A-6 seating (was: Typhoons and raptors)

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:02:04 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

If the brits really expected the EF to be a fighter/bomber I
doubt they would have put the canards so far forward that they obscure
the ground. They prolly would have been farther back, as they are in the
rafale.

Not that much of an issue for high-risk jobs, surely? (After all, what
was the view like out of side-by-side strikers like the F-111 and A-6?
Fine to one side, but to the right you're trying to see through the
other crewman's helmet)

It's been a long time since I read "Flight of the Intruder" but I seem to
remember something about the BN's seat being lower and maybe further back
than the pilots. Anyone know for sure?

[cross-posted to RAMN added for an authoritative answer]

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:12:29 GMT, Yeff wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:02:04 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

If the brits really expected the EF to be a fighter/bomber I
doubt they would have put the canards so far forward that they obscure
the ground. They prolly would have been farther back, as they are in the
rafale.

Not that much of an issue for high-risk jobs, surely? (After all, what
was the view like out of side-by-side strikers like the F-111 and A-6?
Fine to one side, but to the right you're trying to see through the
other crewman's helmet)

It's been a long time since I read "Flight of the Intruder" but I seem to
remember something about the BN's seat being lower and maybe further back
than the pilots. Anyone know for sure?

[cross-posted to RAMN added for an authoritative answer]

The EF is showing a bit of techno-regression if they let something as
simple as canards or fuselage metalwork interfere with the view. They
need to talk to the F-35 folks about those skin mounted vid-cams and
integrated seamless helmet display to allow the intrepid aviator to
simply look through the body apparently.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Yeff wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:02:04 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

If the brits really expected the EF to be a fighter/bomber I
doubt they would have put the canards so far forward that they obscure
the ground. They prolly would have been farther back, as they are in the
rafale.

Not that much of an issue for high-risk jobs, surely? (After all, what
was the view like out of side-by-side strikers like the F-111 and A-6?
Fine to one side, but to the right you're trying to see through the
other crewman's helmet)

It's been a long time since I read "Flight of the Intruder" but I seem to
remember something about the BN's seat being lower and maybe further back
than the pilots. Anyone know for sure?

[cross-posted to RAMN added for an authoritative answer]

--
Very true. On the A-6 the B/N sat lower and further back.
The same arrangement was also carried over to the EA-6B.
Cheers,
Ralph

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

On the A-6 the B/N sat lower and further back.

Ever so slightly, though. One never really noticed it - or cared worth a fig.

Owl sends
--

Mike Kanze

"You know how they say that after a while people start to look like their pets? Well, we're starting to look like Iraq - a bunch of warring political tribes incapable of acting in common for the greater good."

- Thomas L. Friedman


"Ralph_S" wrote in message ups.com...

Yeff wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:02:04 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

If the brits really expected the EF to be a fighter/bomber I
doubt they would have put the canards so far forward that they obscure
the ground. They prolly would have been farther back, as they are in the
rafale.

Not that much of an issue for high-risk jobs, surely? (After all, what
was the view like out of side-by-side strikers like the F-111 and A-6?
Fine to one side, but to the right you're trying to see through the
other crewman's helmet)

It's been a long time since I read "Flight of the Intruder" but I seem to
remember something about the BN's seat being lower and maybe further back
than the pilots. Anyone know for sure?

[cross-posted to RAMN added for an authoritative answer]

--
Very true. On the A-6 the B/N sat lower and further back.
The same arrangement was also carried over to the EA-6B.
Cheers,
Ralph

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

Mike Kanze wrote:
On the A-6 the B/N sat lower and further back.

Ever so slightly, though. One never really noticed it - or cared worth a fig.

Owl sends
--

Mike Kanze

Indeed, only a few inches, in order to improve the pilot's field of
view to his right. I can imagine the reason for not really noticing it
being that you simply were used to it. It is quite noticible in
practically all pictures of the A-6. Check out this one for instance.

http://uscockpits.com/Later%20Attack...20Blk%201A.jpg
Since the lateral spacing between both crewmembers was quite limited,
having a different arrangement would have impaired the view quite a
bit.

Cheers,
Ralph

Very true. On the A-6 the B/N sat lower and further back.
The same arrangement was also carried over to the EA-6B.
Cheers,
Ralph

-Jeff B.

And on the 'grandaddy' of them all, the A3D/A-3 Skywarrior of 1952, the
B/N also sat about 9" to the rear of the pilot, but on the same level in
a larger, 'house' cockpit. Although there was 12" between the seats and
a center console with throttles and many other switches in there (entry
was from the center lower hatch,) the prime reason for the offset was
the removeable and substantial size ASB-1A bombing computer which filled
the space to the pressure bulkhead and was connected to an optical
periscope through the bottom of the a/c. The B/N's left view was also
obscured as the gunner/navigator sat behind the pilot, rear facing. His
panel for the rear gun radar was replaced with ECM gear in 1962, the
rear 20mm guns and radome were replaced with the "duck-tail" ECM antenna
fairing. I'd say we all had good visibility, and we landed with the
upper hatch open.
Joel McEachen VAH-5

Ralph_S wrote:
Mike Kanze wrote:

On the A-6 the B/N sat lower and further back.
Ever so slightly, though. One never really noticed it - or cared worth a fig.
Owl sends
--
Mike Kanze

Indeed, only a few inches, in order to improve the pilot's field of
view to his right. I can imagine the reason for not really noticing it
being that you simply were used to it. It is quite noticible in
practically all pictures of the A-6. Check out this one for instance.

http://uscockpits.com/Later%20Attack...20Blk%201A.jpg
Since the lateral spacing between both crewmembers was quite limited,
having a different arrangement would have impaired the view quite a
bit.
Cheers, Ralph

Very true. On the A-6 the B/N sat lower and further back.
The same arrangement was also carried over to the EA-6B.
Cheers,
Ralph

-Jeff B.

J.McEachen wrote:
And on the 'grandaddy' of them all, the A3D/A-3 Skywarrior of 1952, the
B/N also sat about 9" to the rear of the pilot, but on the same level in
a larger, 'house' cockpit. Although there was 12" between the seats and
a center console with throttles and many other switches in there (entry
was from the center lower hatch,) the prime reason for the offset was
the removeable and substantial size ASB-1A bombing computer which filled
the space to the pressure bulkhead and was connected to an optical
periscope through the bottom of the a/c.

There was a similar issue with the A-6A. It had an avionics fit in
which the radar and navigation equipment were coupled to a computer.
The system was called DIANE, for Digital integrated Attack/Navigation
Equipment. The computer used a rotating drum memory. This was a rather
bulky affair, protruding into the cockpit. It basically sat between the
B/N's legs.

The B/N's left view was also
obscured as the gunner/navigator sat behind the pilot, rear facing. His
panel for the rear gun radar was replaced with ECM gear in 1962, the
rear 20mm guns and radome were replaced with the "duck-tail" ECM antenna
fairing. I'd say we all had good visibility, and we landed with the
upper hatch open.

I can imagine the fact that the crew didn't have ejection seats would
help make the cockpit seem pretty roomy ;-)



Joel McEachen VAH-5


Cheers,
Ralph