If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. The Navy brass certainly appreciated it, and the unit that flew it as part of NORAD/ADC. VF(AW)-3 was the squadron, and they were based at NAS North Island, commanded by WW2 USN Hellcat ace Eugene Valencia. They won NORAD's best squadron competition two years running, a source of great joy to the navy brass and considerable heartburn to the USAF brass. The biggest problem with the 'Ford' appears to have been its honeycomb wing skin structure, which just wasn't up to the rigors of day-in/day-out operations. Ed Heinemann put an entirely different, thicker wing skin on the follow-on supersonic F5D, but it was decided not to put it into production, probably partly because the navy wanted to spread the wealth around a bit and not have an all-Douglas fleet. So they cancelled the production order for the F5D and went with the F8U exclusively. Guy |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" 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. The Navy brass certainly appreciated it, and the unit that flew it as part of NORAD/ADC. VF(AW)-3 was the squadron, and they were based at NAS North Island, commanded by WW2 USN Hellcat ace Eugene Valencia. They won NORAD's best squadron competition two years running, a source of great joy to the navy brass and considerable heartburn to the USAF brass. The biggest problem with the 'Ford' appears to have been its honeycomb wing skin structure, which just wasn't up to the rigors of day-in/day-out operations. Ed Heinemann put an entirely different, thicker wing skin on the follow-on supersonic F5D, but it was decided not to put it into production, probably partly because the navy wanted to spread the wealth around a bit and not have an all-Douglas fleet. So they cancelled the production order for the F5D and went with the F8U exclusively. From what I have read, the wing structure was not the "biggest problem". The biggest problem it faced was probably its sometime squirrely handling characteristics; sounds like it was bordering on instability (not a bad thing for a fighter, if you use today's models as the reference, but the late fifties was a bit before the advent of stability augmentation via computer controlled surfaces). This made it very agile, but it also apparently made it kind of dangerous. Your wing structure may have been related to another of its problems, which was its unsuitability for offensive strike/CAS use. Brooks Guy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FWIW I engaged Fords twice flying the Deuce out of R-G AFB, KC MO. The
Navy/USMC Reserves (2 sqdns each) at NAS Olathe (15 w of RG) shared our flying area. They flew F9F8 Cougars first and quickly learned to leave the 102 alone. Then they got Fords and started hunting. I was in my MC4 p-suit flying a 54000 foot M 1.1 target for 4 of my friends to execute front snaps on. We were about 75 SE of KC - I was dragging a contrail - and my buds were doing the half roll and dive back down recovery from their attacks when 4 Fords showed up. Some of our guys had had no rpt no ACM training - they were ADC school products and ACM was bad - it could hurt the radar and the high performance maneuvering was dangerous! But I had come out of Nellis and F86 Sabres and the 25 FIS via Dogs to the Deuce and ADC and so psuit or no psuit I joined the fun. I was hanging off one Ford's wing as he chased one of the no-ACM guys up and down and around - the Ford driver never did see me desopite being about 60 back and a hundred yards away. Pretty quick I had to break off for fuel and split for home. But the Ford was easy to hang onto. Later on I was finishing a test hop for engine change when 2 Fords ahowed up at about 35000. I let them come on in to where they were in long gun range and as they started to pull lead I lit the burner and began low-speed yo-yoing, keeping up the turn while pulling up, trading IAS for altitude and then easing back down to regain IAS while tightening the turn slightly each time. ISTR I was oscillating between 175 and 135 KIAS. In about three cycles I was sliding back above them - the poor old Ford couldn't equal the Deuce's capability in that maneuver, and coudn't raise the nose enough to ever point at me. About 150 seemed their minimum. But then the Deuce had about 740 sq ft of wing area and I was light, down to about 1500 pounds of fuel, so the airframe weight must have been below 21000. Anyway the Deuce had no evil quirks at any reasonable airspeed. The Flight Manual says 'picking up a wing with rudder below 95 KIAS may result in a spin' but hey, spin recovery was simple - let go of the stick. Of course 95 KIAS is well below level flight minimum airspeed and the VVI is pegged down - but the beast still handled nicely, as long as you had some sky left below you to accelerate in, cause it sure wasn't going to do it in level 1-G flight. Cheers - Walt BJ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven"
wrote: Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise? No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart. Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped being by far the weakest link. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven" wrote: Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise? No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart. Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped being by far the weakest link. The J-57 was pretty advanced actually. Not so sure the Avon represented any significant improvements in T/W or SFC. It didn't match the last J-57s (P-420, 12,400 basic, 19,500 A/B) in maximum thrust. R / John |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
John Carrier wrote:
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven" wrote: Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise? No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart. Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped being by far the weakest link. The J-57 was pretty advanced actually. Not so sure the Avon represented any significant improvements in T/W or SFC. It didn't match the last J-57s (P-420, 12,400 basic, 19,500 A/B) in maximum thrust. Indeed, IIRC the original Avon's design predated that of the J57, although the -300 series in the Lightning was a considerable improvement. I think the J57 was the first twin-spool turbojet to enter mass production, and probably the first 10,000 lb. dry thrust engine, with excellent sfc for its day -- its development made it possible for the B-52 to be a turbojet with intercontinental range. Otherwise, they would have had to use a turboprop, as the Russians themselves did with the Bear (the Bison's Achilles heel was its original engines, which limited its range). It was the Lightning's _airframe_ which was of another generation to the Skyray's. The more closely comparable airframe would have been the F5D Skylancer, area-ruled and capable of just short of 1,000 mph, although the F5D fell in-between the F-102 and F-106 in development timescale and performance. Guy |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Andy Dingley writes: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven" wrote: Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise? No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart. Yeah - the Skyray used a Pratt & Whitney JT3B (J57) 2-spool high pressure turbojet with reliable variable-area nozzles and a reliably lighting afterburner. The Lightning used a single-spool, low pressure ratio Rolls Avon, and whenever one would take off or climb, there were always bets on wheter both, one, or no afterburners (reheat, it's a Brit after all) would light. The J57 provided much better fuel economy, and it, and the JT3D turbofan flavor that followed it, are still pushing airplanes around all over the world. (Now, if you were to talk about the XF4D prototype's original Westinghouse J40 - well, an engine design might be screwed up if it were a GE, but you can be sure if it's a Westinghouse.) Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped being by far the weakest link. Uhm, if you look at the consumption numbers for more modern engines, you'll see that they are only more efficient when they aren't using reheat. The greater ram drag of a turbofan means that they don't deliver the non-afterburning thrust at high speeds that a straight turbojet does. The extra unburned mass flow from the fan section allow for higher afterburning thrust, but at a serious cost in fuel flow. Consider, if you will, the example of the TOrnado, which can be routinely outrun by a Tu-95 when it's not using reheat. The solution to long supersonic endurance has been to make it big enough and clean enough to fly supersonically on a relatively small ampunt of thrust while carrying a lot of gas (SR-71, B-58, F-111, A-5, Mirage IV), or make it able to cruise without reheat. (Concorde, F-22 - although the Concorde needs reheat for acceleration and climb) -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Douglas Pitcairn, Luftwaffe Pilot | JDupre5762 | Military Aviation | 14 | July 7th 05 04:03 PM |
FS: 1992 "McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle" Hardcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 25th 04 06:12 AM |
Historic aviation and aeronautics books for sale | Martin Bayer | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 24th 04 09:30 PM |
Douglas Bader-Colditz | RON | Military Aviation | 7 | February 19th 04 09:58 PM |