First US Navy operational jet to go supersonic?

I was at a speech last week given by an ex-pilot who talked about how
he went supersonic in a Navy jet (their first jet that could break
the sound barrier). The aircraft would need to be put into a dive
though...approaching MACH 1 the plane would shake like crazy with the
helmet banging against the canopy. Once through MACH 1 the shaking
would stop. It was a really great story about how scared he felt with
his helmet smashing against the canopy and then the elation at going
supersonic...and then the sudden realisation that he was rapidly
approaching the ground!

LIke I said, it was a great story. What I didn't catch was the name
of the aircraft. Does anyone know?

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

In article . uk,
Kulvinder Singh Matharu writes:
I was at a speech last week given by an ex-pilot who talked about how
he went supersonic in a Navy jet (their first jet that could break
the sound barrier). The aircraft would need to be put into a dive
though...approaching MACH 1 the plane would shake like crazy with the
helmet banging against the canopy. Once through MACH 1 the shaking
would stop. It was a really great story about how scared he felt with
his helmet smashing against the canopy and then the elation at going
supersonic...and then the sudden realisation that he was rapidly
approaching the ground!

LIke I said, it was a great story. What I didn't catch was the name
of the aircraft. Does anyone know?

In terms of when they entered operational service, the most likely
candidates are the Grumman F9F-6 Cougar (The version with the swept
wings), and the North American FJ-2 Fury.
The Fury doesn't get much press - It was a carrier vapable version of
the land-based F-86 Sabre. There were 4 airplane types designated as
the FJ - the very earlt straight-wing FJ-1, ordered during World War
2, and with, like all early jets, some severe problems with landing on
an aircraft carrier - the one attempt to take then to sea resulted in
the entire squadron (VF-5, maybe) being grounded due to accidents.
Think of it as a step between the P-51 and the F-86. DUring the
Korean War, when the Navy realized that it needed swept wing fighters
so that it could operate in the same airspace as MiG-15s, they
requested that North American build a carrier version of the F-86.
The first result was the FJ-2, which was pretty much an F-86F with a
blue paint job, stronger landing gear, and a tailhook. It worked
pretty well, but needed more power when in the landing pattern (Not
enough acceleration to pull off a missed approach tp a straight-decked
carrier) It was a good fighter, though, and most were used by the
Marines. To overcome the troubles of the FJ-2, North Amercan designed
a version with a new fuselage, and using a Wright J65 engine (7200#
thrust), vs. the FJ-2's J47 (6000# thrust). This was quite
successful, and was very popular as a fighter. FJ-3's served all
through the 1950s as Day Fighters. FJ-3s in service after December
1962 wer reddesignated as F-1Cs The success of the FJ-3 led North
American to produce a nother redesigned version, with a new lower drag
fuselage with more fuel, and a new, much thinner wing for less drag at
transonic speeds. This went into service as the FJ-4, and, again,
proved rather successful. THe FJ-4 spawned a dedicated
Fighter-Bomber/Attack version, the FJ-4B, which was deployed in much
the same role as the A4D Skyhawyk. Post 1962, FJ-4s were redesignated
F-1Es, and FJ-4Bs were redesignated as AF-1Es. For the life of me,
the different models of the airplane were so different, I'll never
understand why they weren't designmated FJ (For teh straight wing),
F2J, F3J, and F4J. There weren't a whole lot of parts in common
between them.
The Furies all proved to be effective aircraft (Well, the FJ-2 most
effective from land bases), and enjoyable to fly. They provided most
of the Navy's Day Fighters until the introduction of the F8U Crusader.
(rec.aviation.military.naval has a thread going for what would be the
best airframe/engine combination, I haven't dipped my foot into that
pond, but for my money, the best would be an FJ-4 with the J52 engine
from a later A-4. Not only would it be an amazing performer, it's
practical, too.)

The description of the airplane's behavior would fit a number of
others, as well - most notable the Vought F7U Cutlass (Tailless twin
jet, not exactly successful), the McDonnell F3H Demon (delayed into
service due to the failure of Westinghouse to produce a useful engine
larger than a J34), which mainly saw service as a radar-equipped Night
Fighter, and the Douglas F4D F-6A after 1962) Sky Ray, which was also
delayed in going into service due to Westinghouse engine problems).

Sorry I douldn't narrow it down, but there's you list of suspects.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Went supersonic on 28 February 1956 ( my eldest daughter's first birthday)
in an F9F-6KD (Regulus missile contol aircraft). Also went supersonic in the
FJ-3D and the FJ-4B in the late 1950s. But there was no head rattling on the
canopy, just a bit of vibration as you transitioned past Mach one.

The FJ-4B was a beautiful carrier airplane except that it's in-flight
refueling arrangement was a hazardous afterthought. Carrying a 2,000 lb.
refueling pod on the right wing during recovery aboard meant we could not
trap until we were down to 1,000 lb. fuel. Since it took 250 lb. for a
bolter and go-around for another approach we had enough fuel for only two
passes before being sent to altitude to eject. Nevertheless, I chose to
recover in the barricade with only 50 lb. fuel showing on the gage. No
ejection into the Sea of Japan in the winter for yours truly.

Always check six!

WDA

end

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" wrote in message
.co.uk...
I was at a speech last week given by an ex-pilot who talked about how
he went supersonic in a Navy jet (their first jet that could break
the sound barrier). The aircraft would need to be put into a dive
though...approaching MACH 1 the plane would shake like crazy with the
helmet banging against the canopy. Once through MACH 1 the shaking
would stop. It was a really great story about how scared he felt with
his helmet smashing against the canopy and then the elation at going
supersonic...and then the sudden realisation that he was rapidly
approaching the ground!

LIke I said, it was a great story. What I didn't catch was the name
of the aircraft. Does anyone know?

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

From: "WDA"
t

Carrying a 2,000 lb. refueling pod on the right wing during recovery aboard
meant we could not trap until we were down to 1,000 lb. fuel. Since it took 250
lb. for a bolter and go-around for another approach we had enough fuel for only
two passes before being sent to altitude to eject. Nevertheless, I chose to
recover in the barricade with only 50 lb. fuel showing on the gage. No ejection
into the Sea of Japan in the winter for yours truly.
WDA

Cripes sakes!!! That must have been "thrilling".
Dave

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote in message n.co.uk...
I was at a speech last week given by an ex-pilot who talked about how
he went supersonic in a Navy jet (their first jet that could break
the sound barrier). The aircraft would need to be put into a dive
though...approaching MACH 1 the plane would shake like crazy with the
helmet banging against the canopy. Once through MACH 1 the shaking
would stop. It was a really great story about how scared he felt with
his helmet smashing against the canopy and then the elation at going
supersonic...and then the sudden realisation that he was rapidly
approaching the ground!

LIke I said, it was a great story. What I didn't catch was the name
of the aircraft. Does anyone know?


Sounds like he's describing a F7-U Cutlass... maybe?


http://www.dvhaa.org/images/03_78%20...%20at%20wg.jpg

Rob

(robert arndt) wrote in message

Sounds like he's describing a F7-U Cutlass... maybe?

SNIP:
Bill Gunston in his great book "Fighters of the Fifties" states an
F7U3 Cutlass exceeded 1.01 in a weapons release dive bomb test.
Looking at the picture of a F7U3 I can see why there would be massive
canopy buffeting. It's really humpbacked and most certainly flow
separation would occur at high speed.
FWIW I saw one take off from our base on Okinawa and I immediately saw
why it was nicknamed "Gutless." T/O roll with both AB lit was about
6000-6500 feet, a lot longer than our own LeadSled F86Ds.
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
(robert arndt) wrote in message

Sounds like he's describing a F7-U Cutlass... maybe?

SNIP:
Bill Gunston in his great book "Fighters of the Fifties" states an
F7U3 Cutlass exceeded 1.01 in a weapons release dive bomb test.
Looking at the picture of a F7U3 I can see why there would be massive
canopy buffeting. It's really humpbacked and most certainly flow
separation would occur at high speed.
FWIW I saw one take off from our base on Okinawa and I immediately saw
why it was nicknamed "Gutless." T/O roll with both AB lit was about
6000-6500 feet, a lot longer than our own LeadSled F86Ds.
Walt BJ

The Cutlass is one of those planes I've never seen, even
in a museum. I was tempted to offer it up as one I would
like to see with uprated engines in the thread on RAMN
simply because I'ld like to see one fly but understand
that wouldn't be a "good thing" for the pilot with those
original engines.

"John Keeney" wrote in message ...
"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
(robert arndt) wrote in message

Sounds like he's describing a F7-U Cutlass... maybe?

SNIP:
Bill Gunston in his great book "Fighters of the Fifties" states an
F7U3 Cutlass exceeded 1.01 in a weapons release dive bomb test.
Looking at the picture of a F7U3 I can see why there would be massive
canopy buffeting. It's really humpbacked and most certainly flow
separation would occur at high speed.
FWIW I saw one take off from our base on Okinawa and I immediately saw
why it was nicknamed "Gutless." T/O roll with both AB lit was about
6000-6500 feet, a lot longer than our own LeadSled F86Ds.
Walt BJ

The Cutlass is one of those planes I've never seen, even
in a museum. I was tempted to offer it up as one I would
like to see with uprated engines in the thread on RAMN
simply because I'ld like to see one fly but understand
that wouldn't be a "good thing" for the pilot with those
original engines.

Wasn't the Cutlass designed as the first production aircraft with afterburners?

DV-D

On 27 Oct 2003 12:02:31 -0800, (robert arndt)
wrote:

[snip]
Sounds like he's describing a F7-U Cutlass... maybe?

The name "Cutlass" jogs my memory...I think that was it! Thanks very
much for that!

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

In article ,
(WaltBJ) writes:
(robert arndt) wrote in message

Sounds like he's describing a F7-U Cutlass... maybe?

SNIP:
Bill Gunston in his great book "Fighters of the Fifties" states an
F7U3 Cutlass exceeded 1.01 in a weapons release dive bomb test.
Looking at the picture of a F7U3 I can see why there would be massive
canopy buffeting. It's really humpbacked and most certainly flow
separation would occur at high speed.
FWIW I saw one take off from our base on Okinawa and I immediately saw
why it was nicknamed "Gutless." T/O roll with both AB lit was about
6000-6500 feet, a lot longer than our own LeadSled F86Ds.

According to a couple of guys I talked with that flew them, it
could get even scarier than that, from what I understand. Both
engines were fed from the same sump tank, which was filled from the
other tanks by the usual electrical pumps. Of course, in afterburner
at low altitude, (Such as takeoff, or, say, a missed approach), teh
fuel pumps for teh afterburners were draining the sump tank about 4
times faster than it could be filled - you could lose the airplae due
to fuel starvation with nearly full tanks. AS it went into service,
it was dicovered that it couldn't maintain airspeed in the pattern
dirtied up for landing - even with the afterburner going on the good
engine! The single loop boosted controls worked fairly well, when
everything was working - when they failed, though, the manual
changeover took something like 10-15 seconds - not much fun when the
hydraulics pack up while dive bombing.

It didn't entirely start out that way - teh original model, the F7U-1,
was a pretty racy looking machine. But it gained a lot of weight,
which meant it needed the bigger, thirstier engines. Then it was
realized that all that extra weight meant a really high AoA in the
pattern, and that the pilot couldn't see the boat at all on final. So
they bulged the canopy and sat the pilot pretty much on top of the
fuselage. Of course, with a low aspect ratio wing at high AoA, and
not much power, it was on the ugly side of the drag curve as soon as
you thought about landing.

With all that to work with, it's no wonder that the F8U Crusader was
so good. It had to be.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster