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