Douglas A/B-26 Invader Drones |
|||||
My father worked on the Firebee drones. We were stationed at Vincent AFB in 1957 and were transferred to Tyndall AFB for
the first
William Tell in 1958. When the Vietnam war heated up in 1967 and the drone launch responsibilities were contracted to a civilian company, we moved to Field Maintenance Squadron which specifically worked on the drones in support of the 4756th Drone Squadron. He worked in the drone shop where the drones were
prepared for launch on the DB-26 Invaders. After the drones were recovered, and he checked out the electronic equipment on the Q-2A as the drones were repaired for the next launch. In 1961, he was moved to the Ground Launch Facility and worked there until 1967. During this time the newer,
bigger and heavier Q-2C (BQM-34A) became operational, The larger drone, the DC-130A and ground launch facilities at yndall would spell the demise of the DB-26
Invader Drone Carrier. Many of theInvaders would have a colourful futures. Three would become B-26K's, at least one ould become involved in the When we were at Vincent AFB and Tyndall AFB the mission of the Firebee was as a target. At Davis-Monthan
AFB the mission was different. The Firebee was for econnaissance, and supported
air operations in I have been researching USAF Invader Drone Carriers for 15 years and will be writing
a small (In Action type) book about the subject. These are photos I intend to use in the book, I
have some 300 pictures of Firebees and Drone Carrier Invaders.
The Firebee I was the result of a 1948 US Air Force request
and contract to Ryan for a jet-powered gunnery target. The first flight of the XQ-2 Firebee prototype took place in
early 1951. The drone featured swept flight surfaces and a circular nose inlet. The initial models had distinctive "arrowhead"
shaped endplates on the tailplane. The Firebee could be air-launched, or ground-launched with a single RATO booster. Following successful evaluation, the target was ordered
into production for the USAF as the Q-2A, powered by a Continental J69-T-19B turbojet engine, with 1,060 pound (481
kg) thrust. The Air Force then obtained small numbers of a Q-2B with a more powerful engine for high-altitude performance. The US Navy bought the Firebee as the KDA-1, with
much the same appearance as the Q-2A, differing mainly in that the powerplant was a Fairchild J44-R-20B turbojet, with 1,000
pound (453 kg) thrust. The KDA-1 could be distinguished from the Q-2A from the fact that the KDA-1 had an inlet centerbody.
The US Army also obtained a version designated the XM21 that differed from the KDA-1 only in minor details. The Navy obtained several improved variants of the KDA-1,
including the XKDA-2 and XKDA-3, which were not built in quantity, and the KDA-4, which was the main
production version for the series. These variants were hard to distinguish from the KDA-1, differing mainly in successively
uprated J44 engines and minor changes. In the late 1950s, the USAF awarded Ryan a contract for
a substantially improved "second generation" Firebee, the Model 124, originally with the designation Q-2C. The
initial prototype performed its first flight in late 1958 and went into production in 1960. In 1963, it was redesignated the
BQM-34A. The old first-generation KDA-1 and KDA-4 targets that were
still flying with the Navy were then, somewhat confusingly, given the designations AQM-34B and AQM-34C respectively. The BQM-34A emerged as the Firebee as it is recognized today,
with a bigger airframe, longer wings, and in particular a "chin"-type inlet under a pointed nose, in contrast to the circular
intake of the first-generation Firebees. It was powered by a Continental J69-T-29A turbojet, a copy of the improved Turbomeca
Gourdon derivative of the Marbore, with 1,700 pound (770 kg) thrust. The Navy also adopted the BQM-34A, while the Army obtained
a ground-launched version designated MQM-34D, with longer wings and a heavier RATO booster. One of the puzzling features of the second-generation Firebee
is that some photos show it to have triangular endplates on the tailplane, while others show no endplates but feature a ventral
fin under the tail, and still others have neither endplates nor ventral fin. Since most modern pictures of Firebees show the
ventral fin, this may have been due to production changes of some sort. Sources are not clear on the issue. During the 1970s, the Army updated some of their MQM-34Ds
for use as targets for "Stinger" man-portable SAMs, refitting these drones with a General Electric J85-GE-7 turbojet, with
10.9 kN (1,110 kgp / 2,450 lb) thrust and salvaged from old ADM-20C Quail decoys. The modified MQM-34Ds featured a revised
forward fuselage with a circular nose intake that gave them an appearance something like that of a "stretched" first-generation
Q-2A target, and were given the designation of MQM-34D Mod II. In the meantime, the Navy upgraded their BQM-34As with improved
avionics, which were then designated BQM-34S. In the early 1980s, the Navy also began to refit these with the uprated
J69-T-41A engine, providing 1,920 pound (871 kg) thrust. The Air Force began to update their BQM-34As with improved avionics,
and fitted them with the J85-GE-7 engine. The new engine was fitted without major changes in the target's airframe, and the
improved USAF variants retained the BQM-34A designation. BQM-34A production ended in 1982, but the production line
was reopened in 1986 to produce more BQM-34S targets. Air Force and Navy Firebees have received further upgrades since that
time, with most refitted beginning in 1989 with the improved J85-GE-100 engine, also with 2,450 pound (1,110 kg) thrust, as
well as modernized avionics. In the late 1990s, some Firebees were also fitted with a GPS navigation receivers. The Firebee's main air launch platform is the Lockheed DC-130 Hercules
drone controller aircraft, which can carry four drones on underwing pylons. The Firebee is generally snatched out of the air
by a helicopter that sweeps up the drone's parachute, simplifying recovery and reducing damage to the target from ground impact.
The Firebee can float for an extended period of time if it ditches in water. The target drone can be fitted with various control systems,
some that give it fighter-like maneuverability. It is also equipped with scoring and countermeasures systems, radar enhancement
devices to allow it to emulate a wide range of combat aircraft and wingtip thermal flares, which cause heat-seeking missiles
to aim for the wingtips rather than the engine exhaust, sparing the target. It can also tow a target sleeve or other types
of towed targets. The Firebee has proven remarkably successful and is still
in operation with the US Navy and Air Force. The Firebee has also served with the Canadian Armed Forces and the Japanese Self-Defense
Forces, with Japanese Firebees built by Fuji Heavy Industries. A small number were also supplied to NATO programs. More than
7,000 Firebees have been built, with 1,280 of them being the first generation variants.
Ryan Firebee Performance tables
In 1946 the USAAF awarded study contracts for several types
of guided air-to-air missiles. These included project MX-799, which was assigned to Ryan Aeronautical, and which called
for a fighter-launched subsonic AAM for use against bombers. In 1947, Ryan was awarded a development contract under project
MX-799 for the AAM-A-1 Firebird missile, the first really viable air-to-air missile project of the U.S. Air Force.
The first launch of an XAAM-A-1 prototype occurred in October 1947. The XAAM-A-1 prototypes were launched from DF-82C and DB-26B
aircraft. The missile had a solid-propellant booster, which was in line with the rear fuselage. After booster burnout, it
was dropped, and the liquid-fueled sustainer engine (there is one source, though, which quotes a solid sustainer) propelled
the Firebird for another 15 seconds. For stability and control, the XAAM-A-1 used cruciform moving wings and fixed tailfins.
It was directed toward the target by an operator using a radio command guidance system, and used semi-active radar guidance
for terminal homing. The high-explosive warhead was detonated by a proximity and impact fuzing system. The Firebird tests continued until late 1949, when the AAM-A-1
program was cancelled. The mid-course command guidance made the missile a pure day-only clear-weather weapon, and while the
possibility of a radar beam-riding guidance was studied, this option was not pursued because the subsonic XAAM-A-1 was effectively
obsolete in 1950. However, data obtained during tests of the SARH terminal guidance proved useful in the development of the
GAR-1/AIM-4 Falcon missile.
Data for XAAM-A-1: Length (w/o booster) 2.29 m (7 ft 6 in); booster: 0.56 m (1 ft 10 in) Wingspan 0.81 m (2 ft 8 in) Finspan 0.81 m (2 ft 8 in) Diameter 20 cm (8 in) Weight 120 kg (260 lb) Speed Mach 0.85 Range 13 km (8 miles) Propulsion Sustainer: Liquid-fueled rocket; 2.7 kN (600 lb) Warhead 40 kg (90 lb) high-explosive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||