Douglas Skyray

The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?

Thank you,
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

"Forty Gallons. Not enough to measure, really."

"peter wezeman" wrote in message
m...
The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?

Surely it was flown against other aircraft(note the mention of the alleged
USAF jealousy over its turning capability in the second source cited below),
but the best "nutshell" description of its capabilities and limitations
comes from Baugher's site:

"The service life of the Skyray with the Navy and USMC was relatively brief,
since the aircraft was specialized to the high-altitude interception role
and lacked the multi-mission capability that was becoming increasingly
important. The Skyray had a good climb rate, a high ceiling, a relatively
high speed, and a good radar, all features which made it a good interceptor.
However, it had a reputation of being a difficult plane to fly. The last
Skyray left service on February 29, 1964. The Skyray never saw any combat,
although it was deployed to Taiwan in 1958 and to Guantanamo in 1962 in
response to crises."
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f6_2.html

A more complete, and longer winded, description can be found at:
www.vectorsite.net/avskyray.html

"It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll, and
one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force chase-plane
pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it. Air
Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its strengths
and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with its
agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical transonic
speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's aspect
in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead sled".
One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact, there
were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have never
been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a minority
opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it a
handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked the
machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on the
level was a continuous balancing act."

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

[ SNIP ]
"It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll, and
one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force chase-plane
pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it. Air
Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its strengths
and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with its
agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical
transonic
speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's aspect
in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead
sled".
One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact,
there
were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have never
been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a
minority
opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it a
handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked the
machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on the
level was a continuous balancing act."

Presumably it was as well-loved as the F-101 Lawn Dart....ummmm, Voodoo.

AHS

Arved Sandstrom wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

[ SNIP ]
"It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll, and
one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force chase-plane
pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it. Air
Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its strengths
and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with its
agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical
transonic
speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's aspect
in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead
sled".
One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact,
there
were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have never
been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a
minority
opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it a
handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked the
machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on the
level was a continuous balancing act."

Presumably it was as well-loved as the F-101 Lawn Dart....ummmm, Voodoo.

F-104 was the Lawn Dart.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"peter wezeman" wrote in message
m...
The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?


Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

"peter wezeman" wrote in message
m...
The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?

Also held the absolute speed record briefly IIRC. It had a very low wing
loading and turned quite well.

R / John

In article ,
"The Raven" writes:
"peter wezeman" wrote in message
m...
The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?


Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?

In terms of performance, a rather lower ceiling, A lot slower, and it
had about the same range/radius. I didn't handle anywhere near as
well as the Lightning. Radar performance seems to have been about the
same, with the Skyray having a bit more computer smarts.

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

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
Arved Sandstrom wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

[ SNIP ]
"It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll,
and
one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force
chase-plane
pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it.
Air
Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its
strengths
and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with
its
agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical
transonic
speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's
aspect
in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead
sled".
One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact,
there
were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have
never
been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a
minority
opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it
a
handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked
the
machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on
the
level was a continuous balancing act."

Presumably it was as well-loved as the F-101 Lawn Dart....ummmm, Voodoo.

F-104 was the Lawn Dart.

The UH-60 also garnered that sobriquet earlier in its career; those
uncommanded stabilator pitch overs at low altitude made it an apt descriptor
until they got the problem in hand, IIRC.

Brooks

--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Peter Stickney extrapolated from data available...


"The Raven" writes:


Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning
which was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?

In terms of performance, a rather lower ceiling, A lot slower, and it
had about the same range/radius. I didn't handle anywhere near as
well as the Lightning. Radar performance seems to have been about the
same, with the Skyray having a bit more computer smarts.


One must consider a virtue which the Lighting did not possess....

The "Ford" as it was known in the fleet operated off the decks of all those
aging, weary ESSEX class CVAs, while the speedy and short legged Lighting
could fly, high, fast but not very far from a long ribbon of runway (and
with a decided preference for VFR conditions).

I came to SHANGRI-LA in the Summer of '62 in the Med, when CVG-10 (AK on
the tails)'s VF-13 was still flying the Ford (already painted in the new
gray from the old blue). As a CIC watch officer and novice/novitiate AIC,
I had some regular dealings with them and those who flew'em. Their
"downfall" and short service was due to the same shortcomings which reduced
the service life or caused dramatic mission alteration to a number of birds
of the era.

Like the sleek and graceful F11F, the Fords were "one dimensional".
Manaeuverable if unstable, requiring a lot of hands on flying at least to
the ear of a controller who really only "hears" interceptions, they gave
way to the F3's better radar and Sparrow adaptability in the all weather
role and the F8s substantial performance margin asa day fighter. A trifle
short-legged, the F4D couldn't meet some of the other requirements for
service on the small decks, especially any realistic air support/ground
attack missions.

They did look a bit wiggly in the pattern....

TMO

"The Raven" wrote in
:

"peter wezeman" wrote in message
m...
The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding
several time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom
II was built. Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat
maneuvering against other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?


Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning
which was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?

The F4D was a transonic carrier based design.
The Lightning was definitely supersonic and not carrier capable.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source