Talk:Douglas A-3 Skywarrior

Heaviest Carrier Aircraft of all time?

I thought the F-14 Tomcat had this honor? 203.134.35.25 13:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The A-3 has a loaded weight 9,000 lb greater, and an MTOW 7,000 lb greater. Karl Dickman ^talk 00:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was the C-130 - "The Hercules holds the record for the largest and heaviest aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier." (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/C-130) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.116.13 (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The C-130 was not designed for carrier use, nor was it ever based on carriers. That landing/Take-off was a one-time test to see if it was feasible to operate C-130s from carriers. While it was possible, they decidied not to do it, as tehre were some risks involved, esp as the carrier deck was not really wide enough. So the C-130 really can't be called a "carier aircraft". - BillCJ 00:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cruel" nickname

its crew cruelly nicknamed it the "Whale"

Isn't this just a bit POV? I doubt the A-3 even knew what it's nickname was, let alone had it's feelings hurt. If this was a dierect quote form a notable naval aviator or admiral, then that's different. But as it stands it's unencyclopedic. - BillCJ 04:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit of humour on my part, I hoped to sneak it through. :} Bzuk 5:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, I think calling the F-14 the "Turkey" is also cruel, but I'm not going to put it in the text! That's what talk pages are for. Another editor removed it, but I asked first b/c I wasn't sure what you had in mind. - BillCJ 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just funnin'; I was waiting to see how quickly it would be reverted. Crews did come up with the "Whale" moniker and although they may have had a malevolent intent in giving it such a less-than-heroic nickname, it apparently stuck throughout the aircraft's history. Bzuk 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I spotted it almost immediately, but was giving you the courtesy of responding in lieu of outright reverting it. (EMT147's not big on courtesy!) It's the kind of thing I would expect an author to write in a book, so I figured maybe you just forgot where you were writing :) - BillCJ 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to take this too seriously, the phrase I used is merely an expression and although I may have found an exact quote to go along with it, it is, as you might say, an example of "literary licence." I just finished editing a magazine I put out for the aviation industry in my part of the world and my publisher has gently chided me for being too "technical" in my writing which I can now attribute to my dalliance with Wikipedia. Writing in an encyclopedic or academic style, however, is a good writing exercise for precision in editing that I use as a break from my other work. I am now embarking on a new project– writing for children with a series of four books for a new publisher. This will mean that I will have to go back to the old "tried and true" of remembering my audience. These children's books will undoubtably be full of "zoomey-whoomey" adjectives and "golly gee" anecedotes. Nice talking to you again, BillCJ, have a good day. :] Bzuk 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I got that you were being funny. Just explaining why I didn't just toos it when I first saw it! Good look on the neww books for the kiddies. Btw, TBF/TBM Avengers were also called "Turkeys" (for the same reason as the F-14), and that was cruel too! :) - BillCJ 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The cruel nick name is "All 3 Dead" from "A3D" because it had no ejection systems for the crew.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.58.54 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 

more homour?

This article states: "Its primary function for much of its later service life was as an electronic warfare platform, tactical air reconnaissance platform, and high capacity aerial refueling tanker." How can three different roles be "its primary function"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't he a Simpsons' character (at least in the UK)?

Leaving the Tracks

Speaking of humor, this article's intro includes this: "The Skywarrior is one of only two U.S. Navy attack aircraft intended as a strategic bomber to enter full-scale service (the other being its predecessor, the North American AJ Savage). The Martin P6M SeaMaster tested well, even though the prototype crashed, but never entered service due to the Navy fearing loss of funding for surface ships and submarines. The pending elimination of the flying boat platform from the U.S Navy also entered into the decision regarding the P6M. The carrier-based supersonic North American A-5 Vigilante was also originally designed for strategic nuclear strike missions and initially, very briefly, supplanted the A-3 in that role beginning in the early 1960s. However, with the removal of aircraft carriers from the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), the realization that very high altitude penetration of the Soviet Union was no longer feasible (which also caused the cancellation of the North American B-70 Valkyrie program) and the transfer of the U.S. Navy's strategic nuclear deterrence mission to the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine force, the Vigilante saw its mission changed to carrier-based tactical air reconnaissance." Uh, isn't this just a little off topic for the intro to an article on the A3D... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the info regarding the P6M and XB-70- doesn't really relate to the A-3 at all. Not a complete solution, but a step in the right direction. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Post-retirement career

I recall reading at least one of the contractors if not all has retired their A-3 in the last few years. The report stated viewing the Aircraft but apart at the airfield which they were based. Need to try and find this. Might have been with Air Forces monthly magazine (published in the UK, is available in USA.) Wfoj3 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Captions for the rest of us

If there is anyone who likes throwing around acronyms more than a Wikipedia editor, it must be a military aviator. However, speaking as an average reader, I wonder if it is feasible to come up with something a little more encyclopedic than “An EKA-3B from VAQ-135 refueling an VF-211 F-8J off Vietnam, 1972”. There’s no need to resort to “big plane give small plane drink” but readers who don’t have subscriptions to Aviation Week might be more comfortable with names than combinations of letters and numbers. I don’t know if it’s workable without making the captions excessively long, so it’s just a good faith suggestion. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Three of the four items have links to articles that discuss the topics. "An EKA-3B from VAQ-135 refueling an VF-211 F-8J off Vietnam, 1972." The fourth is a designation of the A-3, the article's topic, and is explained under the Variants section of the article. I see that some of the other captions don't have links, so I'll try to add those when I can. BilCat (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)