|
Description
| Manufacturer: | Douglas | |
| Base model: | A-3 | |
| Designation: | A-3 | |
| Version: | A | |
| Nickname: | Skywarrior | |
| Designation System: | U.S. Tri-Service | |
| Designation Period: | 1962-Present | |
| Basic role: | Attack | |
| See Also: | ||
Specifications
| Length: | 76' 4" | 23.2 m | |
| Height: | 22' 9" | 6.9 m | |
| Wingspan: | 72' 6" | 22.1 m | |
| Wingarea: | 812.0 sq ft | 75.4 sq m | |
| Empty Weight: | 39,409 lb | 17,872 kg | |
| Gross Weight: | 70,000 lb | 31,746 kg | |
| Max Weight: | 82,000 lb | 37,188 kg | |
Propulsion
| No. of Engines: | 2 | ||
| Powerplant: | Pratt & Whitney J57-P-10 | ||
| Thrust (each): | 12,400 lb | 5,623 kg | |
Performance
| Range: | 2,100 miles | 3,381 km | |
| Cruise Speed: | 520 mph | 837 km/h | 452 kt |
| Max Speed: | 610 mph | 982 km/h | 530 kt |
| Ceiling: | 41,000 ft | 12,496 m | |
Examples of this type may be found at
| Museum | City | State |
| New England Air Museum | Windsor Locks | Connecticut |
A-3A on display
New England Air Museum |
Recent comments by our visitors
| W Jackson , IN | Seems like an informative site that I would normally add to my bookmarks...but I can't handle the conspiracy crap. A shame. 06/09/2008 @ 17:58 [ref: 21217] |
| air force ones boys , AL | Very helpful, thanks!! discount air force 1 05/22/2008 @ 09:12 [ref: 20980] |
| JBE , MD | I'd also like to mention that there is a beautiful EA-3 on display at Ft. Meade, Maryland for those of you who are actually interested in the jet. 11/28/2007 @ 15:57 [ref: 18706] |
| JBE , MD | Would you people please have enough respect for the brave men that flew in this plane and those that lost their lives in it to leave this site to comments actually related to the A-3 and not your personal conspiracy theories? There are plenty of other places to vent your opinions without ruining this one. 11/28/2007 @ 15:51 [ref: 18705] |
| Gary , NE | Wes, please explain why if it was in fact a Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon that six years later we have yet to see video footage that actually shows a 757 crashing into the Pentagon? They only have at least EIGHTY-FIVE video cameras pointing at that part of the building.
http://flight77.info/85tapes.gif http://flight77.info/00new/n85reply.jpg You are saying none of them captured the event? If it was a 757 that struck it then we would have seen video footage of it the next day from several different angles. For crying out loud, the NRO surely must have SATELLITE photos of the event! Haven't seen them either. If it was a 757 then where the hell are its wings, tail section, fuselage etc.?? How did it not even make a gouge in the lawn?? You could play golf on that lawn that morning. Why did the BBC claim a few months ago that it "lost" all its footage for 9/11? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html Could it be because their footage from that day had a bit which showed a photo taken by someone nearby when the plane flew over and it looks nothing like a Boeing 757 but looks exactly like an A-3 Skywarrior? http://home.att.net/~south.tower/BBCA3photos1.htm Look especially at the position of the wing roots relative to the nose and tell me that's an airliner jackass. Why were these government agents that morning either 1.hastily picking up pieces of fuselage or 2.hastily planting pieces of fuselage? http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/missing.html Don't you think they could have been of more help maybe, I don't know, trying to help get survivors out of the damaged section of the Pentagon rather than worrying about pieces of aircraft skin?? If what hit the Pentagon was a 757 would either removing small pieces of debris or planting small pieces of debris even be necessary?? Face it Wes: What hit the Pentagon was almost certainly an A-3 Skywarrior painted in American Airlines livery, thoroughly rigged with explosives, flown by remote control by guys in the belly of a DC-130 Hercules drone controller aircraft, which explains why witnesses saw a C-130 fly over the Pentagon immediately after the crash. The light poles weren't clipped by anything, they were rigged with det cord and blown down just before the drone got there; this would explain why the poles were found right next to their bases and not a good distance away and also why three out of the five fell in the WRONG DIRECTION. The Pentagon crash is but one part of the official myth that doesn't withstand scrutiny. I can't stress this enough: LOOK INTO THE DETAILS OF 9/11 WES IF YOU HAVE GUTS ENOUGH TO; YOU WILL FIND THAT THE OFFICIAL STORY IS IMPOSSIBLE IN MANY WAYS. 10/14/2007 @ 13:39 [ref: 18184] |
| Gary Tempe, AZ | Wes, please explain why if it was in fact a Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon that six years later we have yet to see video footage that actually shows a 757 crashing into the Pentagon? They only have at least EIGHTY-FIVE video cameras pointing at that part of the building.
http://flight77.info/85tapes.gif http://flight77.info/00new/n85reply.jpg You are saying none of them captured the event? If it was a 757 that struck it then we would have seen video footage of it the next day from several different angles. For crying out loud, the NRO surely must have SATELLITE photos of the event! Haven't seen them either. If it was a 757 then where the hell are its wings, tail section, fuselage etc.?? How did it not even make a gouge in the lawn?? You could play golf on that lawn that morning. Why did the BBC claim a few months ago that it "lost" all its footage for 9/11? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html Could it be because their footage from that day had a bit which showed a photo taken by someone nearby when the plane flew over and it looks nothing like a Boeing 757 but looks exactly like an A-3 Skywarrior? http://home.att.net/~south.tower/BBCA3photos1.htm Look especially at the position of the wing roots relative to the nose and tell me that's an airliner jackass. Why were these government agents that morning either 1.hastily picking up pieces of fuselage or 2.hastily planting pieces of fuselage? http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/missing.html Don't you think they could have been of more help maybe, I don't know, trying to help get survivors out of the damaged section of the Pentagon rather than worrying about pieces of aircraft skin?? If what hit the Pentagon was a 757 would either removing small pieces of debris or planting small pieces of debris even be necessary?? Face it Wes: What hit the Pentagon was almost certainly an A-3 Skywarrior painted in American Airlines livery, thoroughly rigged with explosives, flown by remote control by guys in the belly of a DC-130 Hercules drone controller aircraft, which explains why witnesses saw a C-130 fly over the Pentagon immediately after the crash. The light poles weren't clipped by anything, they were rigged with det cord and blown down just before the drone got there; this would explain why the poles were found right next to their bases and not a good distance away and also why three out of the five fell in the WRONG DIRECTION. The Pentagon crash is but one part of the official myth that doesn't withstand scrutiny. I can't stress this enough: LOOK INTO THE DETAILS OF 9/11 WES IF YOU HAVE GUTS ENOUGH TO; YOU WILL FIND THAT THE OFFICIAL STORY IS IMPOSSIBLE IN MANY WAYS. 10/14/2007 @ 13:35 [ref: 18183] |
| Juice , CA | How could you possibly say that it was an A-3 that hit the pentagon, from just the crappy photos of a black blur , to the wheel assembly that was shot, it was clearly NOT an A-3. the Whale had only two types of Main landing gear wheels and a nose gear that you couldn't mistake for anything else, the Pictures did not look like anything I ever preflighted. Also the Picture of the 'Black Blur" that hit the pentagon, well the tail is too thick at the top and the elevator is way too straight, sorry guys but you need to go back to Aircraft recognition school. 04/30/2007 @ 13:29 [ref: 16361] |
| Thinker , MI | Ever seen the Naudet brothers' footage of the North Tower crash? The only known footage of the "airliner" crashing into it? Looks more like an A-3 Skywarrior:
http://www.911blimp.net/vid_Naudet.shtml As for the Pentagon, do you think there's a reason why it's been 5+ years now and we STILL haven't seen a single video that shows an airliner crashing into the Pentagon? Despite having several cameras on that part of the Pentagon anyway in addition to at least 3 civilian cameras pointed at the crash site? If the "official" story is true then why isn't there a video tape showing an airliner performing the amazing feat of flying just above the ground and crashing into the Pentagon? We should be able to have seen it from several angles by now, come on people, use your heads. As for the Shanksville crash, it was obviously shot down as the two widely-separated debris fields would point to it having come apart in midair rather than crashing whole into the ground. Also, as at least two separate experiments have proven, and common sense should tell us anyway, it wasn't possible to have made cell phone calls from anywhere near that altitude: http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9 http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/3/Rudolf271f.html They won't work well at all above 4,000 feet and become impossible above 8,000 feet; but the "official" story has the "cell phone calls" being made right after the "hijackings" take place, which it claims happened when the plane was at cruising altitude and didn't change altitude much during and a while after the "calls", at 35,000 feet or thereabouts, there is no way on earth they could have occurred. Add to that one of the "callers" calling "his" mom and saying "Hi mom, it's Mark Bingham". Now who in the hell calls themself by their first and last name when calling their mom? If that doesn't sound like someone reading off a list then you need to have your head examined. And as for the "collapses" of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7, a mountain of video footage, eyewitness statements and physical evidence all shows they had to have been controlled demolitions. Common sense even tells you they had to have been demos; think about it, they "collapsed" at freefall rate, meaning the uppermost floors were falling THROUGH the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air. Solid uppermost floors; solid remainder. Common sense tells you this is not possible without something (explosives) rendering the remainder of the building to a state of offering no more resistance than air. Period. Also, in the videos you can see localized squibs of dust shooting out of windows from the blasts, in some you can see the explosions, and in all of them you can see the pyroclastic cloud of dust that was a second before concrete, something not possible without explosives, it's far too much energy needed. In the demolition of WTC # 7 building you can see plainly two parallel rows of dark grey squibs going up the face of the building facing the camera, then immediately it "collapses" elegantly, obviously controlled demolition. Watch the videos for yourselves if you're brave enough: http://www.wtc7.net/ http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/ And eyewitness accounts of many survivors, including firemen, of seeing, hearing and feeling explosions in the WTC on 9/11: http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ignoring_9-11.html http://kurtnimmo.blogspot.com/2005/08/apartment-of-nine-eleven-hero-william_28.html http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/essays/TheHorrorTheHorror.html http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-proof-911-inside-job-witnesses-to.html http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm Wake up America. These bastards did this as a pretext for their "war on terror", a thinly-veiled war for gaining as much control over as much of the world's oil resources as possible, as they know that the amount of oil remaining is finite, and diminishing, and that as there remains less and less of it the price of it is going to go up astronomically. The Cheney regime knows that the Caspian Sea oil fields are the last remaining largely-untapped treasure house of oil in the world, and that in order to get the crude from the landlocked Caspian to a deep-water port they will need to build a pipeline. So they plan a pipeline running from the Caspian, across a former-Soviet central Asian country, across Afghanistan, into Pakistan and a port: http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1031 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0513/p05s01-wosc.html http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/19/OutOfAfghanistan The only fly in the ointment was the Taliban government of Afghanistan who didn't want a pipeline going through their territory for any price. So the Cheney regime bullied and threatened and cajoled all to no avail. So they made war plans in the summer of 2001 for an invasion of Afghanistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm But they needed a pretext, since the American people wouldn't support an invasion of Afghanistan just for a silly old pipeline, so they needed "a new Pearl Harbor" to "change everything", to give them an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and make it safe for their pipeline project, and it also dovetailed nicely with their other oil war plan, to invade Iraq, the world's second-largest oil producer, by trying to falsely tie Saddam's government with 9/11 in the American public mind, and largely succeeded for a while. Without 9/11 the horrible bastards wouldn't have been able to make most Americans think during the run-up to this war in Iraq that it was necessary to invade the country. But 9/11 made America afraid of its own shadow. Time to wake up America; wake up before they do something like this again as an "excuse" for some OTHER atrocity. 03/03/2007 @ 17:42 [ref: 15744] |
| Thinker , MI | Ever seen the Naudet brothers' footage of the North Tower crash? The only known footage of the "airliner" crashing into it? Looks more like an A-3 Skywarrior:
http://www.911blimp.net/vid_Naudet.shtml As for the Pentagon, do you think there's a reason why it's been 5+ years now and we STILL haven't seen a single video that shows an airliner crashing into the Pentagon? Despite having several cameras on that part of the Pentagon anyway in addition to at least 3 civilian cameras pointed at the crash site? If the "official" story is true then why isn't there a video tape showing an airliner performing the amazing feat of flying just above the ground and crashing into the Pentagon? We should be able to have seen it from several angles by now, come on people, use your heads. As for the Shanksville crash, it was obviously shot down as the two widely-separated debris fields would point to it having come apart in midair rather than crashing whole into the ground. Also, as at least two separate experiments have proven, and common sense should tell us anyway, it wasn't possible to have made cell phone calls from anywhere near that altitude: http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9 http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/3/Rudolf271f.html They won't work well at all above 4,000 feet and become impossible above 8,000 feet; but the "official" story has the "cell phone calls" being made right after the "hijackings" take place, which it claims happened when the plane was at cruising altitude and didn't change altitude much during and a while after the "calls", at 35,000 feet or thereabouts, there is no way on earth they could have occurred. Add to that one of the "callers" calling "his" mom and saying "Hi mom, it's Mark Bingham". Now who in the hell calls themself by their first and last name when calling their mom? If that doesn't sound like someone reading off a list then you need to have your head examined. And as for the "collapses" of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7, a mountain of video footage, eyewitness statements and physical evidence all shows they had to have been controlled demolitions. Common sense even tells you they had to have been demos; think about it, they "collapsed" at freefall rate, meaning the uppermost floors were falling THROUGH the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air. Solid uppermost floors; solid remainder. Common sense tells you this is not possible without something (explosives) rendering the remainder of the building to a state of offering no more resistance than air. Period. Also, in the videos you can see localized squibs of dust shooting out of windows from the blasts, in some you can see the explosions, and in all of them you can see the pyroclastic cloud of dust that was a second before concrete, something not possible without explosives, it's far too much energy needed. In the demolition of WTC # 7 building you can see plainly two parallel rows of dark grey squibs going up the face of the building facing the camera, then immediately it "collapses" elegantly, obviously controlled demolition. Watch the videos for yourselves if you're brave enough: http://www.wtc7.net/ http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/ And eyewitness accounts of many survivors, including firemen, of seeing, hearing and feeling explosions in the WTC on 9/11: http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ignoring_9-11.html http://kurtnimmo.blogspot.com/2005/08/apartment-of-nine-eleven-hero-william_28.html http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/essays/TheHorrorTheHorror.html http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-proof-911-inside-job-witnesses-to.html http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm Wake up America. These bastards did this as a pretext for their "war on terror", a thinly-veiled war for gaining as much control over as much of the world's oil resources as possible, as they know that the amount of oil remaining is finite, and diminishing, and that as there remains less and less of it the price of it is going to go up astronomically. The Cheney regime knows that the Caspian Sea oil fields are the last remaining largely-untapped treasure house of oil in the world, and that in order to get the crude from the landlocked Caspian to a deep-water port they will need to build a pipeline. So they plan a pipeline running from the Caspian, across a former-Soviet central Asian country, across Afghanistan, into Pakistan and a port: http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1031 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0513/p05s01-wosc.html http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/19/OutOfAfghanistan The only fly in the ointment was the Taliban government of Afghanistan who didn't want a pipeline going through their territory for any price. So the Cheney regime bullied and threatened and cajoled all to no avail. So they made war plans in the summer of 2001 for an invasion of Afghanistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm But they needed a pretext, since the American people wouldn't support an invasion of Afghanistan just for a silly old pipeline, so they needed "a new Pearl Harbor" to "change everything", to give them an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and make it safe for their pipeline project, and it also dovetailed nicely with their other oil war plan, to invade Iraq, the world's second-largest oil producer, by trying to falsely tie Saddam's government with 9/11 in the American public mind, and largely succeeded for a while. Without 9/11 the horrible bastards wouldn't have been able to make most Americans think during the run-up to this war in Iraq that it was necessary to invade the country. But 9/11 made America afraid of its own shadow. Time to wake up America; wake up before they do something like this again as an "excuse" for some OTHER atrocity. 03/03/2007 @ 17:42 [ref: 15743] |
| Henry Lee AD1/RET , ID | Wes
The A-3 used a J57-P10 engine, made by the Pratt and Whitney Co., comprised of fourteen stages of compression, using two compressors. This is known as a split spool compressor. It had three stages of turbines. Two to power the second compressor spool and one stage, the rear disc, to power the first compressor spool. The A-3 was a very versital aircraft. I spent many years working on them. Two tours with VQ-1 in Atsugi and Guam with many, many dets to DaNang. I was one of the cat checkers with Heavy Ten when one of our KA-3's made a cat shot from anchor in Istanbule, Turkey from the USS Independance, what a site to see. It's good to see your still around, I remember you from VQ-1. 02/18/2007 @ 07:06 [ref: 15561] |
