The high-loss rate was in the early years during a difficult period of introduction not related to the plane. It was reportedly the most demanding to fly correctly on approach to a carrier but in skilled hands was no problem. Later, the decision to use loft-bombing created new demands for very exacting precision.

As changes were made in picking crew members for carrier ops, as experience developed, and initiation of NATOPS, the loss rate dropped substantially and became one of the lowest of carrier types.

The crew entry was through two hatches from the rear of the cockpit through the bottom. The lower hatch opened down and forward and is visible in photos. The upper hatch came down from the cockpit, lining up with lower hatch and, when closed, forming part of the cockpit floor (which crew members preferred not to stand on).

Entry was by steps built in to the hatches. Normal exit was by using those steps or sliding down.

Escape was by blowing the outer hatch (explosive bolts), dropping the upper hatch normally, and sliding out (same as F3D).

The hatch on top of the canopy was for ditching, escape on ground if the lower hatches were not usable, for the 3d crewman to stand through for visibility while taxiing (like C-124), and ventilation on the ground/deck.

The Trumpeter kit has the entry/exit hatches as separate parts but the steps are incorrect. Also, the hatches were different for the bombers vs the versions---they put version hatches on the bomber/tanker kits.

The Hasegawa kit has the lower hatch as a separate piece but without the inner sheet metal that was the slide/steps---it's ridged on the kit part. The inner hatch is scribed on the cockpit floor with the steps correctly oriented but the upper step is too close to the upper edge.

A number of crewmen have said that the lack of ejection seats probably kept the loss rate lower than it might have been. Crewmen were inclined to stay with the plane as long as possible. It is believed that crews tended to eject from B-66s rather than work to save the plane.

The plane at the Air Zoo (just the nose, actually) was in a collision with an A-7 which was lost. The A-3 landed with most of one outer wing panel gone, was repaired (wing panel replaced), and flew on with no apparent problems. It also made almost 50 flights at a stretch during one cruise with only routine servicing/maintenance.

The info I have (which is primarily from the new Osprey book and some online data) has the A-3 close to the top as far as percentage of the fleet lost in accidents (The Cutlass was the champ in this regard) and I believe #1 in percentage of accidents that were fatal. Not sure I buy the spiel that lack of ejection seats helped keep the loss rate down. If I remember, the British claimed the same thing in WW1 when they refused to issue parachutes to their pilots because they felt if they had a way to get out of a crashing aircraft, they would be less inclined to stay with it and try to salvage the situation! In some cases, maybe it did result in the aircraft being saved but it also definitely contributed to the much higher than average fatality rate.

As a side note and as you mention above - the initial loss rate was also due in part to the Navy's decision that multi-engine pilots, rather than fighter / attack pilots were better suited to flying the A-3. As a result, you had ex-transport / patrol pilots with very limited carrier experience trying to land a very challenging jet on those small carriers. Pretty much a prescription for bad things to happen. Once they modified their crew selection criteria, the loss rate did improve (a bit).

Edited May 1, 2015 by 11bee