Tailhook Topics

AD Skyraider Modeling Notes Redux

2012-01-31T17:45:00.000-08:00

I've added some more information and illustrations on the nose flaps and the asymmetric fin to the AD Skyraider Modeling Notes here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/10/ad-skyraider-modeling-notes.html

Nuclear Banshees Redux

2012-01-26T07:57:00.000-08:00

Thanks to the Gerald Balzer collection as channeled by Mark Nankivil, I now have much better pictures of Mk 7 and Mk 8 nuclear weapons loaded on the F2H-3/4 Banshee. (Note that in the picture above, this -4 does not have the triangular fairing on the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer that was added to cover an aft fuselage stiffening modification.) As a result, I've updated the Nuclear Banshee post here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/11/nuclear-banshees.html

F9F-3 Panther

2012-01-26T06:19:00.000-08:00

The only notable differences that I know of between the Grumman F9F-2 and -3 is that 1) the -2 was powered by a P&W J42 engine and the -3, an Allison J33 and 2) the -3 with the J33 engine was never modified to carry bombs or rockets as the -2 was. The -3 was deployed first, just in time for Korea, operated by VF-51 and VF-52 flying from Valley Forge. LT(jg) Leonard H. Plog, flying a VF-51 -3 (BuNo 123071, modex 109S), made the first carrier-based jet kill, a North Korean Yak-9. Unlike the -2, the -3 was not modified to carry external stores, at least not while they were powered with the Allison engine. Only 54 F9F-3s were produced; as such (most had the J42s substituted for the lower-thrust J33s), they were used for only that one deployment.

The picture above is a VF-51 pilot qualifying aboard Boxer in an F9F-3. (A picture of VF-51 F9F-3s deployed aboard Valley Forge is provided below.) Note the lack of "Navy" and "VF-51" on the side of the aft fuselage, the unusually large number on the nose, and the large "104S" under the left wing. The later markings would be smaller and in addition to "Navy"and the squadron identification on the fuselage, there would be "Navy" on the underside of the left wing. The Corogard application (see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/01/corogard.html) on the leading edge of the wing, inlet, tip tank, and empennage is also clearly less wide on these F9F-3s:

Hobbyboss has recently released a 1/72 kit of the F9F-3. I don't know if they have corrected the errors in their F9F-2 kit (see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/05/172nd-f9f-2-panther.html). Markings are provided for VF-51. However, VF-51 made a second Korean war deployment, only in -2s aboard Essex, and it appears that the markings in the kit are those of VF-51's F9F-2s, not its F9F-3s. In the photos I've seen so far like the ones above that are definitely VF-51 F9F-3s, neither "Navy" nor "VF-51" is marked on the aft fuselage. In a movie clip, I did note a red area at the top of the fin and on the nose, unlike the above. F9F-3 109S reportedly never got a kill marking, either, as shown in some illustrations. (See www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1997/mj97/plog.pdf)

In any event, the stores pylons should not be used; the J33-powered F9F-3 never carried rockets as shown on the box art, or bombs either.

F-111B Redux

2012-01-24T07:48:00.000-08:00

Late last year, I found more F-111B photographs as well as bits and pieces of documentation in the files at the Grumman History Center. I've used them to update on the F-111B post (http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/grumman-f-111b.html) with better illustrations of the various tailhook installations, the short-nose forward fuselage shape, and the nose landing gear.

F-111B Inflight Refueling Probe

2012-01-17T12:48:00.000-08:00

I have yet to find pictures of the F-111B refueling probe extended but I'm now pretty sure what the installation looked like, both originally and as planned for the production aircraft.

The probe for the original short-nose design was located just aft of the bulkhead that the radar was mounted on and swung up from the left side of the fuselage.

It rotated upward into a position like the A-6 Intruder's.

In this picture, you can see what look like two doors associated with the probe. My guess is that the lower door was hinged on its forward edge and the upper door was attached to the probe.

Although the probe was not installed on the first two or three flight test aircraft, it was on the fourth for certain because an inflight refueling evaluation was planned on what would be its last flight.

The extension of the nose for production allowing a more straightforward installation. The probe was now stowed on top of the nose under two doors and rotated up into position.

However, it doesn't appear that either of the two flight test aircraft with the production nose had this installation (the airplane had more than enough internal fuel for the typical flight test mission).

Corogard

2012-01-07T16:26:00.000-08:00

Corogard*—also spelled Corrogard, Coroguard, etc—was required by the Navy on the forward facing edges of inlets, wings, and empennages of some airplanes beginning in the early 1950s. It was a clear epoxy paint that provided an additional degree of erosion and corrosion protection to those surfaces. The Navy specified that it be "aluminized" by the addition of aluminum power.

It is sometimes described as an unpainted surface and it occasionally might have been. However, it was almost always paint, as specified here for the F4H-1:

This is a picture of the Sageburner F4H at the Smithsonian's Silver Hill storage facility. I'm not sure how soon the inlet was covered after the airplane was placed in storage by the Navy.

Since it was a relatively thick coat of clear epoxy mixed with aluminum powder, the perceived color and shininess varied with lighting and length of time since it had been applied. Some knowledgeable observers report it as being close to silver when new but that weathered to a light gray. Another reported shade is close to aluminum lacquer paint. Another description is “semi-gloss medium metallic gray.”

Note the difference in the following two pictures between the leading edges of the wings and vertical fins.

There are very complicated ways to replicate it, but I tend toward just spraying on matte silver.

*3M filed for the wordmark "Corogard" in October 1951 and it was registered a year later. It is described as a "transparent protective coating material applied in liquid form ... said protective coating material drying after application to form a hard, tough transparent film." 3M allowed the trademark to expire in 1993.

Not a Jeep

2012-01-03T07:47:00.000-08:00

David Collier provided me with a correction to a caption in Air Superiority. On page 49, there was a picture of an early F6U with an NC-1. I had written "The yellow low-slung jeep-like cart carries the array of batteries need to start these early jets." It turns out that this was the replacement for the jeep that lugged eight batteries around the deck and it didn't provide electrical power from batteries.

The new three-wheel NC-1 was equipped with a gasoline-powered generator to provide 24-volt current and also alternating current. It supplemented the fixed power stations at the catapults so the jets could be started elsewhere. The new starter jeep was modified from a standard jeep by O.E. Szekely & Associates of Philadelphia. The two wheels in the front were turned by the engine (i.e. front wheel drive) and did not turn for steering. The steering wheel (now mounted straight up and down) was connected to a third wheel under the back of the cart, allowing it to be turned in its own length. Deliveries began in late 1949 or early 1950.

The configuration changed over time. The one above may be an NC-1A, the suffix possibly added with the wedge in the hood covering an engine modification. The one wheel in back was apparently replaced by two and "training wheels" or "roll bars" were added at the rear corners to eliminate tip-over incidents. David provided the picture above as well as the following to illustrate the different configurations.

No anti-tip provisions, no wedge on the hood.

Wedge on the hood, training wheels:

No wedge on the hood, skids on the rear corners:

The NC-1/1A can be created from a jeep kit with some work. Alexsandr Survorov aka Phantom wrote about it here: http://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=5835&lng=E

This is a picture from that article of his conversion of an 1/72nd scale Hasegawa kit:

The NC-1A was replaced in the 1960s by larger, low-slung vehicles with turboshaft jet engines turning the generators. They could also be employed to tow aircraft. For more on flight deck tractors and start carts over the years, see http://www.carrierbuilders.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=1176

For more on the later tow tractors and power supply vehicles, see http://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/mule.htm

Where's His Parachute?

2011-12-23T17:56:00.000-08:00

In the typical picture of an Air Force pilot on the ramp going to and from his airplane, he is wearing a parachute. Navy pilots, rarely after flight school. At some point before mid-July 1944, probably much earlier, parachutes were left in the cockpits of carrier-based airplanes, doubtless to avoid any possibility of a parachute opening accidentally on the flight deck.

In order to make strapping in less of a hassle, the pilot was provided with a parachute harness to wear to and from the airplane. It had two straps hanging down from the shoulders with clips at the bottom to attach to the parachute pack in the seat pan.

The crotch straps dangling down from the bottom of the harness were often left unattached for comfort while walking to and from the airplane.

This separate harness seems to have disappeared after the war but the parachutes still remained in the cockpit as evidenced by this Marine FJ-2 pilot saddling up.

The torso harness was reinvented by Douglas for use with the A4D ejection seats. Astronaut Alan Bean has a picture of him in one on his website, http://www.alanbean.com/naval_aviator.cfm
(He's also wearing an anti-blackout or g-suit.)

The torso harness became standard at some point with the Martin-Baker ejection seats.

For much, much more on flight suit gear, see: http://heritageflightgeardisplays.wordpress.com/

Lockheed P-80A Carrier Trials

2011-11-16T16:52:00.000-08:00

As a result of Jared Zichek's latest post in Retro Mechanix (Navy P-80A 1945 ), I took a trip in the way-back machine to a Tailhook Topics column in an IPMS Update:

Jared posted some terrific pictures that he found at the National Archives providing details of the modifications involved. (I don't know how he keeps coming up with some of this stuff; I've been there many times and never seen this particular report.)

The pictures solve a mystery for me. It turns out that the tailhook was installed in a recess on the bottom of the fuselage. One unusual aspect of the installation is that the pivot point for the tailhook was on the aft end of a bell crank that tilted down when the tailhook was lowered. As a result, when the hook is down, it appears to be externally mounted. The arrangement kept the hook from damaging the fuselage, since the bell crank lowered the front end of the hook so the aft end hit a transverse bumper on the bottom of the fuselage if it happened to bounce or be pulled that high. All that will make more sense when you look at the pictures that Jared has posted.

Another unusual aspect of the modification was that the airplane could be attached to the catapult shuttle with either a pendant, which attaches to only one point on the aircraft, or a bridle, which attaches to two points. The bridle arrangement was the most common up until then, mainly because the landing gear represented two strong points to attach a bridle to and stores on the centerline made it difficult to find a place to locate a pendant.

Both bridle and pendant configurations were evaluated for catapult launch of the Navy's P-80A. The bridle cable was attached to a hook on each wing and passed in front of the catapult shuttle.

The pendant was shorter and therefore lighter as well as easier for the deck crew to attach: one end was looped around the catapult shuttle and the other to an attach point on the bottom of the forward fuselage. However, there was some concern that the launch would be more exciting with the pendant if the airplane was lined up a bit crooked or offset relative to the catapult track.

In shore-based testing, the bridle was found to cause too much nose-up pitch at nominal accelerations and end speeds. At 2.6 g and 75 mph end speed, the tail pipe came within four inches of the deck.

The pendant did not cause a pitch up but was found to ding the aircraft on release; however, this was attributed to the shore-based catapult installation that had a track sunk below ground level. No problem was encountered with a non-perfect lineup.

In the shipboard trials aboard FDR on 1 November 1946, Marion Carl made four deck runs (starting from virtually the fantail) and two catapult launches at fairly light gross weights and about 35 knots wind over deck. All were satisfactory.

One modification added after the airplane was photographed at Lockheed was a large mast located in front of the windshield. It was there to activate the Davis barrier in the event of a nose gear failure. The drawing is incorrect with respect to the location of the forward end of the tailhook and its overall length. I had assumed that the tailhook would be attached forward of the fuselage break from a structural standpoint. Jared's pictures provide a much better reference and show it to be attached aft of the fuselage break.

Rumor has it that the P-80 was ready for carrier trials before the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom was. According to one account, the P-80 team had to wait for the Navy's jet fighter program to be first to operate from a U.S. carrier at sea. (As in many other things associated with aircraft carriers in those days, however, the Brits were the first to fly a jet to and from one.)

Several minor modifications are required to accurately represent the P-80A. For one thing, it did not have an ejection seat. The windscreen set farther aft than later P-80s and aft end of the canopy ended in a point, not a half-round "tail." The landing light was located in the tip of the nose rather than on the nose landing gear and the pitot, on the upper leading edge of the tail fin, not under the forward fuselage. A wire radio antenna ran from the canopy to the leading edge of the vertical fin.The red turbine warning stripe was not yet used. However, my guess is that it did have red lines around the flaps on the upper wing surface. My notes say that the airplane was AN512 light gloss gray, something very close to FS 16492 according to Dana Bell. I don't have factory drawings of the P-80 but this is my best guess at the windscreen location of the early and late airplanes:

It appears that when the windscreen was relocated about nine inches forward, the sliding portion of the canopy was lengthened so that its aft end remained in the same place. However, when the "tail" was added to the end of the canopy, it looks like that it might not have been a further extension of the canopy, but simply a reshape of its aft end. As a result, I think that you can cut the tail off a F-80C canopy and sand it to a point to create the P-80A canopy.

This inboard profile of the P-80A forward fuselage shows the cantilevered gun sight and bucket seat:

This is my conversion of the 1/72 Airfix P-80 kit:

Lockheed proposed production of a carrier-based P-80B but the Navy already had a plateful of jet fighters in work. In 1946 or 1947, the Navy did obtain a P-80A and a P-80B from the Army for missile chase (and destroy, if necessary) at Point Mugu. See http://herschpahlbooks.com/dedications/cliff_weirick.htm.

In early 1948, the Navy realized that they needed jet fighters quicker than Grumman and McDonnell could build them. The solution was to buy 50 P-80Cs from the Air Force to “train pilots and maintenance personnel in operation of jets.” These were stock 50 P-80s (49 P-80C-1-LO and 1 P-80C-5-LO), designated TO-1s since the Navy considered them to be trainers and they were not carrier capable. They were assigned BuNos 33821-33870. “To simplify problems of maintenance and logistic support”, all were originally based in the San Diego area. VMF-311 received 12 and operated them from MCAS El Toro, California. VF-6A, to be redesignated VF-52, initially received 24. In effect, both squadrons functioned as the initial jet transition training units. The rest of the P-80Cs were held in reserve for attrition.

Note the pitot under the forward fuselage, dielectric panel on the nose, windscreen set farther forward on the fuselage, ejection seat, etc.

F3H Beaver Tails

2011-10-23T11:12:00.000-07:00

I've updated the F3H entry with pictures and an illustration of the two different beaver tails and also a picture of the two 20 mm cannon modification: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/f3h-demon.html

Yankee Tractor Rocket Escape System

2011-10-19T21:19:00.000-07:00

The retrofit of the Air Force A-1 Skyraiders, both single seat and wide body, with the Stanley Aviation Corporation Yankee escape system is fairly well known. As it turns out, this was a Navy initiative and at least two squadrons had their aircraft modified with this capability, VA-25 (Coral Sea) and VA-152 (Oriskany). It was sometimes referred to as an extraction seat as opposed to an ejection seat.

The retrofit was fairly simple. VA-25 reportedly had all 12 of its aircraft modified midcruise in a couple of weeks at NAS Cubi Pt, Philippine Islands in November 1967 while Coral Sea was off the line. It basically consisted of a rocket installed behind the pilot's headrest that was connected to two ten-foot lines that were attached to the pilot's parachute harness.

When the pilot activated the system by pulling a D-ring located between his thighs, the canopy was jettisoned and the rocket tilted upward and fired, extracting the pilot out of the cockpit as opposed to ejecting him. This is a test using a civil-registered T-6G.

The system was rated for zero airspeed and zero altitude but only with zero sink rate and zero pitch/roll. A zoom climb was therefore recommended before jettisoning the airplane.

Although light weight, the extraction concept was only appropriate at the relatively low speeds usually attained by propeller driven aircraft.

For more stuff on the Yankee seat, see:
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/otherpics/cole/Yankee.jpg
http://skyraider.org/hook/dashonet/yankee.htm
http://users.bestweb.net/~kcoyne/frame_sg.htm (Click on the Yankee seat)

AD Skyraider Modeling Notes

2011-10-06T14:54:00.000-07:00

I was excited to read about Aero Research's new product, Modelers' Guide to the Skyraider by Jay Sherlock.

It cost $15.95 plus shipping. For a description and to order, see http://www.aeroresearchcds.com/book_shelf.htm

I am very pleased with the content based on a quick read through. Jay has done a great job of delineating the differences between the several variants of the Skyraider and the plastic kits that represent it. However, it is not comprehensive, particularly with respect to the interior and photo coverage of details. For that, I recommend that you supplement it with the excellent Walk Around A-1 Skyraider by Ed Barthelmes and Richard S. Dann.

(I've done some work on the AD-5, including the various interiors, which is provided here, http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/12/widebody-skyraider.html)

In his kit reviews, Jay mentions the non-uniform pylon spacing but doesn't illustrate it.

The stick on one of the pylons is the strut to brace the wing when it is folded.

He also mentions the presence and absence of nose flaps, but unless I missed it, again you're on your own. There were six slightly curved segments that were hinged on the circumference of the cowl ring so they could be folded back along the interior of the cowl.

There was a cutout in the upper inner edge of the flaps at the three and nine o'clock position, presumably to clear the magnetos on the nose case when the nose flaps moved between the open and closed positions.

Dave Cantrell provided the following photo of an AD cowl with the nose flaps open.

Note the "pin" indicator for nose-flap position sticking out of the cowl at 11 o'clock. There was a single cockpit spring-loaded switch for both cowl and nose flaps - open/off/close. They automatically went full open after touchdown via a landing gear squat switch. The cowl and nose flaps could be closed after shutdown with the cockpit switch overriding the squat switch. However, they all went full open the next time electrical power was applied, as on engine start. The nose flaps closed after the cowl flaps were fully closed and opened fully before the cowl flaps started to open. The nose flap indicator on the cowl ring stuck out the most when the nose flaps were fully closed; I think there was a color band on it to indicate that they were fully closed. You could, of course, tell when they were fully open because the cowl flaps, which you could see, started to open then. Cowl-flap position was predicated on cylinder head temperature but basic guidelines were full open for ground operation, takeoff and go-around; full closed for cruise and let down; full open or partially open for climb depending on the cylinder-head temperature. I don't know how much the nose flaps were used other than after shutdown, but they appear to have been removed or disabled on non-Navy applications.

He writes that the 1/72 Airfix A-1J kit has a number of shape errors in the tail. I'm not sure what he's referring to but one oddity that is actually not an error is the offset and shape of the vertical fin. Airfix went to a lot of trouble to depict it. Douglas drawings of the AD (SACs and company display models) show the vertical fin angled to the left, in some instances specified as three degrees.

It's not easy to see on the airplane. I just had the chance to literally look over the AD Skyraider at the National Naval Aviation Museum at Pensacola. It's pretty obvious when you know where to look but doesn't show up well in a photograph:

Note that the pitot is actually offset to the left of the centerline and the spine of of the fuselage curves back to the right. The appearance of an airfoil lifting to the right is exaggerated by the rudder being slightly displaced as if left rudder was applied.

Why the asymmetry? High power at low speed and a high angle of attack (e.g. during a wave off) requires some right stick and a lot of right rudder. The torque rolls the airplane to the left, requiring right stick; right rudder also helps keep the right wing down. (If the airplane is on the ground, more torque results in yaw to the left due to the higher load on the left main gear wheel.) More importantly, P factor yaws the airplane to the left. (These power-induced trim changes are offset to a small extent by the swirl effect of the prop wash, which pushes the tail to the right but also rolls the airplane to the right.)

Two other design conditions of interest for the vertical fin are minimum-trim drag in cruise flight and not requiring excessive rudder trim changes in the low-power, high-speed dive.

The fin being angled to the left is, in effect, automatically applied right rudder during a wave off when the air accelerated through the propeller disc hits the fin. However, the XBT2D-1/AD-1 SAC drawings and the AD-1 display model drawing clearly show the fin with an asymmetric airfoil that would lift to the right (left rudder) as a function of airspeed/prop wash, although it is still angled to the left (right rudder). That the fin has an asymmetric airfoil is not so obvious in the AD-5/6 display model drawings or later SACs.

My guess is that the airfoil shape provided lift as a function of speed and therefore offset the lift provided by the angle of attack of the fin, so little trim was required in cruise (medium speed and prop wash) and/or a dive (high speed and low prop wash). Or maybe it was the other way round. Or the draftsman made a mistake and the fin is not only angled to the left, it has an airfoil shape lifting left. Or the AD had an asymmetric airfoil early on but not later.

I haven't seen anything definitive on the Skyraider's sonobuoy/searchlight pod used for ASW. This is my best guess so far:

I don't intend that any of the above discourage you from buying Jay's book. It is a great companion for the Walk Around by Ed and Rich.

F-111B Aft Main Landing Gear Door

2011-09-30T17:19:00.000-07:00

It turns out that there's an F-111 main landing gear maintenance trainer at the Chanute Air Museum in Rantoul, Illinois with the original aft main landing gear door and the Curator there, Mark Hanson, was kind enough to take pictures of it. I've posted a couple of them, one heavily annotated, HERE. (Note: I subsequently revised the annotated picture because I had incorrectly guessed what the hidden portion of the aft main landing gear door leading edge idler looked like.) I'm still working on a more accurate illustration of the mechanism than this one, which turned out to be a pretty good guess as to the moving parts:

Since then, I've renamed Link A as the aft main landing gear door bellcrank and Link B as the aft main landing gear door leading edge idler.

TF-1/WF-1 Forward Fuselage Change from S2F-1

2011-09-30T14:14:00.000-07:00

Click HERE for my guess at the differences between the forward fuselage of the S2F-1 and the TF-1/WF-1.

F-4 Flap/Stabilizer Change

2011-09-10T10:45:00.000-07:00

Because the original design was intended for a somewhat lighter aircraft, the F4H (F-4) Phantom II wing underwent some subtle changes in development to provide more lift to go with the increase in gross weight. The first of these were the addition of the inboard leading edge flap and boundary layer control to the sixth F4H. (See HERE and HERE.) Note that I've added information from Craig Kaston about the earliest changes to the stabilator.

As on all airplanes that don't have the highest level of pitch stability augmentation, the F4H stabilator created down load in most flight conditions. Because the F4H was short coupled, as carrier-based airplanes tended to be for compact parking on deck, it had notable negative camber to maximize the download available. (Note the sig-zag line at about 20% chord where the cambered leading edge was added on this interim stabilator.)

This was the sixth Phantom aboard during early at-sea trials. Note the cutout in the bottom of the rudder due to the stabilator trailing-edge-up travel being provided at the time.

The Phantom's gross weight continued to increase over time with upgrades, fixes, additional equipment, etc. It was clear that with the next round of improvements planned for the F-4J, another lift increase would be required. Step one was obvious, drooping the ailerons when the flaps were lowered: 16.5 degrees was determined to be adequate from wind tunnel test.

As expected, the droop resulted in more nose-down moment with the flaps extended, too much as it turned out. The problem was most obvious with the increase in nose wheel liftoff speed and the inadequate pitch control power after catapult launch and during bolters. Additional wind tunnel tests established that elimination of the inboard leading edge flap (added during development as noted above for increased lift) reduced the nose-down moment at nose-wheel liftoff speeds and turned out not to affect lift at approach speeds.

Although eliminating the inboard leading edge flap was beneficial, it was inadequate. Further wind tunnel tests indicated that the stabilator was stalled at nose wheel liftoff speed. As McDonnell engineer Bill Weber remembers it, "We tried a matrix of planform and area changes to correct the problem and finally determined that adding a fixed leading slat would delay the stall and could fix the problem. (Note: These wind tunnel tests were conducted without a simulated jet exhaust - later tests with jet effects indicated that the slat did not delay the stall and the improved stabilator power was probably due to an increase in effective area.)"

Even before the wind tunnel tests of the slotted stabilizer were accomplished, McDonnell program management decided to fabricate a slotted stabilator by adding a slat to the leading edge of the existing one and flight test it. Bill Weber again: "As a consequence flight tests of the slotted stabilator took place very shortly after we had wind tunnel results. In any event the flight tests demonstrated that the problem had been fixed. We used the same configuration changes to fix a similar problem on the F- 4E which didn't have aileron droop but had a more forward C.G. due to the installation of the gun."

Although created for the F-4J, which first flew in June 1966, the drooped aileron and associated changes, the slotted stabilator and the elimination of the inboard leading edge flap, was of benefit to the F-4B as well. It was incorporated in Block 26 production, the first of which was BuNo 152995 that first flew in March 1966, and retrofitted to most of the surviving earlier F-4Bs over time.

Retrofit involved the development, qualification, and approval of a different package of drawings and other documents for use by the Naval Air Rework Facilities. I've read that "by late 1971 or early 1972 it would have been rare to see a F-4B without these modifications, except perhaps in RAGs or Marine reserve units." For sure the slotted stabilator was present on F-4Ns coming off the Bee Line at North Island. The first F-4N flew in June 1972.

This is an F-4N, which is an upgraded F-4B. Note the drooped ailerons and fixed inboard leading edge along with other detail changes from the original B configuration.

World War II ASW Schemes versus the Norfolk Scheme

2011-09-08T11:07:00.000-07:00

In January 1943, the U.S. Navy directed that its combat airplanes be painted in a new, complex camouflage scheme that utilized counter-shading and counter-shadowing. (Sometimes referred to as the tri-color scheme, it actually involved more three shades.) It took some time for the Navy airplane manufacturers to switch over to the new requirement, no doubt in part because they had to figure out exactly how to implement it and then get Navy approval for their design.

In the meantime, the Navy had to repaint airplanes that had already been delivered and for a time, those being delivered. It appears that a goodly number of these repaints were done at Norfolk, Virginia to a standardized and somewhat different scheme than the ones that the manufacturers would come up with. It is characterized by the Sea Blue upper surface color extending almost straight down on the side of the fuselage to the leading and trailing edges of the wing and relatively less Sea Blue on the side of the fuselage than the eventual production schemes. In this example, the TBM? on the left has the factory paint scheme and the TBF? on the right is the Norfolk scheme.

Click HERE for my prior discussion of it and more examples.

ASW Schemes I and II were implemented by the Commander Aircraft, Atlantic in July 1943 but not covered by a Navy specification until June 1944. In a recent discussion on one of the modeling websites of these schemes, I began to wonder if I hadn't mistaken at least one picture of an aircraft with an ASW scheme for an example of what I term the Norfolk scheme.

ASW Scheme I: For use in areas where the prevailing weather was clear or clear with broken clouds (the southern United States seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and South America). This was a topside of nonspecular Dark Gull Gray, sides of nonspecular Light Gull Gray, and bottom of Gloss White. The side surfaces in the shadow of the wings and horizontal tail were to be painted nonspecular Insignia White. In a gray-scale picture, it looks very much like the blue tri-color scheme.

ASW Scheme II: For use in areas where the prevailing weather was overcast of heavily clouded (the middle and northern United States seaboard and the North Atlantic). This was a topside of nonspecular Dark Gull Gray, sides of nonspecular Insignia White, and bottom of Gloss White. The difference between it and Scheme I was the use of White rather than Light Gull Gray on the sides.

In both Scheme I and II, the leading edge and inside of the cowlings, propeller domes, and propeller blades (out to the inner edge of the cowling opening) were to be painted nonspecular Insignia White.

However, the examples are somewhat confusing. This is a picture of SBDs from VMS-3, which was based in the Virgin Islands (rough duty).

It would seem that these airplanes should be in Scheme I (Light Gull Gray on the sides) since they're based in the South Atlantic. Instead, the sides appear to be white, which is Scheme II. One theory for this discrepancy is that the anticipated basing of the airplanes was not the same as their actual assignment. Note that the extension of the top color directly down to the wings is very similar to the Norfolk scheme in this example as well as the two that follow.

This is an example of Scheme II provided by Steven (Modeldad) Eisenman:

The white sides are pretty unmistakeable.

This is an example of Scheme I (Light Gull Gray sides) provided by Steven:

Note the white propeller dome in both cases as well as the early rocket launchers; a hole made by a rocket was an effective way to keep a surfaced submarine from submerging to the relative safety of the depths.

The picture that got my attention was this one:

It was also cited as an example of the ASW Scheme I. However, based on the fact that it has a circle and star national insignia, (and does not have the white-painted propeller dome and inner blades) my guess is that it's an example of the Norfolk tri-color scheme, since the start of the transition to the star and bar insignia predated the multi-color ASW schemes:

n.b. A two-tone white ASW Scheme was reportedly used on the TBFs, if not the F4Fs, of VC-9 when it deployed aboard Bogue in early 1943 to the North Atlantic. However, I haven't found a picture that clearly shows no grey on the Avengers.

Early F4H Redux

2011-08-16T13:38:00.000-07:00

It turns out that there was a change to the tailhook and the deletion of a fairing behind the tailhook that I hadn't noticed. There was also a change to the stabilator that was brought to my attention by Craig Kaston. I've updated the second early F4H entry, HERE, with a drawing and a couple of pictures that illustrate the changes to the tailhook and the deletion of the fairing. I've updated the first early F4H entry, HERE, to illustrate the stabilator change.

F9F-6 vs. 8 Cougar Redux

2011-08-11T09:19:00.000-07:00

I've updated this entry, HERE, in response to a question about the difference in the length between the F9F-6 and the -8 as provided on the interweb—and also in Steve Ginter's monograph Number 66, Grumman F9F-6/7/8 Cougar Part One—of 16 inches versus the eight inches that I show. I also updated the planform view of the F9F-5/6/8 to reflect the eight-inch increase in length of the -8 compared to the -6.

Douglas Low-drag External Fuel Tanks

2011-07-31T12:07:00.000-07:00

7 August 2011 Update: Gerry Whiteside provided some first-hand information on the fin attachment arrangement, which I have incorporated.

3 August 2011 Update: I made some changes to the 150-gallon tank based on a drawing provided to me by Craig Kaston. It corrects the number and location of frames and the 14-inch lugs, as well as adding the 30-inch lugs. Note that on 2 August, I also added some Don Hinton pictures of the 300-gallon tank..

In the early 1950s, Douglas created a series of low-drag external fuel tanks and bombs. The latter became the Mk 8X series. The tanks came in three standard sizes: 150, 300, and 400-gallons. The number and orientation of the fins varied depending on the application. The 150-gallon tanks, after appearing initially on the A4D-1 and early F4Ds, appear to have found little operational application although the Douglas AD Skyraider and Grumman F9F-8 Cougar were qualified to carry them. The 400-gallon tank was primarily carried by later models of the A4D Skyhawk and was also the basis for the Douglas D-704 in-flight fueling store, which was often referred to by the Douglas design number.

While the bombs became standard across the board, the 300-gallon fuel tanks were primarily utilized by Douglas aircraft, the AD Skyraider, A2D Skyshark, F3D Skyknight, F4D Skyray, and A4D Skyhawk early on. The other Navy aircraft that deployed in the 1950s like the F3H Demon, FJ-3/4 Furies, and F7U Cutlass carried custom low-drag tanks. Later fighters also had to be equipped with unique tanks to maximize the amount of fuel that they could carry: the F4H/F-4 wound up with two, a huge 600-gallon one on the center-line station and/or 370-gallon tanks on the outboard wing stations. However, the Douglas 300-gallon tank configuration did become standard on the Grumman A-6 and Vought A-7.

The number and orientation of the fins could be easily changed to the configuration required for a particular airplane's requirements. I had guessed that the aft end of the tank would have to be rotated to mount fins at 45 degrees. Gerry Whiteside provided the following:

I was in A-7's (VA-82) and we used the same tanks. The longitudinal slots (at 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees on the A-7 tanks) are the mounting points for the fins and the vertical slots (at 45, 135, 225 and 315 degrees) are for access to the mounting nuts for the bolts that attached the fins. For the A-7 there was a different fin configuration for the outboard stations (1 and 8) versus the inboard stations (3 and 6); (stations 2 and 7 were dry and for nukes).

Every once in a while, somebody asks about these or compares/contrasts the tanks available from different kit manufacturers. I don't have much but here is a comparison of the 150 and 300-gallon tanks. I drew the 150-gallon tank from a Douglas engineering reference drawing for the A4D; the 300-gallon one was done by a Vought predesign engineer once upon a time. The shapes can be considered to be close to the actual tanks. I was particularly surprised and pleased to see that the fin on the Douglas drawing was exactly the same as the one on the Vought drawing.

I did have Navy documentation for the 300 and 400-gallon tanks:

Unfortunately, the fin isn't shown for the 400-gallon tank but the span shown suggests that it used the same fin as the other two tanks.

2 August 2011 Update: Don Hinton photos of the 300-gallon tank on the F4D at the National Museum of Naval Aviation at Pensacola.

Note that because of parallax, etc. it wouldn't be wise to try to use this to establish the shape of the tank.

The tip of the tank is a little bulbous and definitely not pointed.

Note the 30-inch lugs, sway braces, and connections to the pylon.

Note the vertical and longitudinal slots on the aft end of the tank for installing different fin configurations as described by Gerry Whiteside above.

The silver rectangle on the top of the tank is a data plate.

When a tank required the "X" orientation of the fins, as on the S-3 shown here (from a crop of a Christopher Ishmael picture found HERE), the aft end of the tank was rotated 45 degrees.

As a bonus, here is the Navy documentation for the D-704 store:

Getting It Right

2011-07-12T18:30:00.000-07:00

This is another in a series of examples of how hard it is for model kit manufacturers to produce one with no errors of shape or detail.

The Mk 4 atomic bomb was the improved production version of the Mk 3 Fat Man that was dropped on Nagasaki. According to Chuck Hansen's book, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, the first one was delivered to the the national stockpile on 19 March 1949. A total of 550 were built between March 1949 and May 1951. All were retired by May 1953, replaced in part by the very similar but lighter Mk 6.

Because of the security imposed on these weapons, documentation is scarce. The 12 Squared Mk 4 kit (see Here) was based on the following drawing, which turns out to be for a 1/2 size ballistic test specimen. What looks like a gun-type mechanism (the Mk 4 actually had a spherical implosion device, accounting for its very low aspect ratio) was actually a pipe on which was mounted two 700-lb lead weights. The afterbody was a straight taper with four simple fins mounted on the back.

Bill Maloney (web page) photographed a full size Mk 4 model with this fin configuration that is in the Diefenbunker Cold War Museum about 20 miles west of Ottawa, Canada. It was built by Russ Gray in 2003 for a documentary film. Note that the afterbody is more bulbous than the drawing above.

I don't know whether the original Mk 4 had fins like the one above. The more familiar configuration has wedge-like fins.

I don't know if there are any other Mk 4 shapes on display. However, there are a few Mk 6 shapes in museums, including the National Museum of the US Air Force at Dayton, Ohio and the Museum of Aviation at Warner Robins AFB, Georgia. The Mk 6 appears to be externally identical to the Mk 4 except for circumferential stiffeners around the mid-body resulting from a change to a lightweight casing that reduced the bomb's weight by 2,000 lbs.

I wasn't happy with the first drawing that I had made of the Mk 4 for an illustration of the AJ Savage in my book Strike from the Sea, so I revisited the available material to see if I could improve it. Once again, I proved to myself that working solely from pictures leads to error. Fortunately, Bruce Radebaugh responded to my request for someone to measure the Mk 6 at Warner Robins, so I'm fairly confident that the size of the fins on my Mk 4 drawing is now about right and the body shape is close:

Bruce also took several pictures.

Although the fin looks flat on one side in the picture above, it's an optical illusion caused by the downward slant of the back half of the top of the fin. It is symmetrical.

The Mk 6 shape in the Warner Robins museum appears to be a mockup. Compare, for example, its boat tail:

With the one on the Mk 6 in the Air Force museum:

I can't say which is correct; the one in the Air Force museum is likely a training aid with details not representative of the real thing.

However, the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum reportedly was given a Mk 3 that was later determined to have not been fully disarmed, so anything's possible...

S2F One More Time

2011-07-07T20:25:00.000-07:00

I decided to double check my assertion that the vertical tail did not change between the S2F-1/2 (S-2A/B) and the S2F-3 (S-2D). With respect to the size of the vertical tail, there's no difference shown on the Grumman factory drawings between the S2F-1/2 and the -3 or any mention in Grumman documents of a change. The mean aerodynamic chord is identical and the tip of the tail is at the same fuselage station of 157 inches. There is a difference in height between the top of the tail and the ground, but it can be accounted for by the -3 forward fuselage stretch between the main landing gear and the nose gear, which would result in a more nose down sit since the length of the nose gear did not change. Here is an overlay of the respective SAC side views:

Note the difference in the "sit" in additional to the exact overlay of the vertical tails..

Since it's not unknown for draftsmen to be a bit lazy (note the inaccurate depiction of the aft end of the S2F-1 engine nacelle) and perhaps not to have bothered to update the S2F-3 SAC drawing for a change in the tail, I compared a couple of pictures taken from about the same distance and angle.

They look identical to me...

AJ Savage Notes

2011-07-04T12:13:00.000-07:00

This is a placeholder for a more detailed discussion of the North American AJ Savage program.*

North American won a Navy competition for a carrier-based atomic bomber in 1946. It was big enough to carry the projected 10,000-lb Mk 4 atomic bomb.The bomb bay was clearly sized in cross section by its 60-inch diameter. I have wondered why it was so much longer. My best guess is that in was sized in length by 2,000-lb bombs.

In response to a question about the tip tanks, they originally had a clear tip for left and right position lights. (Note that the wings are folded in this picture so the tanks are almost upside down...)

Subsequently, the inboard half of the tip was either painted (in some cases it looks like Corrogard) or otherwise made opaque.

*The best 1/72 kit by far is the AJ-2 produced by Anigrand. If you buy it from Nostalgic Plastic (now Rare-Plane Detective), it comes with a CD containing lots of photographs and material on the AJ-2. Click Here for more information on both the kit and the CD.

Since my CD is commercially available, for the time being this blog entry will only contain material not covered in the CD or errors in the material that is included. For example, I didn't know at the time that the AJ-2 vertical fin (retrofitted on the AJ-1 along with the rest of the empennage changes) was 12 inches taller than the AJ-1's. As a result, the kit's vertical fin is about 1/8 inch too short. Since I provided the material on the CD to Nostalgic, I have also photographed the interior of the AJ-2 at the National Museum of Naval Aviation and therefore have identified some minor corrections to the kit's interior.

I built an AJ-1 model from the Airmodel "kit," working on it intermittently for more than a decade.

The landing gear and propeller blades were provided by bits and pieces sold by Roberts Model once upon a time. A replacement canopy was vacuformed from a master created from the one in the Mach II AJ Savage kit, which is another huge time waster. The Mk 4 and cart shown above was from 12 Squared and is out of production. However, Spectre Resins produces a Mk 6 which is basically the same except that it had reinforcing ridges around its mid section. No cart, though.

The great Gordon Stevens (Rareplanes, among other brands) also produced a vacuform AJ kit which was very good for the type and could be built as either the AJ-2 or -2P. It included decals. However, it is long out of production and the Anigrand kit is more accurate in a few areas like the propeller blades.

More later...

Model Kit Errors

2011-07-01T13:53:00.000-07:00

Whenever a new kit is released, or even before if photos of test shots are available, errors and omission in shape or detail are immediately identified by the cognoscenti, often accompanied by expressions of wonderment and/or rude comments as to how the kit manufacturer could have gotten it wrong.

I spent a lot of time reviewing the Kinetic 1/48 S-2E and detailing the differences between the early and later Trackers and derivatives of the S-2. (See Here.) It was an airplane that I was very familiar with. I first sat in one in 1956.

I got to fly one in 1993, courtesy of Conair, who converted surplus S-2s to firebombers, including a version powered by P&W PT-6 turboprop engines, the Turbo Firecat.

So you can imagine my chagrin when Alan Weber recently asked me "I was wondering if you had any idea of when and why the big side front windows were enlarged on the S-2." and I had to say "Huh?" I had not noticed that.

It turns out that the S2F-1 (S-2A) and -2 (S-2C) and the TF-1 (C-1A) were originally delivered with cockpit side windows that did not extend beyond the contour of the fuselage immediately aft of the window:

It's not always easy to tell from photographs taken from the side that the window is bulged out. Based on this picture taken by Grumman, which is probably of a new airplane, the change appears to have occurred late in the production of the S2F-1, after the change to the gray/white color scheme.

Here is a closeup of the bulged window:

The new side window was retrofitted to the earlier airplanes, including the C-1, and was almost certainly standard on the S2F-3 (S-2D) production.

My guess is that its primary purpose was to provide the pilot and copilot with more elbow room as shown here on an S-2E (note the shadow of the bulge).

Other likely reasons for the bulge were better downward visibility and more clearance when using a camera to photograph foreign ships and submarines.

The WF-1 (E-1B) appears to have been produced with a bulged window. (Another E-1B feature common with the S-2D and subsequent production is that the control column was between the pilot and the instrument panel, whereas the C-1A COD version of the early S-2s had the control wheel extending out of the instrument panel.)

With respect to the Kinetic kit, Alan reports: "The more I work with them, the more it seems to me that the Kinetic windows are bulged greater than the early S2F-1 windows but are way less bulged than the later windows on the S2F-3 and other earlier models that operated later on. If a person wanted a more accurate window for a blue painted S2F-1 or -2, I would sand down the existing bulge and then polish the window out. On my tanker I reworked the sides of the fuselage behind the bulged windows and flattened them some (the fuselage sides). Then I took a hard look at the side windows and reshaped them to a somewhat closer curve than what Kinetic tried to do. On the later windows that have the pronounced bulge, the bulge extends the farthest out in the bottom half of the window. Kinetic's is centered and it gives the whole window an angled down appearance from the front which is weird looking. The windows now are still way too flat, but at least they are closer in shape than they were to start with. They did polish out nicely with not a whole lot of work."

One of the reasons that kit manufacturers don't get everything right is that it's not easy, particularly when the airplane configuration changes over time...

Scooter!

2011-06-27T07:57:00.000-07:00

It took longer than we hoped, but Scooter! is in the last stages of the publishing process and should be available in the fall. This is the final cover:

It is being published by Crecy Publications in England (Home Page), distributed by Specialty Press (Home Page) in the United States and available for advance order from Amazon, HERE.

See HERE for an example illustration that I posted a year ago.

XF4U: the first to 400 MPH?

2011-06-26T06:06:00.000-07:00

I just revised the entry on the XF4U's top speed as a result of a comment from Ron Lewis. Click HERE.

A Brief, F4U Corsair-oriented History of Navy Color Schemes and Markings

2011-06-19T11:53:00.000-07:00

One of the useful aspects of the Vought F4U Corsair's long career is that it can be used to illustrate three decades of U.S. Navy color schemes and markings. With the exception of two schemes, one arguably and the other definitely experimental, it lasted from the "yellow" wings of biplanes of the 1930s through to the change to gull gray and white in the mid 1950s.

n.b. Federal Standard 595 was first issued in March 1956 to provide a reference for "Colors Used in Government Procurement." The colors are identified by five-digit numbers but no names. Before that, there was Federal Specification TT-C-595 issued in January 1950 that identified colors by four-digit numbers. It was preceded by an Army/Navy Aeronautics Bulletins that identified colors by three digit numbers and names. For some, this will be a gross oversimplification of aircraft color specification history but it's not my specialty.

The XF4U-1 flew for the first time on 29 May 1940. In conformance with the exterior color scheme at the time, metal surfaces were painted with aluminized lacquer and fabric surfaces were finished with alumininized dope except for the upper surface of the wings (including the ailerons), which was painted Orange Yellow so an airplane could be easily spotted if ditched in the ocean. (It would float because like most Navy airplanes of the era, it was equipped with flotation bags in the wing.)

Note that the national insignia is a blue circle with a white star encompassing a red circle and that the propeller tip has bands of blue, yellow, and red.

The first scheme that the F4U missed (the first production airplane did not fly until mid 1942 and the prototype doesn't appear to have been repainted) was an overall Light Gray scheme with white markings that marked the prewar change to low visibility in early 1941 as illustrated by this Grumman F4F Wildcat. It also added the national insignia to the sides of the fuselage and removed it from the upper right and lower left wings.

The single shade of gray approach was short-lived and replaced with a Blue Grey over Light Grey scheme for carrier-based airplanes on 20 August 1941. On 5 January 1942, the national insignia was reinstated on the upper right and lower left wings.

Note that the red centers have been removed from the national insignia as of 15 May 1942 in order to avoid confusion with the Japanese red rising-sun markings. (The original scheme, which did not appear on the first production Corsairs, also had red and white rudder stripes that somewhat detracted from the camouflage effect and were removed by the same directive.)

In January 1943, the U.S. Navy released a specification that replaced the simple Blue Gray over Light Gray camouflage scheme scheme with a complex one that employed counter-shading and counter-shadowing. Four colors were used: Semigloss Sea Blue on upper surfaces, non-specular Sea Blue on the wing leading edges, non-specular Intermediate Blue Sides, and non-specular Insignia White on the lower surfaces. Four-place national insignia were again decreed on 1 February 1943 in order to further minimize the likelihood of confusion with Japanese markings which were six place.

It took some time for the Navy to repaint delivered aircraft and probably a month or more for the contractors to develop and switch over to color schemes in accordance with the specification. For example, VF-17, which was working up for combat, was still flying Corsairs in two-tone gray scheme with six-place national insignia when carrier qualifying aboard Charger in March 1943.

However, by the time that Bunker Hill was available for shakedown of its air group in July 1943, VF-17 had F4U-1s that had been repainted by the Navy rework/repair facility at Norfolk, Virginia in their version of the new multi-color scheme. (Click HERE for background on it.)

(National Archives 80-G-205087 via Jim Sullivan)

The addition of white bars with a red surround of the national insignia was decreed on 28 June 1943. At least one VF-17 F4U-1 received the change in time to participate in the pilot qualifications and proficiency operations on Bunker Hill in July.

In August, VF-17 reequipped with factory new (and factory painted) F4U-1As for their departure on Bunker Hill to the Pacific. In September 1943 the red surround was ordered to be replaced by blue, again due to reduce the potential for confusion with the Japanese markings. (It had already been deleted in the Pacific by an edict on 31 July 1943.) Note the difference in demarcation between the upper and side colors on the repainted airplanes above and this one.

This VF-17 Corsair, BuNo 17640, is marked with 1 and "Big Hog" for the squadron commander, Tom Blackburn, who is fourth from the left. (The dark patches behind the "1" are reportedly repairs of bullet holes made when one of his pilots mistook his airplane for a Japanese fighter.)

The complex multi-color scheme was eventually replaced by an overall gloss Sea Blue one by a directive issued on 26 June 1944.

(F4U-1D on Essex July 1945 via Jim Sullivan)

It was eventually suggested, probably by Grumman, that the Insignia Blue surround of the national insignia was redundant and should be eliminated on all-blue airplanes. It was reportedly deleted well before the official authorization to do so was issued in June 1946. A red bar was added in January 1947 to reinstate all the colors of the U.S. flag.

Although no Corsairs were involved in the experimental (and again short-lived) unpainted approach of the early 1950s (click HERE for a brief discussion), there was an F4U-1A created from various wrecked Corsairs by Service Squadron 11 of Marine Aircraft Group 11 based at Espiritu Santos (Vanuatu). However, it appears to be not unpainted but instead have been given an aluminum paint finish. "Sally" was marked on the cowling.

Photo provided by Jim Sullivan.

The Corsair lasted long enough in service, as the AU-1 attack version, to be repainted light gull gray (36440) and white in accordance with the change introduced on 23 February 1955. This one was assigned to Aircraft Engineer Squadron-12 at Quantico, Virginia, circa 1957, to provide training for air-to-ground controllers.

New soft-cover Corsair books well worth your consideration have been published recently: Jim Sullivan has completely rewritten and re-illustrated his F4U Corsair In Action published by Squadron/Signal Publications. Is is a very good summary of the various versions with many previously unpublished photos.

Rafe Morrissey and Joe Hegedus have authored The Vought F4U Corsair: A Comprehensive Guide, SAM Publications. As you might guess from the title, it provides more detail (and more than twice as many pages) as Jim's monograph, including coverage of the kits and decals that had been produced at the book's publication.

Navalized SNJ

2011-06-14T06:35:00.000-07:00

Another recycled IPMS Tailhook Topics column. Boyd Waechter drew the illustrations. (The tailhook should angle downwards a bit rather than being parallel to the bottom of the fuselage - see the last picture.)

The addition of the C to the designation reflected the incorporation of carrier capability, minimally so in this case. The only significant changes were the addition of a tail hook and a protective fairing in front of the tail wheel.

The SNJ-4C depicted made the first landing aboard Bunker Hill on 21 June 1943. Unfortunately, this airplane ended up on its nose in the crash barrier that same day., an ominous beginning for CV-17. It was painted in the standard mid-1943 camouflage of blue gray over light gray feathered together, with the national insignia in four positions only.. This aircraft also had a .30 caliber machine gun in the nose and another in a tail gunner installation in the aft cockpit. There are photos of this airplane in the Winter 1969 Aero Album.

The SNJ-5C illustration is typical of the markings when used to qualify Naval aviator trainees in carrier takeoffs and landings aboard—for example, Monterey (CVL-26)— through the mid-1950s when they were replaced by the T-28C. The nose gun installation was faired over.

"DONT STALL" was stenciled in red on the fuselage just below the cockpit sill on some aircraft (note also the interior green turnover structure and that the canopy frames are not yellow).

At the time, the carrier approach was made just above stall speed without an angle of attack indicator for reference. Stalling was, of course, a very bad thing...

It would be hard to overdo the weathering...

Note also that the letters and numbers are stenciled on without much attention to sharp edges.

A set of detailed pictures of a fantastic SNJ-5C restoration can be found HERE.

Seahorse

2011-06-11T07:41:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Navy's involvement with liquid-cooled engines lasted long after air-cooled engines replaced them on its carrier-based fighters. Click HERE for a summary history and more information on the this entry's topic.

In mid 1944, the Bureau of Aeronautics asked North American to submit a proposal for a navalized P-51 Mustang. The resulting NAA-133 was based on its P-51H and to be powered by a Merlin V-1650-11 engine. The wing was redesigned to increase the wing area by 10 square feet (an increase in wing chord of about three inches since the wing span was not changed), substitute larger and slotted flaps, and incorporate wing folding. The ailerons were enlarged and hydraulically boosted.

The landing gear was strengthened and an arresting hook and catapult hook added.

The fin and rudder shown in dotted lines are in accordance with the relatively crude North American three view provided with the NAA-133 proposal. The overall fuselage length and fin height are in accordance with the dimensions on that drawing so it may be that the fin and rudder were raised as shown but I can't be sure that the chord of either the fin and rudder are correct.

The Mustang’s fuselage fuel tank was deleted and the wing fuel capacity was reduced to 150 gallons. The elimination of the fuselage tank allowed for a smaller horizontal tail while maintaining adequate longitudinal stability. The reduction in internal fuel capacity was to be offset by the addition of 50-gallon tip tanks when required.

There is a drawing on the interweb that shows the wings folded to a vertical position rather than continuing past vertical to reduce overall height. It also shows the tail wheel door extending aft to the rudder post. I don't have any corroborating information as to either detail.

The P-51H fin height was increased shortly after production began and presumably the same change would have been incorporated on a Navy Mustang.

There is an excellent P-51H kit available from Czech Master Resin:

It includes both the original and taller tail. Click HERE for a review.

A similar conversion to represent the P-51D carrier trials airplane could be made from any P-51 kit.

This is the illustration from my very first Tailhook Topics column for IPMS USA, which appeared in the Update, Volume 16 No.2:

No Bureau Number or "Navy" appeared anywhere on the aircraft in the few pictures which have been published. The aircraft retained the .50 caliber guns and wing bomb racks during the carrier trials. The tail hook was attached just aft of the tail wheel well with the hook point just behind the rudder post. The bottom of the rudder appears to have been just slightly cut out for the hook point.

An even rarer P-51 was operated by the Navy as BuNo 57987. It was Army Air Force Serial No 41-37426, one of a production lot of Mustang Mk 1As that were to be delivered to the RAF, many of which were taken instead by the Army Air Force.

Note that the inlet to the belly air scoop has an opening that can be varied in area.

Early Phantom IIs Redux

2011-05-26T15:14:00.000-07:00

In the process of developing a reference package for a resin kit manufacturer who is interested in producing a conversion to the early F4H Phantoms, I annotated some pictures to illustrate the differences. For the original post, click HERE. (I also revised the configuration matrix posted there based on Rex's comments. The only error corrected was the number of bombs on the #11's demo, 22 instead of 24.)

Here is a summary of the major external differences that make up the combinations and permutations:

Noses
1) First flight XF4H (smaller than the 24"?)
2) 24", no IR sensor
3) 24" with IR sensor
4) 32" with IR sensor

Engine inlets
1) Hooded on top
2) Hooded modified to eliminate the hood (see second Sageburner)
3) Not hooded

Ramps
1) No holes in aft ramp (XF4H only?)
2) No boundary layer discharge chutes
3) Boundary layer discharge chutes at top and bottom of ramp
4) Boundary layer discharge chute at bottom only

Fuselage
1) Flush NACA-type inlet on lower forward fuselage
2) Scoop inlet on lower forward fuselage

Wing
1) First five aircraft: No inboard leading edge flap; there were two RATs, one in the inboard leading edge of each wing
2) The rest of the F-4As and F-4Bs had an inboard leading edge flap and a RAT incorporated in the left mid fuselage.

Tailhook Fairing
There was a fairing behind the tailhook on the first several aircraft. It was removed early in development on the first F4H and not incorporated in production.

Stabilator
The original stabilator had a symmetrical leading edge. Probably as part of the redesign of the wing to provide increased lift for aircraft 6 and subsequent, a cambered leading edge was added. Interim stabilators have a zig-zag pattern at about 20% chord where they were modified. Production stabilators incorporated the cambered leading edge in the basic structure.

F4H-1 First Flight

F4H-1 First Flight Top View

F4H-1 In Development

F4H-1 No 4, 4 December 1959

Tailhook and Tailhook Fairing

I've modified this drawing since I first posted it yesterday to improve the shape of the tailhook and the fuselage aft of the hook as well as make some changes to the leading edge of the fin. Note that while the basic shape is based on MacAir drawings, they don't agree to within a line width and the details were added by reference to photographs. Slavish adherence to this drawing by a modeler would be inappropriate.

This is the best picture I can find of the original tailhook fairing, here in the May 1958 on the first F4H

However, although it was removed on the first F4H by December 1958 as shown here, it was still present on #6 during its first at-sea carrier trials.

This is the production tailhook, in this case on an F-4K.

F4H Carrier Qualification

F4H Carrier Trials Rudder

The bottom of the rudder was cut out, apparently to insure no interference with the stabilator when the rudder was fully deflected and the stabilator was full trailing edge up. This was not carried forward to production.

1/72nd F9F-2 Panther

2011-05-17T12:47:00.000-07:00

For many years, the Grumman F9F-2 Panther was very well represented in 1/72nd scale by the Hasegawa kit. I noted a few minor external flaws in a review that I did for an IPMS Update once upon a time:

Overly long gun barrels
Nose gear - too great an angle between the nose gear strut and shimmy damper; strut needed to be more vertical relative to the fuselage
Tail bumper should be extended with the gear down

The cockpit area needed the most modification for an accurate model. The glare shield needed to be deleted. The original kit decal for instrument panel did not match the plastic part - it was close if the instrument panel was widened a bit at the top. The gunsight was very nice but a bit oversize and needed to cantilever back into the cockpit. The back and headrest of the ejection seat needed to be cut down. Finally, the internal structure of the canopy was misrepresented. First, it had to be cut down so it was parallel to the canopy rails. Second, it moved with the canopy, so if the model was to be displayed with the canopy open, it needed to be cut off the fuselage and added to the canopy along with the canopy actuator. If you went that far, then you might as well close out the back of the cockpit with correctly shaped armor plate.

Now Hobbyboss has produced an all-new 1/72 F9F-2 kit and after a quick look, I am impressed. There's quite a bit more detail, particularly in the cockpit, than in the Hasegawa kit. The length and wing span are spot on. It comes very, very close to capturing the odd shape of the underside of the F9F-2 vertical fin, among other nuances that indicate close attention to replicating the real article.

There are a few small nits. In my opinion, the top of the vertical fin could be a bit wider and more rounded; the wing trailing edge shouldn't go straight out to the tip tank but curve forward slightly at the outboard end; and the gun gas vents in the nose (which were a field retrofit and not on Panthers early on in the Korean War), the tip tank lights, and the trim tab actuator fairing on the underside of the left wing should not be as prominent.

Trim tab actuator fairing and tip tank light:

Gun gas vent (note that the nose wheel is swiveled 180 degrees):

The suck-in door on the top of the fuselage ahead of the aft fuselage join should be straight across the bottom: the mid-length change in direction was a -5 requirement due to its longer engine. Another F9F-5 feature that shouldn't be there is the little vent on the transition of the fuselage to the vertical fin as well as the misrepresentation of the small suck-in door just ahead of it that again, was only on the F9F-5.

Note in the picture above that there are no doors or vents aft of the large rectangular fuselage door that is sucked in (it is spring-loaded to be flush when the engine is not running). If you look closely you'll see the curve in the trailing edge of the wing as it nears the tip tank and that there is no gun gas vent in the nose. Note that it still has a plug installed in the nose of each tip tank; these will be removed before launch.

The major gaff is the canopy. Gene K provided the following comparison with the Hasegawa F9F-2 and F9F-8 canopies:

The problem is that the break between the windshield and the sliding portion of the canopy should be perpendicular to the base of sliding portion, not vertical relative to the waterline of the fuselage. I'm hoping that a bit of filing, filling, and painting will result in a more accurate representation.

More of Gene K's photographs and his and other comments on the kit can be found here.

Obscureco produces resin F9F-2 ejection seats. I thought the headrest shouldn't have been angled forward but it turns out that this is an actual feature on the seat. Airwaves produces etched parts for the wing fold area.

For my notes on the conversion of an F9F-2 to an F9F-5, click here.

Grumman C-2 Greyhound

2011-05-15T12:54:00.000-07:00

Continuing the practice of creating a COD (Carrier On-board Delivery aircraft) from an existing airplane in production, the Navy contracted with Grumman to modify two prototype E-2As, BuNos 148147 and 8, with much wider and deeper fuselages equipped with a rear ramp. Production of 17 new C-2As, BuNos 152786-2797) followed. The first of these entered service in 1966.

The original airplanes had square-tipped Aeroproducts propellers and approach lights in the left-wing leading edge like the E-2A. The original propellers began to have fatigue problems and were replaced by the rounded tip Hamilton Standard propellers beginning in late 1974. At some point, the approach lights were relocated from the wing leading edge to the bottom of the forward nose landing gear door.

As a result of unexplained losses of a few C-2s, a hump was added over the center section of the stabilizer to house a crash recorder/locator that was apparently never incorporated.

Note the gap in the deicing boot on the left wing where the approach lights were originally located.

Two other views of the crash recorder/locator housing on the survivors of the original C-2 fleet:

Note that the left inboard fin has no rudder surfaces. It was sometimes referred to as the "executive tail" because it had nothing to do.

The following picture from the internet is an even better depiction of the tail surfaces and shows the aft ramp doors closed:

A service life extension program was accomplished on all surviving C-2As, with deliveries of the refurbished aircraft between 1978 and 1982. However, only 12 of the original C-2As remained, not enough to meet the demand for COD support since the C-1s were being retired and only a handful of the volume-limited US-3As were available. After considering other options, the Navy elected the unusual step of putting the C-2 back into production although the degree of difficulty was somewhat reduced by the fact that the E-2 was still in production. The Navy bought 39, BuNos 162140-2178.

The major external difference between the original C-2s and the "reprocured" C-2s was a larger APU. Less obvious was a redesigned nose landing gear. The housing for the crash recorder/locator was not carried over to the new C-2s. The first one flew in February 1985; the last of the new C-2s had been delivered by 1990. The last of the original Greyhounds was retired by the end of 1987.

APU exhaust on the original C-2s:

Note the indentation of the fuselage in the plane of the propeller necessary due to the fuselage-width increase relative to the E-2.

APU exhaust on the reprocured C-2s:

The open door ahead of the APU exhaust is the inlet for the APU.

Before the C-2 received a glass cockpit, there doesn't appear to have been much difference from a modeling standpoint between the first and second batch of airplanes. Before:

Glass cockpit, courtesy Craig Kaston:

Conversions of the current fleet of C-2s to the eight-bladed Hamilton Standard propeller have begun:

Kinetic has announced a 1/48th C-2 to go with its E-2. Click here for a preview.

In 1/72nd, RVHP has produced a highly detailed resin C-2 conversion for the Hasegawa E-2C. It includes a complete interior. You don't have to bother with removing the dihedral in the Hasegawa kit's horizontal tail because a replacement empennage is provided. Decals vary with the boxing.. They are available from Hannants. Click here for an example and search the website for RVHP C-2 for the rest. A build article by an expert modeler is provided here.

The RVHP kit is expensive. If you want to spend less and don't place any value on your time, there are two 1/72nd vacuform conversions, both intended to be used with the Fujimi E-2 kit and not far removed from scratch building a new fuselage for it. The first was from MHW Models in England. It's pretty crude. The fuselage halves, which is all you get in the kit, are fairly thick but devoid of detail. The wing juncture looks a little dubious. There are no decals. However, the fuselage shape appears to be based on the conversion article in IMPS 8Q1 that was authored by a Grumman engineer, using factory drawings. The other vacuform is in Falcon Triple Conversion Kit IX along with the fuselage and other parts for an FJ-3 and the radome and aft canopy for an AD-5W. It is still available. The fuselage looks good and the canopy provided is better than the one in the Fujimi kit as long as you don't mind dealing with a vacuformed one. The hump over the horizontal tail is not accurate. The instruction sheet does not make it clear that the horizontal tail dihedral has to be removed. No decals are provided.

Four-bladed propellers with rounded tips in 1/72nd scale were produced by Aires (Quickboost). Click here. They are also available from Sprue Brothers.

Stoof Redux Redux

2011-05-13T10:52:00.000-07:00

In the interest of providing a largely one-stop service for modelers asking Kinetic S-2 kit questions, I've updated my Stoof web entry with pictures and information on the wing-fold jury struts and the searchlight. Click Here

Blue Angel Blue and Gold (Draft)

2011-04-24T23:31:00.000-07:00

The aircraft of the Navy’s flight demonstration team, the Blue Angels, have been painted overall blue with yellow markings, blue and gold being traditional Navy colors, since their first air show in 1946. But what color blue, much less yellow/gold. As anybody who has spent much time on or by the ocean can attest, the color of the sea appears to be different shades of blue from time to time. This is also the case with Blue Angel blue…

Note: The FS in FS 595 stands for Federal Standard. It was developed in 1956 and replaced the previous AN (Army Navy) numbers for colors. Each FS 595 color is defined by five digits in FS 595. Although no color has an official name, many have a widely recognized nickname. Although FS 595 did not exist in 1946, for simplicity I have used it as a reference instead of the equivalent AN color.

1946 F6F-5: There is contradictory information about the color of the F6Fs. According to Robert K. Wilcox's book, First Blue, a biography of the first leader of the Blue Angels, Butch Voris: "For color, they went with traditional navy blue and gold. But to be a little different, Voris picked a slightly lighter shade of dark blue than was normally used on Navy planes in those days. The name of the paint was 'insignia blue'. That was just the name and had little to do with modern insignias since it was out-of-date and little used."

The implication is that there was a suitable light blue paint in stock. However, Insignia Blue, FSN 15044, was neither out-of-date nor little used at the time. It was also darker, not lighter, than Gloss Sea Blue, FSN 15042, which has a bit of green in it. Click Here to see the difference.

Voris' statement that the color was "out-of-date and little used" may reflect the fact that at the time, the insignia blue circle/surround was no longer used on the national insignia of Navy aircraft painted overall Gloss Sea Blue. Since the insignia and sea blues were about the same, only the white star/bars and red bar were put on the airplanes. In most of the few pictures available, the Blue Angels Hellcat does not appear to be very much lighter, if any, than Gloss Sea Blue. However, it does appear to be a lighter shade of blue in this one, taken at their first air show for the public:

There is a possibility that Voris may have been referring to a mix of insignia white and insignia blue that resulted in a “standard” color. There is a Light Blue, FSN 15102, which harks back to the “true blue” that was used for Navy markings in the days of yellow wings. It meets the criteria of out-of-date and a little used but looks light, certainly lighter than the Blue Angels blue used subsequently. Another possibility is the blue used on the prewar red/white/blue rudder stripes, which looks lighter than the current insignia blue but darker than "true blue." Or Voris may have said lighter when he meant bluer…

There seem to have been two slightly different schemes used on the F6Fs during their very short stint with the Blue Angels. In some photos, the leader’s airplane has a distinctive "1", a light color propeller dome, and "US NAVY" on the fuselage with the "US" in 45 degree type; in other photos at a show, the "1" seems a little simpler, the "US" might be rounded and the propeller dome is darker. In conjunction with this, there may have been two sets of aircraft. There was at least one set of four F6Fs specially modified for the Blues at a Navy repair and overhaul depot, removing guns, armor, gun sights, ammo boxes, etc.

John Elliott, in Volume 2 of his Monogram series on Navy and Marine Corps color aircraft states the F6F was "painted in the standard camouflage color Semi-Gloss Sea Blue overall, apart from the forward portion of the spinner which was Orange Yellow. All national insignia was removed and, in its place, the letters for US NAVY, (without periods after the U and S) were applied along the fuselage and the underside of the port wing in Orange Yellow. Centered on the fin was the individual aircraft number which also painted in Orange Yellow...Finally, the whole aircraft was highly polished and waxed." Orange Yellow was ANA 506; the FS equivalent is 13538.

In this photo reportedly taken at Grumman of a Blue Angel passing overhead during their final show in the F6Fs, the bottom of the wing appears to be marked with US on one wing and NAVY on the other. (I’ve crudely enhanced the markings which are barely visible on the photo I have.) This is slightly different than Elliott's description with US Navy on “the underside of the port wing.”

The Draw Decal (www.drawdecal.com) instructions for the Blue Angels F6F state “Paint the entire aircraft FS 15042 – Gloss Sea Blue and the lettering was real gold leaf.” I would be inclined to paint it Insignia Blue.

1946-1949 F8F-1: These aircraft were configured without guns, gun sights or tail hooks. The first set did not have the turnover structure behind the pilot’s headrest.

The overall blue is now definitely a light blue, lighter in some pictures than others. It was probably a mix of Insignia White and Insignia Blue but the proportions are not known for sure and it's almost certainly not the shade on your monitor. My guess is that the "gold" was Orange Yellow, but I'm far from sure about that.

There were at least three slightly different marking schemes. The one above appears to be the original one with a slanted "S". The next one, evidenced by the addition of the turnover structure, had a square "S" and simpler numbers. This picture is dated 26April1947:

The final scheme added a silver, polished aluminum, or gold leading edge on the wing and tail surfaces; and “Blue Angels” in cursive writing on the cowling.

Early on in the Blue Angels career, in keeping with the claim that they were demonstrating typical fighter maneuvers, an opponent was included in the show and shot down. The first of these was an SNJ, probably painted Orange Yellow (although possibly Yellow as in "yellow peril"). It had a red "meatball" on the aft fuselage and a "0" on the tail (Zero, get it?).

The SNJ was eventually replaced with an F8F Bearcat, again probably painted Orange Yellow with Blue Angel blue markings and "Beetle Bomb" on the cowling. Note the "silver" leading edges, which suggests that this is the treatment of the leading edges in the last F8F color scheme.

After the transition to jets the opponent was phased out.

1949-1950 F9F-2: The Blue Angels initially thought that removing the Panther’s tip tanks would provide better visibility for close formation flying as well as reduce weight. However, the Panther’s tip tanks were necessary for cross-country flights and were not intended to be readily removable (they weren’t even jettisonable) so the concept was short-lived.

The blue is probably one part Insignia White, three parts Insignia Blue.

1952 F7U-1: Two Vought Cutlasses were assigned to the team for the first few months of the 1952 season. These appear to have been painted in the one part white, three parts blue mix. The Vought logo on the fin was replaced with a number for their air show appearances.

1952-1954 F9F-5: The team was reformed with -5s after a hiatus for the Korean War. In this case, there is a credible report on the colors. Bob Moore was an enlisted mechanic on the team who also assisted in painting them:: "The paint used on F9F-5 was nitrate lacquer. We mixed the colors one part insignia white (to) three parts insignia blue. The yellow was AN Yellow." The FS 595 equivalent of AN Yellow is 13591.

F9F-6: The team picked up six Cougars from Grumman in August 1953, painted the same as the F9F-5s. The ferry flight home was marred when the team leader, Ray Hawkins, experienced a runaway pitch trim at 42,000 feet and had to make a near-sonic ejection when the airplane bunted into an outside loop. He wasn’t badly hurt but the Cougar control system had to be modified so the Blues returned the F9F-6s to Grumman and flew the F9F-5 for another year.

1955- 1957 F9F-8: In John Elliott's Official Monogram (not the toy company) US Navy & Marine Corps Aircraft Color Guide Vol 3 1950-1959, he cites a Grumman Aircraft Engineering Drawing SP10106 for the six new Blue Angels F9F-8s that stipulates the basic overall color as Blue Angels Blue: one part Insignia Blue to two parts Insignia White. This sounds backwards particularly since he goes on to report that the drawing notes indicate that the color previously consisted of one part Insignia White and three parts Insignia Blue. (The "gold" was two parts Orange Yellow (13538) and one part Insignia White.)

1957-1958 F11F-1 (early): In Volume 4 of his Color Guide, citing a Grumman drawing, John Elliot writes that the F11F-1 blue was one part Insignia White to two parts Insignia Blue and the "gold" was straight Orange Yellow 13538.

The short-nosed Tigers were only flown by the Blues for two seasons but they were in two different sets of markings. For the first, partial season, “Blue Angels” was in cursive on the side of the engine intake and the Blue Angel badge was applied to the nose. For the second, “Blue Angels” was presented in block letters and the badge was replaced with a horizontal stripe.

1959-1968 F11F-1 (late): The forward fuselage markings changed again with the receipt of the long nose F11Fs from the second production lot. “Blue Angels” was in cursive again but placed on the nose and the Blue Angels badge was reinstated, this time on the side of the engine intake and larger. The blue may now be darker but it's impossible to be sure from pictures.

1969-1973 F-4J: With the retirement of the F11F, the Blue Angels reportedly specified specific commercial aircraft paints that did not correspond to a particular Federal Standard color. According to Elliot, the yellow was to match 13538 but was bought as De Soto Company number 826-L-001. The Blue was bought as De Soto Company number 823-L-722. FS 15050 is supposedly at least in the ballpark for the blue. However, some people think that it photographs "dark" and others that 15052 is a better match. I have to admit that 15052 looks like the real deal on my monitor. Click Here for the two different blues.

A formula developed by Hal Tippens for 15052 is to combine part of a bottle of Model Master 35044 Insignia Blue (empty it until there is 21 mm of paint left measuring from the outer bottom surface of the jar) and a full bottle of Testors Dark Blue #1111. Plasticoat 1134 “Royal Blue” is also reputed to be a close match.

1974-1986 A-4F: In his Volume 4, Elliot states that the Skyhawks were originally painted with Finch Paint and Chemical Company Blue Gloss number 643-14-14 and Yellow number 643-13-6. In 1980, this was changed to Ameron Jet-glo enamel blue stock number 572-511 and yellow 574-570, which was reportedly chosen to be the equivalent of FS 13655 rather than 13538. (For the two different "yellows", click Here.)

In other words, the Blues picked colors out of commercial catalogs as they had for the F-4Js. In Volume 4 Elliot provides color chips for Blue Angel Blue on the A-4s for six different years: 1974, 1980, 1982-4, and 1986. 1974 is a different shade of blue from the others, similar to the difference between 15050 (1974) and 15052 (the other years). I can't see any significant difference among the other five. They also all look darker than 15052 but many who have painted a house a color selected from a chip in a paint catalog are familiar with the possibility of a perceived difference between the two-inch square in the catalog and the side of a house...

1987- F-18:According to Elliot, these were originally painted using specific commercial colors, in this case from Pratt & Lambert. Anectdotally, the colors were the same as used on the A-4.

A cautionary note (in addition to not relying on computer images to determine color): Based on the Bureau Numbers, this pair of pictures show two different Number 7s, presumably on different days (the tail number could be changed pretty quickly if a replacement airplane was needed). Is the color difference real or is it an artifact of lighting, the camera settings, etc?

For more on the Blue Angels airplanes, click Here.

Kinetic S2F Kit Redux

2011-04-24T06:51:00.000-07:00

I've seen a couple of incidences now of modelers referring to S2F slats. The S2F had a fixed slot in the leading edge ahead of the feel ailerons. Kinetic molded this section of the leading edge separately, presumably because of molding problems with providing a good slot but possibly because they also thought this was a slat. I don't know what their instructions show. I've added some pictures of the slot to the end of my S2F blog entry. Click HERE.

Fotios Rouch has an excellent build article on Cybermodeler. Click HERE

Sweeping Change - The Bell L-39

2011-04-16T21:33:00.000-07:00

In early 1946, the Bureau of Aeronautics issued a request for proposal for a high-speed, carrier-based jet fighter. Swept-wing designs were expected to be necessary to meet the top-speed requirement but little was known about the low-speed characteristics of swept wings. These had to be acceptable for the takeoff and landing speeds required for operation from aircraft carriers. The result was a requirement for an aerodynamic demonstrator, the Bell L-39, created in only ten weeks from surplus Bell P-63 fighters. For more information on the program and additional pictures, click Here.

The conversion couldn't have been simpler. The outboard wing panels were removed from two P-63-A-9s and replaced with swept wings created from P-63E outboard wing panels.

(The wing sweep along the main beam was 33+ degrees but the sweep on the quarter chord of the wing, which is how aerodynamcists define it, was 35 degrees.)

These swept wings were mounted on the P-63's stub wing with no dihedral and configured with leading-edge slats in five equal segments extending along the full length of the outboard panel. Each segment could be fixed open or closed on the ground.

To minimize cost, the main landing gear was fixed down and the wheel wells closed off. However, the nose gear was still retractable. The nose-mounted cannon and machine guns were removed to reduce weight and move the center of gravity aft.

The box around the illustration is 12x6 inches for 1/48th and 8x4 inches for 1/72nd.

A flight instrumentation boom was added to each wing tip. The left boom was tipped with a standard aircraft pitot head. The right one was configured with pitch and yaw vanes and a gimbaled total pressure sensor. The plexiglass was removed from the canopy aft of the pilots seat and replaced with hinged sheet metal doors. This area now contained a panel of instruments that were photographed with a 16 mm camera. Two cameras were also mounted on the top of the canopy, one for each wing, and a third camera was mounted on the left inboard side of the horizontal tail, pointed at the left wing root.

White stripes were painted on the wings going straight aft from the ends of the leading edge slat segments. The wings were tufted with short lengths of white cotton string to provide a visual indication of the flow on the wings.

The L-39-1 was assigned BuNo 90060*. It was reportedly flown initially with the P-63's four-bladed propeller but if so, it was soon replaced with a lighter P-39 propeller to move the center of gravity aft. After the first several flights, a plug was inserted in the aft fuselage to locate the empennage further aft and tilt it so the stabilizer was more leading edge down, proving additional nose-up trim. A larger ventral fin was also incorporated. L-39-2, BuNo 90061, was first flown with the plug and an even larger ventral fin.

The box around the illustration above is 12 inches square for 1/48th scale and 8 inches square for 1/72nd.

I had always assumed that the L-39s were painted gloss sea blue but realizing that I'd never seen a color picture of it, I called up Corky Meyer, a former Grumman test pilot who flew it and is an acquaintance. He said, without any hesitation, that it was olive drab "like all the Army airplanes." I responded "not gloss sea blue?" to give him a chance to reconsider but he was adamant. He was 88 at the time but still sounded sharp so it's the way to bet until someone comes up with a color picture.

The olive drab color makes sense because of the use of surplus P-63s. In all likelihood, the airplanes used were already painted and given the program cost and schedule pressure and its limited objectives, it would have been appropriate to just give the completed aircraft a touch-up with olive drab.

CMR re-released its 1/72nd resin kit of the early L-39-1 configuration with corrections and decals:

Another approach to an L-39 model is to bash a P-63 kit together with a cut down, thickened F-86 wing.

The box is 12x12 inches for 1/48th and 8x8 inches for 1/72nd.

You might think twice about going to the trouble of incorporating the fuselage plug. Getting enough weight in the nose to keep the early L-39 configuration from being a tail sitter will be a challenge. Extending the tail aft and adding the dorsal fin will exacerbate the problem..

*I didn't realize that there was any question about the BuNos. There are several good pictures of L-39-2 marked with 90061. This is the best that I have of L-39-1's markings. Note the missing hyphen.

FJ-2/3 Fury Redux

2011-04-06T17:34:00.000-07:00

Click Here for a summary of all the production Furies and modelers notes on the XFJ-2. I had intended to provide more information in that entry as to the differences between the F-86 and the FJ-2/3s from a modeler's standpoint, but I've decided to make it a separate one. This has been a work in progress for about a week, with numerous corrections and additions, but I'm now declaring victory. However, it will be updated from time to time as I'm notified of errors or provided with new information.

12 April PM: I've added some Craig Kaston pictures of the Chino FJ-3 which illustrate some of the points I was trying to make about the CLE wing...

The bottom view illustrates most of the additions and changes to the fuselage and wing for carrier-basing. The difference in landing gear doors was required due to the nose gear length increase and the main gear stroke increase. The length of the wing slats changed to accommodate the wing fold. The horizontal tail was increased in size for lower approach speeds.

The Sabre wing went through many changes, with one change being the 6-3 hard wing introduced early in F-86F production. For an excellent summary, click Here. The FJ-2 and early FJ-3 wing was the same as the F-86E and early F-86F, with aerodynamically actuated slats. Note that the wings in some model kits may not be the configuration that the kit is supposed to represent.

Click on any illustration for a large, downloadable version. Size the box around the drawing above to 8 inches for 1/72 and 12 inches for 1/48.

I wasn't able to find as good a drawing as I wanted for the F-86 so some of the differences here may just be the accuracy of the original drawings. However, this does illustrate that the FJ-2 vertical fin was moved forward and that the main landing gear was moved aft as a result of the wider tread (also desirable from a tip-back standpoint). The difference in windscreen side-panel area is also significant. The engine inlet was slightly increased in size for more low-speed thrust. Note that the leading edge of the FJ-2 overlaps the ammo door slightly whereas it does not on the F-86. I had originally assumed that this meant that the FJ-2 had the 6-3 wing, but I subsequently discovered that it was the result of the FJ-2 ammo door extending further aft with the change to the 20mm cannon.

In this case, the box above is 12 inches wide and 6 inches high for 1/48 and 8 inches wide and 4 inches high for 1/72.

This box is the same size as the profile box above.

Because the FJ-2 was powered by the J47 engine like the F-86 but about 1,000 lbs heavier, its performance was inferior to the F-86's. All the FJ-2s—with an experimental unpainted exterior—went to the Marine Corps, who were very glad to have them.

Marine FJ-2s were occasionally operated from aircraft carriers. Note the extended barrier pickup between the nose and main landing gears.

The FJ-2 was then minimally modified except for the substitution of the more powerful J65 to create the FJ-3. The most notable exterior changes were the deeper forward fuselage and inlet and the change to the small air intakes just aft of the fuselage break.

As best as I can determine, the FJ-3 inlet was deepened by three inches. (Unfortunately, the otherwise excellent North American drawings don't distinguish between the forward fuselage of the FJ-2 and FJ-3.)

The inlets don't look that much different on paper in profile but they were notably different in appearance from the front as shown here and in the illustration above:

The early FJ-3s had the same wing as the FJ-2. The leading-edge slats were aerodynamically actuated so they were extended when the aircraft was parked. These airplanes did not have the small fences on the wing leading edge that subsequently became standard on Navy swept-wing jets to insure proper barricade engagement. (The slats on some FJ-2s were subsequently modified to have the fences, however.)

Starting with BuNo 136118 in production, the slats were removed from the FJ-3 wing and a new fixed and extended leading edge incorporating fuel tanks was substituted. Delivered FJ-3s were retrofitted at overhaul. Like the F-86 wing, the leading edge was extended six inches at the root (center line, not side of body) and three inches at the tip but the new FJ-3 leading edge was also cambered (drooped) downward.

I've annotated this Craig Kaston picture of the Chino FJ-3 to show an approximation of the original airfoil and the location of the leading-edge fuel tank connection. (Note that the flap was not usually down when the wings were folded and 2x4s were not normally used for the purpose shown here.)

For more pictures of this airplane, click here.

With the addition of a mid-span fence, this "hard wing" retained good low-speed handling qualities and maneuverability at altitude as well as providing space for a much-needed increase of internal fuel. The drawback was an acceptable reduction in top speed.

The hard wing incorporated four small fences on each wing to snag the vertical straps of the barricade for the quickest and straightest stop when a normal arrested landing was not possible. The 6-3 extension resulted in more of an overlap of the wing on the ammo door.

The box above is 4" by 4" for 1/72 and 6" by 6" for 1/48.

Instead of a bit of the leading edge being part of the door as on the slatted wing, there was only a transition fairing on the ammo door. A triangular piece of the leading edge had to be swung downward out of the way so the ammo door could be opened.

I thought I might have exaggerated the droop of the cambered leading edge on my drawing but apparently not looking at the Craig Kaston photo above.

Note: I've yet to see a picture of a blue FJ-3 with the hard 6-3 wing or a gray/white one with slats.

The FJ-3 above has the rudder with trailing edge external stiffeners that was substituted for the original rudder at some point to eliminate a rudder "buzz" problem. It was also retrofitted on some FJ-2s.

The elevator also got the trailing edge external stiffener treatment (Craig Kaston photo).

The retractable barrier pickup was removed in production beginning with BuNo 141364 since it was unnecessary on angled decks. It was removed on delivered aircraft during overhaul. I have seen one picture of a gray/white FJ-3 with it extended so the color scheme change can't be used as an effectivity break as it can be for the slatted versus hard wing.

As of BuNo 136118, FJ-3s had provisions for two pylons on each wing inboard of the existing ones for external tanks, for a total of six. The FJ-3s were also retrofitted for inflight refueling with the installation of a fixed probe extending from the left wing.

FJ-3s wired for Sidewinders were designated FJ-3M.

As with most of my topics, this one provides only the basics on the aircraft in question. The model builder will probably want to buy or borrow a book that covers the subject in more detail. In this case, Steve Ginter has just published his long awaited monograph on the FJ-3 to complement the ones on the FJ-1, -2, and -4. It is available directly from him, click Here, and from Sprue Brothers, click Here.

A commentary on the drawings: These were created on Illustrator based on North American 4-view drawings of the F-86, FJ-2, and FJ-3; the FJ-2/3 SAC drawings; the FJ-3 fuselage stations drawing in Ginter's monograph: and photos. As usual, there were were conflicts between, and errors on, the drawings so I had to guess as to which one to rely on. Or neither. For example, the horizontal stabilizer on the fuselage stations drawing appears to be placed too high based on the other drawings and photos. What's worse, the planform of the horizontal stabilizer on the page with the FJ-3 stations drawing of the fuselage and wing is that of the F-86, not the bigger one that is on every other FJ-2/3 top view. In this case, I went with the higher stabilizer position but the bigger planform.

The FJ-2 inlet on the North American drawing is the same as on the FJ-3 drawing, when clearly it should be smaller. Even more confusing, the front view of the inlet appears to be more like an FJ-2's and the side view is very like—but not exactly like— the depiction on the FJ-3 fuselage stations drawing. I used photos and an analysis of the SAC dimensioned drawings to determine that the FJ-3 inlet was deeper than the FJ-2's by about three inches and develop my best guess as to the difference in shape of the two inlets from the front.

Another discrepancy becomes apparent on many top and front view original drawings because I can very precisely trace one side of them using Illustrator and then copy and flop it to create the other side of my drawing. The flopped trace rarely matches the other half on the original within a line width and sometimes the difference is notable. Which side of the original is right? Probably neither.

My drawings, therefore, are not necessarily exact and should not be slavishly followed as to shape or even size.

Kit options: So far, the only complete FJ-2/3 Fury kits in 1/72 scale are from RVHP. Now out of production and not readily available, these were produced in resin with cast metal landing gear and a vacuform canopy. There were three different kits: FJ-2, FJ-3, and FJ-3M. I only have the FJ-3, but my guess is that they only varied in the decals provided.The wing appears to be based on the Heller kit, so it has a bit too much sweep and does not have either extended slats or the 6-3 extension. The fuselage has the FJ-3 inlet and the FJ-2 aft fuselage air intakes.

Still available is the Falcon Triple Conversion IX which included a vacuform FJ-3 fuselage, lower inboard wing, canopy, and external tanks. (The other conversions were a C-2 fuselage and canopy and an AD-5W radome and aft compartment enclosure.) No decals or landing gear were provided. The instructions imply that the FJ-3 conversion was designed for the Heller kit.

There are several 1/72 F-86 kits. I've converted the Heller kit into an XFJ-2, which requires the least number of changes from an F-86E or early F-86F. As noted above, it has the original wing with a bit too much wing sweep and the slats fixed up. Fujimi produced at least two different variations, one with the 6-3 hard wing (#F-19 or fuj25019) and another with the wing span increase. The 6-3 hard-wing version appears to have more of a 6-6 leading edge extension but in other respects it is an excellent kit. The Hobbycraft/Academy F-86E kit is reviewed here. The newer Academy F-86F kit is reviewed here. The newest kit, from Airfix, is described here.

In 1/48, beware of the Esci FJ-2/3 kit. It has a woefully inaccurate fuselage and canopy. A more expensive option is the Collect Aire FJ-3, described here. However, it is no longer listed on Collect Aire's web site, so you might consider converting an F-86 kit as described here.

S2F Crew Compartment Window

2011-03-31T17:02:00.000-07:00

I finally found a picture on the web that was suitable for use with a Grumman fuselage station drawing to make a pretty accurate determination of the size and location of the S2F-3 (S-2D and subsequent) crew compartment window. Click HERE.

Recent Topic Updates

2011-03-06T18:00:00.000-08:00

Added a couple of pictures and made wording changes to the Trader/Tracer entry HERE.

The S2F Stoof entry HERE was expanded yet again today with cockpit information and a link to the Belcher Bits blog showing a problem in length with the aft fuselage for the S-2E/G and the changes required to shorten the forward fuselage for the S2F-1/2. You might also want to look at the comments for Kinetic kit information.

The F8U Crusader entry HERE has been updated with comments and corrections provided by Tom Weinel.

If you have a specific request rather than a compliment, correction, or addition pertinent to the topic, it's best that you send me an email rather than submit it as a comment. My email address is tommythomason@sbcglobal.net.

Super Fox

2011-02-11T02:35:00.000-08:00

Like the A-4E, the A-4F was originally powered by the Pratt&Whitney J52-P-8A engine rated at 9,300-lbs thrust. Some were modified for the P-408 engine, with 11,200 lbs of thrust but for some reason, they didn't receive a different designation. Informally, they were known as Super Foxes. The only external indication of the more powerful engine is the bigger inlet required for maximum low speed thrust.

I had heard about the increase in the inlet size on the Super Fox, but for a long time assumed that it was an interior change because it is so subtle. From the side, it is very difficult to discern the exterior bulge because the depth of the inlet did not change, at least not on the outside. The Blue Angels' A-4s were Super Foxes, but I defy you to see the bigger inlet in this picture of No. 5 doing the dirty roll on takeoff:

The A-4Ms were also powered by the P-408 engine and had the bigger inlets but again, from the side, it's almost impossible to tell. (If you read on and then come back to this picture, you may be able to see a hint of it.)

However, when viewed from below or directly above, the outward bulge in the first three feet or so of the exterior is very apparent.

Compare the exterior of the inlet in the picture above to this top view drawing of the stock A-4F:

From the side, the bulge can also be seen in certain lighting.

In this case, you can see the crease of the start of the bulge. Its begins at the panel line that cuts through the aft end of the inlet warning triangle. The change in contour, which is normally very hard to discern, then angles up and forward on the inlet so that there is no bulge at the top. A similar crease is probably present on the lower half of exterior of the inlet but isn't evident here.

The F8F-8T Cougar

2011-02-10T13:07:00.000-08:00

I've noted a couple of inqueries on modeling websites about the alternatives for creating an F9F-8T (TF-9J) from a single-seat F9F-8. This isn't as easy as it looks at first glance. The two-seat Cougar trainer had a new forward fuselage beginning at fuselage station 172 (pretty close to the aft end of the speed brake well) as well as a new canopy and a fairing aft of the canopy. However, neither the speed brakes nor the nose gear well was moved forward relative to the mid-fuselage so the wheel base remained the same.

The overall length increase (not counting the barrier deflector on the F9F-8 or the refueling probe on either the -8 or the -8T) was about 34 inches.

This provides a rough idea of the changes and what would be required if a conversion was attempted using a single F9F-8 fuselage:

Fortunately, there are alternatives in each of the major scales:

The Miniwing kit is 1/144th scale. It is reviewed Here

There is no 1/72nd scale F9F-8T kit per se but least four different conversions have been issued that can be used with the Hasegawa Cougar: Airmodel AM-049 (vacuform), Esoteric/Body Job BJ-4 (resin), RVHP 7239 (resin), and a Falcon Triple Conversion III (vacuform). The Airmodel conversion is pretty crude and probably a last resort. The Esoteric one is long out of production. The RVHP conversion is still available but might be hard to find. The Falcon conversion is still available from their retailer in New Zealand and from Hannants.

Collect Aire produces a 1/48th kit in resin which is reviewed Here

Fisher Models sells a 1/32 F9F-8T kit: See Here on page 2.

The F9F-8T was originally delivered with Grumman-furnished ejection seats. However, in 1956 BuAer contracted with Grumman to install the new Mk 4 M-B seat in an F9F-8T for a demonstration. Flying Officer Sidney Hughes, RAF, successfully ejected from it at Patuxent River in August 1957 while on the runway at 120 kts.

The demonstration resulted in an order for Mk 5 ejection seats (the major difference was higher crashworthiness) for all the Navy fighters and the F9F-8T to replace the existing contractor-furnished seats.

A4D-1 Vortex Generators

2011-01-29T19:20:00.000-08:00

Vortex generators are small pieces of metal used to introduce energy into the boundary layer, the slow-moving air immediately adjacent to an airplane wing or fuselage. They are added when required to solve problems found in flight test like buffet, wing drop, aileron effectiveness, etc. Their use is undesirable because they have to be mounted at an angle to the free-stream air, which adds drag. However, sometimes there is no other way to solve the problem.

The A4D is an example of their use to solve aerodynamic problems. An extensive trial and error program resulted in an interim pattern of vortex generators used on the A4D-1 and a different one on the A4D-2 and subsequent Skyhawks. Here is an example of a pattern that was evaluated and not adopted:

Note that there are vortex generators on the fuselage and upper surface of the wing adjacent to the fuselage as well as on the wing just aft of the leading edge slat.

The actual pattern used on production A4D-1s were on the leading edge slat itself along with six on the fuselage, in this case ahead of the mid-fuselage break. (There are also two on the wingtip itself.)

The ones on the slats were an alternating pattern of long and short and angled left and right.

Note that the barricade engagement fences have not yet been added to the slat as they would be on production A4D-1s.

The vortex generators on the fuselage were not always in a line vertically.

Sometimes the lower two were missing.

During production of the A4D-1, a different arrangement of vortex generators was developed for all subsequent Skyhawks. The ones on the fuselage were deleted, a different pattern (same number) was used on the leading edge slats and the wingtip, and a second row was added on the wing ahead of the ailerons. (Note the fences for barricade engagement on the leading edge slat.)

There are no kits of the A4D-1 as good as those of the A4D-2 (A-4B). However, the vortex generators are not the only difference between the -1 and A4D-2 (A-4B), The conversion also requires the removal of the inflight refueling probe. The A4D-1 also carried 150-gallon tanks early on. In this picture, note that every other vortex generator on the slat (which has been locked up) is edge-on to the camera, making them appear to be missing...

For completeness, here is an early A4D-1 cockpit.

Note that at least one A-4A was subsequently modified to have the additional row of vortex generators on the wing, while retaining the ones on the fuselage. Other A4D-1s are likely to have been modified to this configuration during Navy overhauls, as well as having the vortex generators on the fuselage deleted.

F8F Bearcat: -1 vs -2

2010-12-30T15:25:00.000-08:00

The most obvious external differences between the Grumman F8F -2 Bearcat in the lead picture above and the F8F-1 were the 12" taller vertical fin and rudder and the 20mm cannon armament (the latter was also a feature of the F8F-1B, the B suffix indicating a change in armament) indicated by the longer barrels and the bumps on the upper surface of the wing.

Note that the vertical fin change was accomplished by adding the 12-inch increase at the bottom and keeping the trailing edge on the same line.*

What I hadn't appreciated until Snake45 showed me the way was that there were also subtle changes to the engine installation. The -2 had a slightly different exhaust stack installation and an oil cooler vent was added to the lower aft end of the cowl. The -1 shown here had what appears to be a larger exhaust trough with five pipes in it. (It doesn't look larger in this picture because there was a cover over the bottom of the trough, probably to keep the hot exhaust off the upper inboard part of the wing.)

This is a closeup of the F8F-1 exhaust trough with the cover removed:

The -2 had a smaller trough with only three exhaust pipes.

More subtle was the addition of a vent across the bottom of the aft end of the -2 cowl for dumping the air that passed through the oil cooler (Mark Hayward picture from the Prime Portal F8F Walkaround.):

I don't know where this air exhausted on the -1.

Mike West of Lone Star Models sells resin 1/48 F8F-1 and -2 cowls as well as other F8F improvements. Chris Bucholtz of Obscurco also offers a replacement F8F-2 cowl for the 1/48 Hobbycraft kit.

For much more detail on the F8F Bearcat and operational usage, see Steve Ginter's excellent monograph written with Grumman's Corky Meyer. It's also available from Sprue Brothers.

*The vertical fin of the old Monogram 1/72 F8F kit is exactly halfway between the -1 and -2 in height, so it needs to be cut down by six scale inches for a -1 and increased in height by the same amount for a -2.

Blog Entry Changes

2010-12-10T22:00:00.000-08:00

28 December 2010: Minor additions and corrections on the FJ-3 and FJ-4 Fury (October 2009)

13 December 2010: Minor corrections for the AD-5W seating in the Wide Body Skyraider (December 2009)

10 December 2010: Added matrix of configuration differences by BuNo and production Air Force F-111s to the F-111B entry (October 09)

23 November 2010: Added information, including additional cockpit illustrations, to early Phantom IIs (November 09)

1 October 2010: Modified the F-111B entry to provide more comments on the Revell kit and a picture of the ejection seat canopy modification (October 09)

20 September 2010: Added comparison of F-86 and XFJ-2 windscreen (October 09)

Vigilante!

2010-12-05T12:57:00.000-08:00

This is once again a work in progress, last updated on 6 December in the AM. I'm on the road so I don't have access to all my files. There may therefore be more errors and misstatements in the following than usual. Even then, it will pale beside the information available at Bob Jellison's website.

When the first pictures of the A3J-1 were published in Aviation Week, I thought it was the most beautiful airplane that I had ever seen. It was intended to replace the carrier-based, long-range atomic bomb delivery capability then provided by the Douglas A3D Skywarrior, except it was supersonic with a unique weapon delivery system. As it happened, only 59 were built, including the two prototypes, since it was the victim of a budget battle won by the proponents of the submarine-launched Polaris missile.

The nuclear bomb was carried internally but not dropped. Instead it was propelled rearward, attached to empty fuel tanks, out the back of the airplane at about 30 knots (not at the same speed as the aircraft as is frequently reported). Development of satisfactory accuracy of the bombing system was not achieved by the time it was apparent that Polaris was the better alternative for the requirement.

Before the bomber version was cancelled, however, the range of the Vigilante was to be improved with the A3J-2. Additional fuel was added by increasing the height of the fuselage over the wing and adding two additional external stores pylons. The extra weight was accommodated with a bigger wing and flaps and the addition of boundary layer control to the leading edge flaps. The engine inlet was also modified. Note that in the -2 prototype, the bleed air piping for the leading edge slats ran forward in the armpit of the wing.

The Navy ordered 18 -2s but only two were completed as such. The next four were built to aerodynamically represent a reconnaissance version, the A3J-3P, and used for transition training in the replacement air group squadron. (The leading edge BLC piping was relocated to above the wing and integrated with the overwing fairing.) The last 12 became the first RA-5Cs, the redesignation of the A3J-3P in November 1962.

These two pictures illustrate the difference in wing planform between the A3J-1 and the RA-5C.

The RA-5C was probably the best, certainly the most capable, reconnaissance airplane the Navy ever operated from carriers. It has never been replaced with anything comparable. It was fast, with good range/endurance, and big enough to carry an internal equipment pallet and a belly pod that could be fitted with cameras, side-looking radar, and electronic signal detectors. It retained the weapon delivery capability using the stores pylons but it is unlikely that it was ever used as an attack airplane, considering the RA-5C's value as a reconnaissance platform and that relatively few were assigned to each carrier air wing.

Counting the 12 A3J-2s that were completed as RA-5Cs, 91 RA-5Cs were built for a total of 156 aircraft:
2 XA3J-1s BuNos 145157/8
57 A3J-1s (A-5As) BuNos 146694/708, 147850/863, 148924/933, 149276/299
2 A3J-2 prototypes BuNos 149300/1
4 YRA-5C (YA3J-3P) BuNos 149302/5
12 RA-5C (A3J-3P) BuNos 149306/17
43 RA-5C (J79-GE-8) BuNos 150823/842, 151615/634, 151726/151728
36 RA-5C (J79-GE-10) BuNos 156608/653

The nomenclature above is not precise in all cases since it is intended to differentiate between the various contracts, initial intentions, etc. Note that -3 is not a typo.

The 91 RA-5Cs built were augmented by conversions of earlier production. Not all sources agree, but Joe Baugher's website provides a list of conversions by BuNo. According to his tally, there were 43 A-5As converted including one of the A3J-1 prototypes. In addition, the first six of the original order of 18 A3J-2s were rebuilt to the RA-5C configuration, for a total fleet of 140. Some sources state 134, with the difference likely being the omission of the two A3J-2 prototypes and the four YA3J-3Ps. Of course, due to attrition (almost half of the A-5s built were destroyed in accidents and combat), the fleet never totaled 140 aircraft at any time. In fact, the production line was restarted, a very rare event, to build the last block of aircraft in order to bring the numbers back up to a satisfactory level.

The last new-build RA-5Cs were slightly different in addition to being powered by the J79-GE-10, which had a notably different afterburner nozzle.

The engine inlet of the last new-build aircraft also had a different outboard shape, being straight instead of curved, and a small leading edge extension was added to the wing.
Early RA-5C inlet:

Late RA-5C inlet and leading edge extension:

There were, of course, detail changes over time to the ECM antennas, tail cone, etc. It also appears that some of the conversions from A-5As (and a couple of early build RA-5Cs) were to the later build inlet configuration with the leading edge extension like BuNo 146702 shown here. Note that the RA-5C vertical fin tip slopes downward from front to back due to the addition of an IFF antenna.

From photographs, Craig Kaston has identified the following BuNos as receiving the late-build configuration: 146702, 149276, 149287, 149299, 149301, 150831, and 151630. Note that the last two were originally delivered as RA-5Cs in the early configuration.

Trumpeter has produced both 1/72nd and 1/48th kits of the RA-5C. It is reportedly a mix of features of the early and late configurations, but the major knock on the kit is the shape of the forward fuselage and vertical fin. For comparison, here are Rockwell drawings. (The first one shows the tip of the vertical fin as being roughly straight across, which is incorrect for almost all, if not all, of the RA-5Cs.)

As usual, Steve Ginter offers one of the best monographs on the subject, North American A-5A/RA-5C Vigilante Naval Fighters Number 64. It is also generally available from Sprue Brothers, along with lots of other Vigilante kits and stuff.

To be continued...

F3H Demon

2010-11-14T08:53:00.000-08:00

The McDonnell F3H Demon is another of the airplanes that doesn't get the respect that it deserves from the aviation enthusiast equivalent of the mean girls in high school. It provided carrier-based all-weather defense against Soviet bombers for several years, proving far more useful than the flashier and less disparaged fighter that it was initially a backup for. The much-praised McDonnell F-4 (F4H) Phantom owes more than a little to the experience, good and bad, by McDonnell and the Navy with its older brother.

The Bureau of Aeronautics initiated the F3H program as a backup to the Douglas F4D Skyray. They were intended to be all-weather interceptors launched in response to the warning of an incoming bomber raid, climbing rapidly to altitude and destroying the threat with a salvo of unguided 2.75-inch diameter folding fin rockets aimed solely by radar. Both were to be powered by the new Westinghouse J40 engine.

Unlike the F4D, which carried the rockets in pods under the wings, the original F3H incorporated a 24 rocket-filled tray that deployed out of the belly. It was also a sleek, gorgeously sculpted design that looked like it was going Mach 1 even when it standing still.

In 1950, however, before the XF3H even flew, the Navy decided to make the Demon a backup as well for the two general-purpose fighters that it had on contract, the Grumman F10F Jaguar and the Vought F7U-3 Cutlass. This required an increase in fuel capacity and a change in armament capability, but Westinghouse was developing an uprated J40 which would allow the increase in gross weight, and with minimal armament and fuel load, provide the rate of climb necessary for the interceptor mission. The fuselage was deepened slightly, the nose canted down by five degrees for better visibility on approach, the inlets enlarged by 26 square inches, and the aft fuselage extended rearward about 18 inches, in part to compensate for the addition of four 20 mm cannon and their ammunition in the forward fuselage below the pilot in lieu of the internal rocket storage. The radome shape was changed to improve transmissivity.
The wing area was increased slightly by extending the leading edge forward, increasing the slat chord by nine inches. However, the basic structure of the wing was also redesigned to increase its stiffness and incorporate a new wing fold break required by the change to inboard ailerons that had been developed on the XF3H for better roll control at low speeds. The horizontal stabilizer area was increased as well and changed from a stabilizer/elevator design to a stabilator.

The F3H-1 also had a one piece windscreen, among other detail changes.

Unfortunately, the original J40 disappointed from just about every standpoint imaginable and the Navy was forced to replace it in both the F4D and F3H as well as the Douglas A3D Skywarrior. Douglas got the Pratt & Whitney J57; McDonnell was forced to make do with the Allison J71, an inferior engine compared to the J57. As part of the redesign, the F3H-2 incorporated a wing of greater area that also had a cambered leading edge.

The first production -2s retained the one-piece windscreen and auxiliary air inlet doors of the -1 but the windscreen was changed to a more conventional three-piece one after what may have been a fatal bird strike on the original design and the auxiliary air inlet was deleted as not required. By happenstance, the -1 was produced when Navy fighters were painted overall gloss sea blue and the -2, when the basic scheme had changed to gull gray and white.

(Photo from Mark Nankivil)

The first -2s were the -2N and -2M. The former was equipped with a Hughes APG-51A radar and armed with four 20 mm cannon and Sidewinders. The latter was armed with the cannons and the Sparrow I missile, which required the substitution of the Sperry APQ-51A radar. The ultimate configuration was the -2, which had an APG-51B radar to control Sparrow III missiles.

Spoilers were subsequently scabbed onto the wing to improve roll control.

(Don Hinton Photo)

Martin Baker seats replaced the McDonnell seats late in -2 production (BuNo 146709 and subsequent) and were retrofitted to earlier aircraft when they went through overhaul. The "beaver tail" was also shortened on BuNo 143403 and subsequent. I don't know if this change was retrofitted.

The two upper 20mm cannon were removed from some aircraft in service to reduce weight.

For more on the XF3H and subsequent Demon proposals, see American Aerospace Archive 4, HERE. My book, Naval Air Superiority, contains a chapter devoted to the F3H; purchase information is provided in the sidebar, right. Steve Ginter's F3H monograph is available from Sprue Brothers.

Not counting the Airmodel vacuform "kit", which is neither complete nor accurate, there have been two 1/72 scale F3H kits, Rareplanes and Emhar, both of the -2. The Rareplanes is a fairly complete and accurate vacuform kit, lacking only decals. I built this one several years ago.

A detailed review of the Emhar model is provided HERE.

There are also three kits, again of the -2 variants, in 1/48. Phil Brandt built and reviewed the Golden Wings vacuform in his inimitable style HERE. The Grand Phoenix injection-molded kit is reviewed HERE and HERE. The AZmodel kit is reviewed HERE.

F11F Tiger

2010-11-05T16:20:00.000-07:00

Grumman only built 201 F11F Tigers, the jet-powered equivalent of its F8F Bearcat: a day-fighter tailored for low cost, maneuverability, and minimum size at the expense of maximum performance. It was in accordance with the vision of the BuAer Fighter Class Desk officer who authorized its development from F9F production contract funds. Unfortunately, after he left BuAer for his next assignment, the new Class Desk modified the procurement requirements for the competitive day fighter to emphasize performance instead. The result was the F8U Crusader, which outclassed the F11F with its original engine in just about every respect.

The first 42 Tigers, BuNos 138604-138645, had the so-called short noses (BuNo 138603 was a static test article); the last 157, BuNos 141728-141884, had long noses. In between were two F11F-1Fs, BuNos 138646-7, which were powered by the General Electric J79 and demonstrated what the Tiger was capable of with a first-class engine.

The first three F11Fs, then designated F9F-9s in accordance with their origination as a product improvement of the Cougar using its production funds, had really short noses.

For production, the nose was lengthened and incorporated an in-flight refueling probe at its tip. The short-nosed Tigers also had only two stores pylons. The ranging radar was located behind a dielectric panel on the nose halfway between the windscreen and the tip. The gun camera was collocated behind a clear panel on the upper right side of the nose just aft of the tip.

Wright had problems with development of an afterburner for the J65 with serious consequences for Grumman’s test program and the F11F’s performance. The solution was the J79. The Navy agreed to let Grumman substitute it for the J65 in the last two Tigers of the first production lot, if for no other reason than to get early flight experience with the new engine. (General Electric also put a J79 in one of the two F4D prototypes as part of their development program.) However, in mid-1955 there was a plan to buy a J79-powered variant of the F11F, designated the F12F, and BuNos 143401 and 143402 were issued for prototypes. The contract was canceled on 4 January 1956 and the F11F-1Fs were now referred to as "aerodynamic and powerplant flight test vehicles serving as prototypes for potential production F11F-2 aircraft."

The Navy intended to equip the second lot of F11Fs with a visual-assist radar for an all-weather capability employing Sparrow IIs, so the nose and instrument panel were modified accordingly. The in-flight refueling capability was changed to a probe that retracted into the right upper side of the nose and the gun camera was moved to the base of the windshield. However, the Sparrow II program wasn't faring any better than the F11F so for production, the APG-30 ranging radar was retained but relocated to the nose. As a result of F11F-1F flight test, a leading edge extension was added to the inboard leading edge of the wing along with two more stores pylons.

Martin-Baker seats were bought for the F11Fs but they were not installed, except for two airplanes pulled out of Davis Monthan storage in 1974 for a flight test evaluation of the Rohr in-flight reverser. One was modified with the reverser and the other provided the unmodified baseline.

As usual, the best single references are from Steve Ginter. The F11F-1 is covered in Naval Fighters Number Forty and the F11F-1F in Number Forty-Four.

Hasegawa produced an excellent 1/72 kit of the long-nose F11F. It was subsequently reissued with a resin part for a conversion to the short-nose configuration, but unfortunately the transition to the shorter nose begins too far forward, which means it doesn’t look quite right. Some might question whether the stowed depiction of the arresting hook, upside down and backwards, is correct but it is. On prior Grumman fighters, the tail hook slid aft in a tunnel and hung down from the very aft end of the fuselage. The F11F installation was simpler and lighter.

Another minor problem with the Hasegawa kit is the main landing gear installation.The top of the main gear strut has to be positioned slightly away from the interior of the wheel well (I put a small wedge of plastic on the interior of the strut just under the locating pin) or it cannot be positioned at the correct angle due to interference with the lower edge of wheel well. The attachment pegs on part C12 also have to be modified as well so it can be properly positioned.

Trader and Tracer

2010-11-02T16:06:00.000-07:00

Kinetic has announced the release of a 1/48th S-2E, with the possibility of a WF-2 (E-1B) and a TF-1 (C-1) to follow. Hopefully, they will not rely on the drawings that have been used for 1/72 conversions. The following are based on Grumman drawings.

The TF-1 had a deeper fuselage than the S2F-1 but shared its wing and vertical fin/rudder. It had the same horizontal tail as the S2F-2 and -3. One result of using the S2F wing is that there is no deice boot where the searchlight was located on the ASW aircraft.

The aft end of the nacelle was terminated with a fairing. At least the left nacelle had a large door in this location for a compartment housing a life raft.

Note in the side view above and the following picture that the cockpit side window did not extend as high as the S2F's (my guess is that the overhead hatch had been increased in size) and there was no "crease" extending aft of the bottom of the window, indicative of the slightly wider fuselage. This picture also shows the gap in the deicing boot on the right wing. The large escape hatch on the forward end of the cabin was only on the right side of the fuselage.

Unfortunately, I don't have factory drawings with cross-sections that I trust. The following is my best guess based on what I have including pictures. The gray area is the cross-section provided on the Grumman WF-1 drawing for modelers. Note that the C-1 and E-1 fuselages do not have the longitudinal crease below the cockpit side window like the S2F and the upper side of the window is lower than it is on the S2F. The overhead hatch looks different as well and clearly extends more aft. These differences (except for the length of the overhead hatch) appear to result from the C-1 and E-1 fuselages having an oval cross-section immediately aft of the cockpit.

The WF-2 (E-1B) fuselage was based on the TF's but was stretched 18 inches between the wing and the cockpit. The wing was redesigned to accommodate a new fold mechanism necessitated by the radome above the fuselage. The chord was increased slightly between the wing root and engine nacelle, as was the span, by 3' 8 3/4". The dihedral was also increased outboard of the wing fold joint. The requirement to redesign the wing in such detail also resulted in the deletion of the gap in the deice blanket coverage on the right wing.

Another oddity resulting from the wing fold was a change to the wheeled tail bumper that allowed it to function as a tail wheel and free swivel, since the Tracker was a tail sitter with the wings folded.

The major blunder in all the 1/72nd conversions and kits that I've seen is the planform of the radome.

Note that the E-1B has the larger cooling air scoops on the top of the nacelle and CSD cooling air inlet/exhaust (on the lower right hand side of the engine nacelle ahead of the gear door on both the right and left nacelle) as the S-2D/E/G and a similar fuel dump pipe needed to get the gross weight down quickly in the event of an engine failure shortly after takeoff.

More to come...

F9F-6 vs. F9F-8 Cougars

2010-11-01T12:08:00.000-07:00

For completeness in documenting the development of the Panther/Cougar between the F9F-2 and the F9F-8 with either 1/72nd or 1/48th scale plastic kits, you need to convert kits to the earlier or later version. For the -2/5 Panther options and changes, see HERE.

The -8 Cougar is well represented in 1/72nd scale by the Hasegawa kit and in 1/48th by Collect Air resin kit and Fonderie Miniature and not as well by Revell, whose kit was actually 1/52nd. There isn't a -6 in either scale.

The changes from a -8 to a -6 are easy to summarize: shorten the fuselage by eight scale inches and the fuselage/wing fillet as shown (aft only; the forward section remains the same relative to the mid fuselage/wing) and reduce the chord of the wing:

Note that the speed brake has to move aft with the forward fuselage.

Some have noted that the length of the F9F-6 is given on the interweb as 40' 10" and the F9F-8, 42' 2". That would be a difference in total length of 16" inches, not 8. However, those dimensions appear to be apples and oranges. First, what you get for length depends on whether you measure along the waterline (i.e. the top view) versus along the ground. Depending on how much the airplane sits nose up and what the difference in height of the two points you're measuring between, you'll get different numbers for the length along the waterline versus along the ground. Second, it depends on what you measure to. For example, there is the tip of the Cougar nose, the tip of the barricade strap deflector that sticks out about three inches beyond the tip of the nose, and the tip of the inflight refueling probe mounted on the nose.

Measured along the waterline from the aft tip of the horizontal tail to the tip of the barricade deflector (the number provided in the Standard Aircraft Characteristics chart), the F9F-6 is 41' 0.75" long and the F9F-8 is 41' 8.875" long. (I'm not sure where the extra 1/8" goes, but I'm sure you're not concerned about it either.)

In the case of the Cougar, the horizontal stabilizer is higher than the tip of the nose, so when its length is measured along the ground, the distance is between an upper and lower corner of that angled "box", which is longer than its width for reasonable nose-up angles.

With respect to the dimensions cited from the web, the F9F-8 measurement along the ground to the tip of the barricade deflector is 42' 1.5625", which rounds to 42" 2". I'm not sure where the -6 measurement of 40' 10" comes from. It is likely to the tip of nose when measured along the waterline; that would make the distance between the tip of the nose and the tip of barricade deflector to be 2.75 inches, which is about right. It is almost certainly not the distance along the ground; in an early SAC, that is given as 40' 11" to the tip of nose, not the barrier guard, which would be even longer. In other words, the F9F-6 length of 40' 10" appears to be along the waterline and to the tip of the nose, whereas the F9F-8 length of 42' 2" is to the tip of the barricade deflector and along the ground. Apples and oranges.

In any event, I prefer to use station drawings from Grumman to compare the fuselages, and they confirm the eight-inch difference in length.

The wing change from the -6 to the -8 affected both the leading and trailing edges. The -6 leading edge slat was deleted and replaced with an extended and cambered leading edge outboard of the wing fence. The chord was also increased aft by adding a bay along the span of the wing.

It helps to know that the F9F-6 was created by simply adding a swept wing and horizontal tail to an F9F-5 fuselage that had the fuselage/wing fillet extended forward. In the following illustration, the black lines are an F9F-5, the gray represents the F9F-6 additions, and the red lines depict the planform of the F9F-8. (The green lines show the location of the upper surface controls and flaps; note that on the lower surface of the wing, the front of the flap is located farther forward than it is on the upper surface.)

It is possible to convert a -8 kit to a -6. The tricky part is the aft portion of the fuselage/fillet, particularly when you note on the side view above that the difference extends well forward of the fuselage break for engine removal. The alternative is use a Panther kit for the fuselage and the aft portion of the wing/fuselage fillet. In 1/72nd that means either 1) converting a Hasegawa -2 to a -5 by lengthening the fuselage and modifying the vertical fin and rudder or 2) making do with the Matchbox/Revell -5 with its deep panel lines, thick canopy, and thin vertical fin. (In both cases, the lower rudder needs to be lengthened.) Joe Hegedus did an excellent job of the Matchbox option as documented in detail in the September 2009 issue of FineScale Modeler. He solved the vertical fin shortcoming (and provided the correct lower rudder) by retaining the empennage from the -8 Hasegawa kit. Note that he left the aft portion of the -8 wing alone to simplify the conversion.

In 1/48, Don Fogal accomplished the same thing by mashing together a Monogram F9F-5 and the old Revell F9F-8. Here is a picture of the gorgeous result:

The presence of the antenna fairing under the nose is correct for these markings. The F9F-6 was originally built without it but many were modified to have it.

There is a possibility that the 1/48th Trumpeter -2/3, which may be more readily available than the Monogram -5, really has the fuselage length of the -5. I've added an approximate way to check that in my Panther blog entry, HERE.

For much more detail on the Cougar, buy Steven Ginter's Naval Fighters Number Sixty-Six for drawings and illustrations and Number Sixty-Nine for pictures of Cougars in every Navy and Marine squadron. They are available HERE.

Bat out of Hell

2010-10-13T08:52:00.000-07:00

Specialty Press has just published an excellent book on the F4D and F5D, Killer Rays, by Mark Frankel. It is available from Amazon and I can't recommend it too highly. Steve Ginter's F4D monograph is out of print but well worth the effort to find it for its many technical illustrations and pictures.

First, the Bureau Number summary:

XF4D-1: 124586-124587

F4D-1: 130740-130751                 12
           134744-134973    230
           139030-139207              178
                                                  420
Note: 130751 was a static test article and did not fly, so 419 is sometimes given as total production, not counting the two XF4Ds.

The F4D had a particularly long gestation, as Douglas sought to resolve handling quality and performance problems and Westinghouse, to qualify and deliver the Aero 13F armament control system. The first 109 Skyrays delivered (not counting the 2 XF4Ds or 12 from the first production contract) were accepted as day-visual fighters. Even the 110th, BuNo 134853, proved to be unacceptable for service acceptance trials of the all-weather configuration. The benchmark was finally the 176th, BuNo 134919, although prior aircraft were subsequently modified to be compliant with it. If you are a nit-picky modeler, it is easy to be confused by the differing details that you'll see in pictures of early and late Skyrays.

This is a drawing that I did for an IPMS article on the F4D. It was based on Douglas drawings with details added from photographs. (Contrary to some published drawings, the bottom of the fuselage did not tilt downward at the radome. It looks like it does in some pictures but it does not.)

Note that the basic drawing has the late upper aft fuselage and the early tail bumper fairing with the respective early and late counterparts shown as scrap views. This was the basis for the similar drawing in Steve Ginter's F4D monograph. Note that it depicts the early, small inboard and outboard Aero pylons that were superceded. If you look closely, you'll note that the big pylon that carries the external tank is angled slightly outboard and perpendicular to the lower wing surface. This is correct.

The Douglas seat originally installed was very similar to the one in the A2D Skyshark.

130XXX did not receive radar scopes, Martin-Baker seats, or other retrofits except for the engine change and on at least 130745, the upper aft fuselage change.

Lights: The F4D had flush Douglas position lights on the wing. Note that they were in slightly different locations on the upper and lower side of the wing. My old notes state that there were small yellow/orange formation lights below the canopy fairing and on the aft fuselage spine as shown on the drawing. The ones on the aft fuselage were later moved to the vertical fin. There was originally a white light on the top of the canopy forward of the hinge and on the bottom of the fuselage on the forward engine access door. Upper and lower red anti-collision lights were subsequently added to conform to FAA standards.

Early aircraft (at least through 134749) did not originally have the small leading edge barricade fences; these were retrofitted. Early aircraft did have the “spats” on main landing gear that helped engage the Davis barrier cables on axial deck carriers. With the advent of the angled deck, the spats disappeared.

At 134853, the center wing pylon that was used for external tanks was changed to the longer Aero 7A pylon (retrofitted)

At 134857, revised upper aft fuselage for drag reduction (retrofitted to earlier in late 1957/early 1958)

Early aft fuselage (and afterburner):

Late aft fuselage (and afterburner):

Note that the afterburner nozzle in the picture above is closed, the position for non-afterburning thrust. During development, it was decided to have the nozzle open (the position when the afterburner was operating) when the engine was idling. This both reduced static thrust and allowed the engine to idle at a high enough rpm to keep the generator on the line providing adequate ac current for the Aero 13F fire control system. As a result, when the engine was shut down, the nozzle was now open as shown in the following photo.

At 134919, larger inboard and outboard wing pylons (retrofitted); this allowed the 19-shot Aero 7D rocket pod to be carried.

At 139030?, the longer tail bumper fairing (it extended forward onto the aft engine access door) was incorporated for drag reduction. It was probably not retrofitted, e.g.BuNo 134936 at the Pueblo, Colorado museum has the original fairing.

At 139159, it appears that the J57-P-8A iris-type afterburner nozzle engine was replaced in production with the -8B flap-type afterburner nozzle engine. (The -8B was evaluated on 139030.) See Late aft fuselage pictures above. Prior aircraft were retrofitted.

At some point in production, the small inlet on the outside lip of each engine inlet was changed from a flush configuration to a bulged scoop. The flush inlet is seen as late as BuNo 134804 but the bulged scoop appears to have been retrofitted. The right flush inlet was round while the left was more rectangular.

The original armament was to be four 20 mm cannon and up to six rocket pods. The guns were sometimes (often?) removed and the ports faired over, (The shell chute holes were usually left open.) Sidewinder capability was added early on and up to four could be carried (on the inboard and outboard wing stations), although the usual load-out was two. When the Sidewinder capability was added, unique Sidewinder pylons were provided in place of the standard pylons; however, Sidewinders could also be carried on the standard pylon with the addition of a Sidewinder rail adapter.

Toward the end of the Skyray production run, the Navy decided to standardize on the Martin-Baker ejection seat for its fighters (except as it turned out, for the F11F Tiger). F4Ds were therefore retrofitted with the Martin-Baker seat as each went through its first or second overhaul. At least some Skyrays were still flying with the original seat at least through 1960 but a 15 September 1961 Flight Handbook revision implies that all F4Ds except BuNos 1307XX had the Martin-Baker seat by then.

Other notes:

The cockpit and ejection seat were originally black. At some point, the cockpit floor, console sides, and ejection seat were painted dark gull gray. The requirement was in place in March 1954, almost a year before the change in exterior color to gray/white, so it seems likely that the F4D cockpit was painted as shown here except for the prototypes and very first production airplanes. However, the color of the Douglas seat was black for some time before being changed to dark gull gray.

The inflight refueling capability was added by installing a probe on the left external tank.

Note that in example above, the ejection seat and its rails are dark gull gray, the 20mm cannon ports appear to be faired over, there is no red edging on the nose gear door, and Sidewinder rails are incorporated on the outboard pylon.

The leading edge slats were free to move so they were normally open due to gravity when the airplane was static. In flight, aerodynamic and inertia forces determined their position. (When the wings were folded, gravity closed the slats on the folded section).

The large triangular surfaces inboard of the elevons were giant pitch trimmers. They could be angled 28.5 degrees above their faired position but only 1.5 degrees below. They were trimmed up trailing edge up for takeoff and landing and are usually seen in this position when the aircraft was on the ground.

The rudder was in two separate sections. The lower was a true rudder; the upper was used for trim and yaw damping. It was not unusual for the two sections to be in different positions.

The pod on the centerline station was known as a Navpac. It contained marker beacon and civil VOR omni receivers.

Note that the instrument panel was not symmetrical: the upper left corner was slightly lower than the the upper right to improve the pilots ability to see the Landing Signal Officer.

The "tail wheel" extended when the landing gear came down and retracted 10 to 15 seconds after the main gear squat switch closed unless the tail hook was down. (I'm not sure but I think it went back up without delay when the tail hook was down.)

As far as kits go, the best by far is Tamiya's, which are available in both 1/72 and 1/48 scale. This is the 1/72nd version, built and photographed by Joe Hegedus.

Click Here for a detailed and helpful review of the 1/48th kit.

The Mighty Skywarrior

2010-09-21T13:29:00.000-07:00

The Whale was the result of a U.S. Navy program to develop a carrier-based, long-range, nuclear bomber. It had a very long career. Originally intended to operate from a super carrier, United States, it was downsized to be compatible with Midway-class carriers and with the advent of steam catapults and angled decks, based on the carriers as small as the Essex-class 27 Charlies.

There were two basic airframes, the Bombers and the so-called Versions. The Versions were special mission aircraft, with the Bombers also being relegated to a support mission role very early in the Vietnam War.

Bombers                               Versions

Production
   A3D-1 (A-3A)                      A3D-2P (RA-3B) Photo Reconnaissance
   A3D-2 (A-3B)                        A3D-2Q (EA-3B) Electronic Reconnaissance
                                                A3D-2T (TA-3B) Bombardier Trainer
Production ended in 1960.

Modification
   KA-3B Tanker*                      A3D-2Z (VA-3B) VIP transports converted from TA-3Bs and an EA-3B
   EKA-3B Tanker and Jammer   ERA-3B Aggressor Jammer

* The A3D-2s could and did carry the tanker package prior to the official designation of KA-3B.

The Versions were clearly distinguishable from the Bombers because the former was designed for a higher level of pressurization, externally most evident by the canopy framing. The canopy of the Bombers had skinny frames and a large rectangular sliding hatch; the Versions' canopy had heavier frames and the hatch was small, square, and inward opening. The higher level of pressurization was also evident in the structure of the boarding ladder/escape slide.

The canopy structure of both the Bombers and the Versions changed over time due to the relocation of the sextant port for celestial navigation. The last 21 Bombers were built with the sextant bubble in the left rear position; none of the Versions were originally produced with this configuration but many were retrofitted.

The Bomber configuration varied considerably over time. The main external difference between the A3D-1 and the -2 was the addition of provisions for inflight refueling. (A3D-1 BuNo 130353 was equipped with a probe for flight test evaluation.) The DECM or "Dove Tail" was incorporated in late production A3D-2s and retrofitted to earlier ones along with the subsequent DECM nose. The addition of the DECM tail was accompanied by a small rearward facing antenna on the vertical fin tip and a small inlet on the dorsal fin.

From BuNo 142650 and subsequent for both Bombers and Versions, the fuel vent, which had been a small vertical mast on the lower surface of the left horizontal stabilizer, was changed to a large horizontal mast on the left rear fuselage. It doesn't appear to have been retrofitted.

Provisions for the tanker package on the Bombers were also incorporated at BuNo 142650. When the tanker package was retrofitted on earlier Bombers as a permanent installation, the modified aircraft were designated KA-3B.

Other antennas came and went. As a result, a given Bomber may vary in detail from the following...

Rick Morgan notes that "many EKA-3Bs lost their distinctive ALQ-92 side blisters after 1972 but kept the belly canoe and its systems, remaining EKA-3Bs. You tend to see a lot of captions that mistake late EKAs for KAs. Many of the EKAs eventually lost all of their jamming systems and reverted to true KA status from about 1974; many of these airframes went to the two Reserve units which, despite their original VAQ titles, never had EKAs. If you look closely at later VAK-208/308 birds, many showed scars from where the ALQ-92 blisters had been."

The Versions' fuselage was very different internally, with the forward fuel cell moved aft to create a large pressurized compartment immediately behind the cockpit. The entrance door was relocated forward about 20 inches. On the A3D-2T and the A3D-2Q, an escape hatch was added to the top of the fuselage and a bailout door was incorporated on the right side of the fuselage for the cabin occupants.

The redesign was accompanied by other detail changes. All A3Ds used bleed air to turn two air turbine motors (ATMs) to generate the required electrical and hydraulic power. On the Bombers, the two ATMs were located side-by-side facing outboard on the left side of the fuselage. The exhaust ports were small round holes below and behind the cockpit. On the Versions, the ATMs were located below the cockpit, with one rectangular vent on each side of the forward fuselage. The Versions were also equipped with a deployable Ram Air Turbine for emergency power. It was located on a small door below the right ATM exhaust port.(The Bomber relied on battery power if both ATMs failed.) The Versions also had much larger brakes that extended a few inches out past the wheel hub and the aft end of the refueling probe fairing extended farther aft than on the Bombers because of the relocation of the forward fuel tank.

The A3D-2T did not have dual controls. It was a trainer for bombardier and navigators. It did have a unique flight deck arrangement, with the third crewman position behind the pilot facing forward instead of aft. A second complete ASB-1 bombing system was provided in the cabin along with positions for three other students and an instructor.Wing pylons were provided to carry practice bombs.

A slightly different wing was introduced during the production of the A3Ds, both Bombers and Versions. It had a cambered leading edge (CLE) airfoil, with the wing chord increased by about four inches perpendicular to the wing.

A slat was added between the fuselage and the engine pylon and the configuration of the outboard slats changed as well.

The benefits were a slightly lower stall speed and wind-over-deck requirement for takeoff and landing. Combat ceiling was also improved by about 1,000 feet. Maximum speed was a few knots slower. See BuNo chart above for aircraft were built with the CLE wing. The CLE wing was not retrofitted (except for Douglas flight test evaluation on BuNos 138918 and 138938) but I wouldn't rule out the replacement of a wing on a non-CLE A-3 with one from a CLE A-3 at some point in a long service life.

As shown in the opening picture above, the A3D sometimes sported old-fashioned wire antennas. These high frequency radio antennas don’t appear on early bombers. They are present on some KA-3s and EKA-3s and also some of the Versions. It was either a late production introduction (the last 20 non-CLE wing and all CLE-wing bombers?) and/or a retrofit. The forward connection was on the rear edge of the left side of the canopy fairing, so it was just to the left of the of the bomber’s sliding hatch when it was open. (There appear to be exceptions.) The upper antenna terminated on a post on the left side of the vertical fin just behind the leading edge antenna cover and below its top. The lower antenna also terminated on the left side of the fin, just behind leading edge antenna cover and just above the fin-fold joint. The lower antenna was not always present when the upper antenna was and vice versa, although if there was only one antenna, it was usually the upper one. Two upper antennas were sometimes seen as one-off additions to Versions.

The introduction of the RA-5C resulted in surplus RA-3Bs. The ERA-3B, not to be confused with the EKA-3B, was a highly modified Skywarrior used to provide simulation of enemy electronic warfare during fleet training exercises. All the reconnaissance hardware was removed from the camera compartment and an ECM operator station was added there along with a jump seat.* Since this compartment was now occupied (although there had reportedly been a jump seat there when it was an RA-3B), the overhead emergency-egress hatch provided on the EA/TA was incorporated.The TA wing pylons were added to carry jamming pods. Due to the addition of all the avionics and externally mounted antennas and ram air turbines, the ERA-3B was deemed too heavy to land on aircraft carriers so it was shore-based.

* Revised in accordance with MadDogVAQ33's comment below.

(Photo by Phil Friddell)

Both the 1/72 Rareplanes vacuform and the Hasegawa injection-molded A3D kits were produced using excellent factory drawings that I provided. The Rareplanes kit was one of Gordon's first with decals (a few unique black markings only for a VAH-4 KA-3B deployed on Kitty Hawk) and low-pressure molded landing gear struts. The overall shape is very good. The wing slats were the early configuration but defined by raised lines so a CLE wing would be just as easy to create. The canopy was for the later bomber configuration but unfortunately it was formed from a clear plastic that has yellowed over time so it would have to be replaced in any event. The kit included parts for the A3D-2P (RA-3B) camera ports and the EA-3B large "canoe".

The Hasegawa kit was issued in at least four different configurations but all were Bombers or modifications of Bombers such as the KA-3B and EKA-3B via extra parts. The canopy is the later Bomber canopy. The wheel brakes are the ones originally used on the Versions, but it may be that the later Bombers were fitted with them as well. The slats are depicted by fine engraved lines, rather than being extendable**, with a CLE wing slat represented inboard of the engine nacelle and non-CLE slats outboard. Not withstanding nit picky details like that, it is a very nice kit, as shown here, built and photographed by Paul Boyer.

(

**The normal parked configuration of the Skywarrior was with the slats extended and the flaps usually down. An extendable tail bumper is provided in the Hasegawa kit but it is normally up since it automatically retracted 15 seconds after touchdown and stayed up until the landing gear was next extended.

Other kits which have been produced are the 1/84 Revell injection molded A3D, the Combat Models 1/48 vacuform (with a separate detail set) A3D, and the Collect-Aire 1/48 resin EA-3B.

Several people have provided me with information on the Skywarrior over the past 30 years or so but I want to particularly recognize Rick Morgan's contributions and his role as the subject-matter expert for the Whale as far as I am concerned. The following references are also recommended:

Naval Fighters Number Forty-Five, Douglas A3D Skywarrior Part One Design/Structures/Testing
Naval Fighters Number Forty-Six, "Fleet Whales" Douglas A-3 Skywarrior Part 2
Aerograph 5 Douglas A-3 Skywarrior
Squadron Signal Publications Aircraft Number 148, A-3 Skywarrior in Action

Aftermarket Stuff

Jakub Cikhart suggested that I mention some of the aftermarket items available for the Hasegawa kit, specifically Eduard and Aires. Eduard produces a canopy and wheel hub paint mask set, XS112, and photo-etch details for the cockpit, speed brakes, etc, 72-258. Aires offers a set of speed brakes, wells, and actuators, #7247. (The Hasegawa kit speed brakes are not extendable.)

One of the few criticisms of the Hasegawa kit is that the cockpit detail is a bit sparse, followed by the observation that you can't discern much through the canopy anyway. Obscureco Aircraft have come to the rescue with a resin kit that provides cockpit detail for the A-3A/A-3B/KA-3B/EKA-3B. It includes three different variations on the bombardier's bombing hardware and the cockpit's rear bulkhead, with multiple options for the rearward facing seat equipment. It's not up on Obscureco's website yet but it's well worth your consideration.

Aeromaster issued at least two sets of decals for the Skywarrior, 72160 and 72161. Superscale also issued two decal sheets for the Skywarrior, 72-781 and 72-782.

XA3D-1: Newman R&D (aka Muroc Models) produced an excellent conversion kit for BuNo 125412. It includes resin parts for the J40 engine nacelles and pylons, the original nose and 20 mm tail turret, and the fin tip pod as well as a vacuform canopy, decals, and detailed instructions. The resin block used to form the canopy is also provided, so you can make replacement canopies if needed.

A3D-2 Bomber: One reissue of the Hasegawa A3D kit was the "Early Version." It included resin parts for the original nose and 20 mm tail turret as well as decals for VAH-1's 606AG assigned to Independence and VAH-9's 518AC. The turret is probably the best of the aftermarket options I've seen, since it includes engraved lines for the brake parachute and a recess for the tail hook. The instructions suggest scraping the later sextant framing off the canopy.

There are at least two other conversions like the one in the Hasegawa early version kit albeit without decals. One is Maintrack Models 72:43 for the "A-3A", although there was no notable difference between the -1 and -2. My impression is that the turret fairing extends a bit too far forward to properly mate with the fuselage if you cut it at the panel line indicated in the instructions: it will extend too far aft. Quickboost offers the original nose and 20 mm turret as 72 189 and 72 205 respectively. The turret is similar in configuration to the one in the Hasegawa kit and in my opinion is superior in accuracy and detail to the Maintrack version.

Versions: Cutting Edge Modelworks issued four conversion kits which all included "seamless" engine inlets:
CEC72018 A3D-1Q
CEC72019 ERA-3B
CEC72020 A3D-1P, A3D-2Q, NRA-3B, and EA-3B
CEC72021 RA-3B/A3D-2P
Decals were not included and the instructions are a bit less than complete.

Mike West sells a Hasegawa kit conversion for extending the wing slats, including the CLE configuration, and flaps. See http://www.lonestarmodels.com/Conversions1-72.html

The Stoof

2010-08-26T07:26:00.000-07:00

Steve Ginter has an S2F-1 monograph in work; it should be available later this year. See his Naval Fighters web site HERE. If you can find Fall 2007 (#8) issue of Aerospace Modeler Magazine, it included a build article on the 1/48th Collect-Aire S2F and details on the S2F.

The nickname "Stoof" was derived from its original designation, S2F. The originally approved name was Sentinel. This was changed to Tracker when the COD (Trader) and AEW (Tracer) versions were named.

Designations Pre/Post 1962:

S2F-1 S-2A

S2F-1S S-2B

S2F-2 S-2C

S2F-3 S-2D

S2F-3S S-2E

S2F-1S1 S-2F (A very rare instance of a prior designation being reused in the post-1962 lexicon)

The S2F-1 has long been represented in 1/72nd scale by the excellent Hasegawa kit. Kinetic has now released a 1/48th scale "S2F"kit which represents the S-2E/G.

Once upon a time (that's me as a pre-teen, between my brother John Gregory and a Navy pilot, John Brandenberg, who let us take a close look as his VS-21 S2F-1 in 1956 or thereabouts.

Short version of the differences between the Stoofs:

1. There were three fuselages, the S2F-1, the S2F-2 (S2F-1 with a bigger bomb bay), and the S2F-3. The S2F-3 center fuselage was longer than the -1's by 18 inches, 14 forward of the wing and 4 aft. The pilot compartment was increased in length by six inches by moving the aft bulkhead aft without changing the location of the window, which resulted in an increase in the length of the equipment operator's work space of eight inches. Note: the S2F-3 cabin was not widened externally as has been reported; there was an increase in internal width of three inches in the upper portion of the compartment accomplished by changing the fuselage skin in that area from skin/stringer construction to a honeycomb panel. The cabin window was also enlarged and it appears to have been relocated a bit farther forward.*

* As near as I can determine from pictures compared to a Grumman forward fuselage drawing, this is the size and location of the S2F-3 (S-2D and subsequent) crew compartment window:

2. There were two horizontal stabilizers, the original S2F-1 and a bigger version on the S2F-2/3 to offset the bigger bomb load and longer fuselage respectively. The S2F-3 had a greater wingspan/aspect ratio by virtue of the addition of rounded wingtips.

3. The big radome over the cockpit appeared early in S2F-1 production and was also on the S2F-2; it was deleted from the S2F-3. (The antennas were moved to the rounded wing tips.)

4. The aft end of the nacelles changed, first to add a "parrot beak" or "hawk's bill" fairing during S2F-1 production and then to cut the beak/bill off for the S2F-3 (S-2D)for more sonobuoy capacity. The two larger holes in the S2F-1/2 sonobuoy dispenser were for the SSQ-1 directional sonobuoy but it proved unsatisfactory in service so the bigger holes did not have the store retention clips.

S2F-1s (S-2As) with BuNos 129XXX and 133XXX and all S2F-2s (S-2Cs) were built with the small nacelle that faired into the upper surface of the wing at the trailing edge. All later S2F-1s (136XXX and higher) were built with an aft nacelle which extended over the top of the trailing edge of the wing and above and aft of the opening in the rear of the nacelle. The Canadian S2Fs had the early aft nacelle.* The Japanese S2Fs had the beak/bill.

Note that early S2Fs had a different main gear wheel hub as on this VS-21 S2F-2. They also had a smaller "head" on the extendible Magnetic Anomaly Detector located at the tail of the airplane.

5. The original cockpit of the S2F-1 and -2 had the control columns extending out from the instrument panel and the pilot sat in a bucket seat on a seat-pack type parachute, strapped in with a conventional seat belt and shoulder harness.

With the S2F-3, the control columns were relocated to be between the pilots and the instrument panel and the seat was changed to one with a back-pack type parachute and a restraint system requiring a torso harness.

This excellent picture of an S2F-3 in flight test at Grumman illustrates the differences between it and the earlier S2Fs:

Note the increased distance between the cockpit window and the red propeller warning stripe compared to the lead photograph, the bigger crew compartment window, the rounded wingtips that housed the antennas that had been in the strut-mounted "pod" over the cockpit, and the increased span horizontal tail. The retro-smoke marker located on the lower right fuselage between the cabin door and the dust bin radome was rmoved. (It was reinstated on the S-2G.)

The forward angled probe under the fuselage was the barrier pickup. It was added early during S2F-1 production after a barrier crash. See my Navy aircraft history blog entry Here. It was no longer necessary after the U.S. Navy completed its switchover to angle-deck carrier. My impression is that it was no longer installed at some point during S-2E production.

The higher gross weight of the S2F-3 required power plant installation changes as well:

Compare the size of the crew compartment window, the location of the warning stripe, and the engine nacelle of this Reserve S2F-1 to the above:

The "plumbing" in the nose cap was also rearranged:

The final U.S. Navy Tracker was the S-2G, which were modified S-2Es:

A folding antenna was added with an avionics upgrade where the barrier pickup had been. Note that extra sonobuoy dispenser scabbed onto the right side of the right nacelle (the 1/48th Kinetic kit has two but only one is needed) and the fuselage-mounted retro smoke marker system was reinstated. The S-2G was also operated by the Australians.

* The Canadian S2Fs were initially all but identical to the early production S2F-1s. However, the avionics suite underwent a series of improvements. For almost everything you need to know about the Canadian program, see This Excellent Website, identified to me by Robert St-Pierre, who also provided this picture of a CS2F landing on Bonaventure.

The "cans" on the CS2F wing tips contained passive ECM antennas, which presumably were incorporated in lieu of the similar S2F system located in the pod above the forward fuselage of the S2F-1/2.

Kinetic Kit Redux

Mike Belcher of Belcher Bits has done an evaluation of the Kinetic S-2E/G fuselage with an eye toward creating aftermarket decals and options for the CS2F. In the process, he has identified a problem with the length of the aft fuselage of the kit. See HERE.

Modelers continue to note shortcomings with the kit's cockpit. It provides a relatively simple version of the later seats, the S2F-1/2 instrument panel and control wheels, (see above) and a rectangular opening to the cockpit rather than an opening with an arch at the top, and is missing the aft (folding section) of the center console. I assume that it's also missing the search light control stick that can be seen in the copilots side window.

In order to provide adequate access to (and from) the pilot and copilot seats, the aft section of the center console could be pivoted upwards against the instrument panel where it was retained by a latch on the glare shield. The following are pictures of an S2F-1 cockpit. One shows the arch at the top of the opening to the cockpit.

The S2F had a fixed slot in the outboard leading edge of the wing.

The slot opening was farther forward on the underside of the wing. Note that there was a deicing boot on the lower surface of the wing aft of the slot opening as well as one on the leading edge of the wing.

Another view of the slot and boot on the lower side of the wing.

Another question raised about the Kinetic kit is the location of the jury struts used to secure the wings when folded. There were two very small permanent attach points on the centerline of the upper fuselage.

The wing-attach point for each strut was located inside a small door.

Note that the location of the attach point was different on the left and right wing.

The forward strut angled forward when installed:

For more pictures of the wing jury struts, among other things, click Here.

The Kinetic kit also omitted the search light reflector, etc. inside the searchlight housing. The light was mounted on a gimbal and aimed using a removable control handle mounted in the copilot's side window. (The picture of the gimbal has been rotated so you're looking down from above; it was lifted from this website.)

Click Here for pictures of the control handle (Note that the cockpit is an S2F-1 procedures trainer, not an S2F-3's.)

Click Here for a discussion of the difference in cockpit side windows between early and late airplanes.

A4D Skyhawk

2010-08-13T12:44:00.000-07:00

Note: I've revised this entry in response to a lengthy comment that I have not posted because it contained minor errors, some of which were the result of my less than crystal clear statements in the original and verbally hand-waving the location of the exterior angle-of-attack indicator lights on the A4D-2N and subsequent. Since I'm not sure that I can delete a personal email address in a comment before posting it and some people may not want their email address made public, if someone wants a personal response to their question/comment, feel free to email me at tommythomason@sbcglobal.net

I've been busy writing a book for Specialty Press on the Scooter. The A-4A/B corresponds to the A4D-1 and -2; The A-4C was previously the A4D-2N and the A-4E, the A4D-5. Note also the inlet difference on the J52-powered A-4E/F. More to come.

The A4D-2N (A-4C) nose was lengthened to accommodate a terrain avoidance radar. It was originally produced with a large dark radome.

For some reason, probably to reduce weight or improve avionics access, the original A4D-2N nose was modified to replace the large dark radome with one made of different material that had a distinctive slanted tip on the nose (light colored in this picture of a replacement radome) and all airplanes retrofitted. The change roughly corresponded to the designation change to A-4C in 1962. (However, large dark radomes are seen on deployed A-4s through at least 1965.) There were other detail changes like the addition of a windshield wiper shown here.

Another detail external difference between the A4D-2 and -2N was the angle of attack sensor and the exterior angle of attack indication for the LSO. On the A4D-2N, it was a large weather vane as shown above and the three-light display was located in the left wing's inboard leading edge. In the following picture, it is the dark window on the wing leading edge just above and on the inboard side of the forward end of the main landing gear fairing.

On the A4D-2, the transducer was a small "peg" in approximately the same location as the vane (left picture below) and the light display was mounted on the nose gear strut (center picture below).

Note: The antenna on the nose landing gear door in the upper left picture above is the Bullpup control antenna. The pilot on the ladder is wearing a white flash-resistant flight suit which was available for nuclear weapon delivery missions.

The Best F8U-3 Monograph Now Available

2010-08-11T15:00:00.000-07:00

Not too bold a claim, since as far as I know, it's the only one. However, it's got a lot of stuff in it on the F8U-3 and the Grumman D-118 that I'm sure you've not seen as well as coverage of the fly-off between the F8U-3 and the F4H. Steve Ginter doesn't have it up on his website yet but I'm sure it will be soon.

One omission (for another see my Naval aviation history blog here) is I failed to mention the Collectaire 1/48 F8U-3 kit in the Model Kits section. For a description, pictures of the model, price, and order information, go to this website.

As Christopher discovered (see his comment below), my three-view drawing on page 87 isn't 1/144 scale. I should have put a "scale" on it, which would have helped Steve get it the right size on the page, although that isn't as easy as you might think. In any event, it turns out to be about 1/135 on my copy. The dimensioned SAC three-view on page 92 also isn't as clear as I would like so here is a better reproduction. (Click on it for a bigger version.)

U.S. Navy Aerial Torpedoes in World War II

2010-01-30T19:19:00.000-08:00

The Mk 13 torpedo that the Navy used throughout World War II was developed in the early 1930s and placed in service in 1935, when the carrier-based torpedo bombers were still biplanes, although the new Douglas TBD had just flown for the first time. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, it was not fully qualified for realistic drop speeds and altitudes and the operation of its firing mechanisms was more theoretical than proven. When the war began, the Mk 13 proved disappointing. Even if the obsolescent TBD got in close enough to drop one, it was unlikely to run straight and if it did and hit the enemy ship, was even less likely to detonate. (Submariners experienced the same problems with the Mk 13's depth control and exploders.)

On the TBD, the Mk 13 was carried externally. Operational pictures taken prior to the Midway torpedo attack disaster indicate that the warhead section was gray, probably the same color as the bottom of the TBD, while the rest of the body was brass colored.

An extensive development and qualification program resulted in a very satisfactory weapon by 1944. The only external change to the torpedo was the ring tail, which improved the stability of the torpedo in the water so it ran straight at the set depth.

In addition, a set of plywood appendages was added to improve the torpedo's stability in the air and eliminate damage when it hit the water. The wooden barrel on the nose was called the drag ring. It slowed the torpedo from the drop speed prior to water entry and also acted as a shock absorber. The plywood box on the tail provided stability and repeatable ballistics in flight. Both of these wooden structures were designed to break away when the torpedo hit the water.

The later torpedoes may have had an olive drab warhead, the same as bombs, and a more silvery power unit.

The TBD's successor, the TBF/TBM Avenger, carried the torpedo in a bomb bay so the well-described drag ring was not a problem. The subsequent attack airplanes, the AD Skyraider and the AM Mauler, were to carry the torpedo externally. To reduce drag, a streamlined nose cap was developed that was pulled off by a lanyard when the torpedo was dropped.

However, the nose cap wasn't used for the last combat torpedo drop on the sluice gates at the Hwachon Dam during the Korean War.

WW II Color Scheme Anomaly

2010-01-30T07:10:00.000-08:00

In January 1943, the U.S. Navy released a specification that replaced the simple blue-gray over light gray camouflage scheme scheme with a complex one that employed counter-shading and counter-shadowing. Simply put, a dark blue was applied to the surfaces viewed from the top, a lighter blue on surfaces viewed from the side, and white on surfaces viewed from the bottom. As might be expected, there was a changeover period during which some aircraft that had already been delivered in the superseded scheme were repainted.

There appears to have been an early implementation of the concept at the Navy's Norfolk, Virginia aircraft rework/repair facility which differed from the more generally accepted approach with respect to the amount of light blue versus dark on the side of the fuselage. The most obvious difference is the demarcation of the dark blue extending upward from the wing on to the side of the fuselage. In what I call the Norfolk scheme, 1) the width of the dark blue area narrows above the wing instead of expanding forward and aft and 2) less of the top of the fuselage is dark blue. This F4U Corsair is an example:

Compare the above to the factory scheme on this F4U-1A:

There are pictures of just about every carrier-based airplanes in this scheme variation:

Note that aircraft in this scheme lasted through the various national insignia changes that occurred through July 1943. However, the attrition of carrier-based aircraft combined with the overhaul of survivors resulted in this scheme disappearing very quickly. Here is a picture of Norfolk-scheme Hellcats aboard Yorktown along with one in the better known tri-color scheme:

This air group features Avengers in what appear to be three different schemes. Also notable is the thin white stripe running up the cowling, which appears to be an aid for lineup during a torpedo attack.

U.S. Navy Bombs Up Through WWII

2010-01-09T15:38:00.000-08:00

I’m by no means an expert on this but I’ve spent a little time researching the subject and haven’t seen anything much better on the internet so far. The best single dissertation that I have seen is in Replica In Scale, Volume 2, No. 3 & 4, Spring and Summer 1974. It doesn’t however, include some of the details below on US Navy bombs.

Some people think that overall yellow denoted practice or inert bombs. According to the Replica In Scale article, Demolition, Incendiary, and Fragmentation bombs were painted dull, flat Yellow during 1920's-1930's. Practice Bombs below 100 pounds were flat white with one two inch blue band; over 100 pounds had a four inch band.

My guess is that bombs were delivered at the beginning of the WWII were still being delivered with a yellow primer coat for corrosion protection and then painted to suit. Here is an August 1943 picture of bombing up a PV-1 in the Aleutians. Note that there is a yellow bomb on the bomb truck. The others seem to be typical of 500 pound bombs - Dark Olive Drab (OD)* with a yellow band around the tail and the nose where the fuse goes, with a thin yellow band in the middle, presumably denoting the center of gravity. (The nose and tail band denoted the explosive in the bomb.) Note that the OD bomb closest to the camera on the bomb cart has a much weathered tail fin box compared to the one behind it. Normally the tail fin box was pristine, since it was shipped in a crate to prevent damage to the fins and ofter stored inside, separately from the bombs. Bombs and box fins from different manufacturers or manufacturing batches might very well be mated in the field, resulting in not only a difference in the "newness" of the bomb and box fin, but in color as well.

Somewhat earlier in the war, US Navy bombs seem to have been painted light gray with no bands, the gray presumably to match the camouflage of the light gray aircraft underside. There is a yellow circle between the mounting lugs, however, which is where the most useful bomb data, e.g. the ammunition lot number, was marked. This picture was taken next to a very early TBF in mid 1942. Note that the fins are oriented at 45 degrees to the usual position. Again, the fins appear to be more pristine than the bomb body.

Another gray bomb, this time for a PBY in January 1943. Note the even more pristine tail fins compared to the rusted? bomb body and the yellow circle on top.

There are several B&W pictures of Doolittle's 500# bombs from early 1942 - They are a light color, presumably gray (since they were probably Navy bombs provided by Hornet) but they could be yellow, and have lots of stencil type markings and mid-section bands.

Looking at the pictures I have so far, it seems that the 500# OD colored bombs had a single thin yellow stripe denoting the center of gravity and the 1000# bombs had a faint red-brown band that corresponded with each of the two suspension lugs instead. This band results from discoloration by the packing band that surrounded the bomb for transportation.

The tail fin orientation depended on the aircraft. Supposedly, the tail fins were generally installed "flat" when the bomb was to be hung externally and "pointed" (rotated 45 degrees so one of the fins aligned with the suspension lugs) when hung from an internal bomb rack. Here are 1000(?)# bombs with vertical fins ready for loading on a B-29; also note the two red-brown bands that are oriented on the lugs as mentioned above and the stenciling between the lugs:

There isn’t much consistency about the fin orientation in pictures so far. In the pictures above, the bomb in front of the TBF has the fins vertical but in instructional pictures of the TBF bomb bay with bombs in it, the fins are “flat”. The fins in the picture of the PV-1 loadout are also oriented "flat" and it has a bomb bay. It's also not clear to me why having the fins vertical was necessary other than a bomb with fins that way might have slightly better directional stability when initially dropped, which if true would be important when dropping them side-by-side and close together so they wouldn't "bump" below the aircraft. Otherwise it seems that having the fins "flat" is an advantage - slightly better ground clearance when on the cart, clearance with the aircraft when installed on a pylon, and better bomb-to-bomb clearance when stacked vertically in a bomb bay.

Here is a good picture of a Mk 43 500# bomb with the vertical fin orientation that also shows the standard markings including stenciling except for that thin yellow band around the middle denoting the center of gravity - you'll note in the picture of the "gray" bombs above that there is a circle of yellow (probably chromate) between the lugs, which is where the production Lot Number goes, probably the only important data on the bomb when it gets to the field.** That's why I think the bombs were painted yellow during production up through the beginning of the war and field painted. Gray would have been the logical color for the Navy since that was the color of the bottom of their aircraft. My guess is that OD from the bomb manufacturing factory became standard with the Army and Navy both using the same color bombs. Why OD? Probably because when they're out in the open prior to being loaded they're not such an obvious target. That might have been important to somebody in the Army and the Navy could lump it and paint their bombs if they wanted.

*You're on your own with respect to what color OD is. At the beginning of the war, it was presumably Dark Olive Drab 41, which was pretty dark. However, the actual shade appears to have varied quite a bit, not only when applied but after only a little exposure in the field. It was replaced later in the war by ANA 613, which by some reports is lighter and either browner or greener, but one wonders whether the bomb manufacturers were told to change in any event.

**The wording aft of the forward lug is something like LOT 1234/EXPLOSIVE/BOMB; The four digit number is representative. The wording forward of the aft lug is FROM PICATINNY ARSENAL; the O's forward of that would be a date or something like P.A. 12-43.

F2H Banshee Modeling Notes

2009-12-21T09:19:00.000-08:00

This is another work in progress. Illustrations and pictures will be added.

One of the first successful Navy jet fighters, the Banshee was successively developed for ground attack, photographic reconnaissance, all weather interception, and nuclear bombing, growing from a prototype with a gross weight of about 13,000 pounds to a final derivative with a gross weight almost twice that. This article is based on the following documents:

American Helicopter - July 1947
Naval Aviation News - April 1948
Aviation Week - October 31, 1949
Aero Digest - September, 1952
IPMS Quarterly -Volume 12, Number 3
Aeroplane Monthly - September 1975
Airpower - November 1979
Air Fan - Avril 1984
Naval Fighters No. Two (Out of Print)
F2H-1 Pilot's Handbook
F2H-2, -2P, -2N Maintenance Manuals
F2H-2, -3 Lines Drawings

Fortunately, Steve Ginter published a update of his now out-of-print Banshee monograph that covers the early F2Hs, see here.

The Very Experimental Banshee
Three XF2D-1 Banshees, Bureau Numbers 99858-99860, were built. The XF2D was subsequently redesignated the XF2H after Douglas began developing fighters again. The XF2D-1 was similar in configuration to its immediate predecessor, the McDonnell FD-1, which was eventually redesignated FH-1.

There were several detail differences between the prototype at first flight and the production F2H-1. The most noticeable is that the fuselage was one foot shorter and the canopy about two feet shorter. The vertical tail had a thicker forward fillet and there was considerable dihedral in the horizontal tail which was set a little lower on the vertical fin. The wing was thicker, its dihedral a little greater (five degrees versus three), and the chord a little less. Although the chord increase was small, the resulting difference in the size of the engine fairing on top of the wing root and the intersection of the wing surface and the tailpipe is noticeable. The wing root fillet inboard and aft of the tailpipe was also smaller. Finally the fin tip mounted pitot was located a little higher.

I don't have any cockpit detail, but according to Bob Edholm who made the first and many subsequent flights, it was similar to the early F2H-1 cockpit and did not have an ejection seat or gun sight. One unusual feature shared with the FJ-1 Fury was a kneeling capability. After landing, a small castering nosewheel could be inserted under the nose forward of the nosegear which was then retracted, This was intended to allow more aircraft to be parked in a given area (the lowered nose of one underneath the raised tail of another) and raise the jet exhaust blast which was expected to be a problem to deck personnel. These benefits apparently weren't worth the trouble and the capability disappeared early in production. Another unusual feature shared with the F3D Skyknight was a pivoting plate in the engine inlet which allowed the pilot to shut down and close off an engine for increased efficiency in long range cruise. Both intakes were normally closed off after the aircraft was parked and the engines shut down as well. The wing of the Banshee was exceptionally smooth due to the tooling and fabrication techniques used by McDonnell. This reduced drag and was considered to contribute to the excellent climb, cruise altitude, and range capability of the Banshee compared to other jet fighters of its generation although the aspect ratio probably had much more to do with it. Flight test of the XF2D revealed problems with airframe and control surface buffet which resulted in the production F2H-1s having an entirely different empennage and wing, in addition to a one-foot longer fuselage to add fuel and a longer canopy. The successive and successful changes to the external configuration which increase the limiting Mach Number were:
-Longer wing root fairing
-Enlarged dorsal fillet
-Fillet between horizontal and vertical tails
-Reduce horizontal tail dihedral

Many other modifications were unsuccessfully evaluated. The final modification of XF2H-1 BuNo 99859 was for test of the production wing and horizontal tail. As previously described, this wing was thinner with slightly more chord and less dihedral; the horizontal tail was thinner and had no dihedral. (Production aircraft also had a vertical fin with a thinner forward fillet.) Tip tanks with a somewhat longer conical aft end were also tested, and it is this final XF2H-1 configuration that is represented by the Hawk 1/48 scale F2H Banshee.

The early XF2H-1 configurations would require a lot of work on the Airfix 1/72 scale kit. The most obvious changes are the smaller canopy, shortening the fuselage, some degree of horizontal tail dihedral, and the thicker vertical fin. Less obvious are the wing planform and dihedral, wing root, and control surface differences. The wing root change would be particularly difficult to incorporate, although it would be approximated by increasing the size of the engine bulge on the upper surface of the wing root and reducing the wing chord at the trailing edge.

Production F2H-1
Contrary to almost all published reports, the F2H-1 was identical in length to the F2H-2 and one foot longer than the XF2H-1 to accommodate an increase in internal fuel. The extra foot and fuel were added just forward of the engine intakes. For modeling purposes, the F2H-1 is identical to the -2 except that it could not carry tip tanks or other external stores. Since the 46% additional fuel which resulted from the addition of tip tanks was almost essential and external stores capability very desirable, only 56 F2H-1s were produced. The only changes required to the Airfix -2 kit for a -1 are to reshape the wing tips including the outboard end of the aileron and revise the windshield to the straight sided configuration. The only notable difference in any scale between the later -1 instrument panel and the -2 panel was the slightly larger subpanel below the instrument panel required to accommodate the additional switches for external stores on the -2. The first ten F2H-1s also did not originally have ejection seats. The F2H-1 was featured prominently in the 1949 battle between supporters of the B-36 and those for Naval Aviation. The ability of the F2H to rapidly climb to and manuever at altitudes of more than 40,000 feet was used to question whether the B-36 could survive long enough against a jet fighter defense to bomb its targets. (McDonnell had an interest in both sides of this argument, since they were also developing the XF-88 USAF long range escort fighter.) An F2H-1 was fitted with a downward pointing camera in the rear fuselage to take a photo of Washington, D.C. from almost 49,000 feet to illustrate altitude capability. (Maximum altitude attained during this flight was reported to be 52,000 feet.) When night time intercepts proved significantly less straight forward than the day time trials, the B-36 bunch announced that they were only going in at night anyway and McDonnell got a contract from the Navy to develop an Airborne Intercept Radar equipped version of the F2H-2. Through no fault of the Banshee, the Navy lost that budget battle but was rescued by the Korean War in which the F2H played a supporting role. (The first Banshees went to east coast squadrons deploying to the Mediterranean, which meant that most of the Navy carrier-based jets involved in the Korean War were Grumman Panthers.)

F2H-2
The -2 was essentially the same as the -1 except for the addition of external stores and tip tanks capability.

The first -2s had a straight sided windshield like the -1 but this was revised to a curved windscreen early in production. There were three major variants of the basic -2: a photographic reconaissance -2P; an all weather fighter -2N; and a nuclear bomber -2B. According to the January 1951 issue of Naval Aviation News, the F2H-2N was the Navy's first fully operational jet night fighter. The -2N is a relatively simple conversion of the Airfix kit. Only fourteen were built, so it wasn't a significant aircraft from an operational standpoint. It represents a small stepping stone between the F4U-5N and the F2H-3 aboard the carriers. The major change from the kit is a new nose, extended to incorporate the radar which also required relocation of the guns.

Although the photo nose might look like it would be useful in the conversion, it is too wide at the aft end, too long, and too different in profile to be used directly, although it is accurate for the F2H-2P. You will note that the -2N originally had the early straight frame windshield as opposed to the curved one. The curved one was retrofitted to at least the first F2H-2N, BuNo 133300. If you do correct the windshield, you might consider moving the canopy forward to the position shown, which corrects one of the few Airfix errors. (For others, see the kit review section.) The -2N also had a large blade antenna on the bottom of the fuselage - the kit antenna should be about three and a half feet farther aft in any even and perhaps a little longer to be correct for the -2N. The kit cockpit can be improved as discussed in the kit review as well as adding the radar scope for the -2N configuration to the instrument panel. The radome portion of the nose is usually a cream color. Most aircraft are in the markings of VC-4, tailcode NA, but at least one aircraft operated with VF-82, tailcode E.

The Ultimate Banshee
The -3 Banshee was a stretch of the -2 with additional wing area and a relocated horizontal stabilizer. A larger radar than the one used in the -2N was incorporated and the guns were relocated. The F2H-3/4 were often operated without tip tanks (which were smaller than those on the F2H-2) and it appears that some were fitted with wingtips that did not have provisions for tip tanks. F2H-2N BuNo 123311 was used as a prototype for the fuselage stretch and was also equipped with afterburning engines. The -4 was externally identical to the -3; the principal changes were the radar and a somewhat uprated engine. Both the -3s and the -4s were modified after delivery with a triangular fillet on the horizontal stabilizer. This resolved a structural problem. Some aircraft were also modified to carry Sidewinders. Inflight refueling was a semipermanent but optional modification. It consisted of a refueling probe installed in place of the left hand upper 20 mm cannon and a fairing on the belly of the aircraft covering externally added fuel lines.

Other
For the nuclear capable Banshees, see here. McDonnell also proposed Banshees with afterburning engines and swept wings.

Banshee Kit Reviews
1/48 Scale Hawk/Testors F2H-2: Larry Montgomery loaned me his kit to look at. Although it looks odd, it does resemble the XF2H-1 BuNo 99859 after it was modified to have the production F2H-1 wing and horizontal tail and tip tanks similar to the F2H-2 configuration. In addition to the fuselage and canopy being too short (the fuselage length difference isn't obvious but the canopy's is) the shape is somewhat off. The nose and engine inlets are not deep enough and the aft fuselage is a little humpbacked. The horizontal stabilizer and wing trailing edge aren't quite right. The kit is more than 50 years old, which means that it doesn't have any cockpit, each landing gear is in one piece - strut, wheel, and tire - and raised lines are used to locate decals. However, some people have produced very good looking models with this starting point.*

If you decide to go with the Hawk/Testors kit, here are McDonnell drawings of the F2H-2 to compare its shape to:

1/72 Scale Airfix F2H-2: This is no longer state of the art from a kit standpoint, but it is a basically accurate and detailed representation of the F2H-2 and provides an optional nose for the -2P variant. Surface detail is provided by a combination of fine recessed and raised lines. There are optional wing store stations with bomb or rocket alternatives. A very good basis for a cockpit is provided. Some of the features are notable. The engine inlets are sharp and the boundary layer splitters are relatively thin. Parts are provided to represent the front and rear of the engines. The tailhook and landing gear are very finely drawn and realistic. The inside of the nose gear doors is detailed. If you put on the wing stores pylons, you should add a couple under the inboard portion of the wing ahead and inboard of the main landing gear on each side. There are a few minor shortcomings. The canopy frame is raised excessively and the windshield should be a little narrower at the top and bottom to accurately represent the later windshield and should have straight sides to be the early version. (The canopy should bulge out to the side but it is very difficult to mold this shape.) The canopy is also located slightly too far aft but this isn't a correction worth making. The wheel wells are too shallow. There are no provisions for mounting the nosegear doors at the correct angle. There's no clear glass for the photo nose although red decals are provided to represent protective covers for the side windows. The engine inlet can be improved by adding filler to the inside of the outboard edge. The upper wing fold line should be farther outboard and the lower wing line should be slightly farther inboard. The root end of the horizontal stabilizer is misshaped. The cockpit tub can be improved by widening the side consoles and extending the floor forward. A throttle quadrant could be added. The instrument panel needs to be replaced and a gunsight added. The ejection seat can be improved but is a reasonable starting point. The -2P photographic reconnaissance nose really did bulge outward slightly forward of where it joins the fuselage.

A later version of this nose included a camera position which looked forward and down. The cockpit of the -2P featured a large round periscope sight at the top of the instrument panel which enabled the pilot to view the terrain immediately below the nose for a camera's eye view. The -2P was unarmed but did have provision for wing station mounted flash bomb pods for night photography. The original Airfix kit provided somewhat matt and foggy decals for a VMJ-1 F2H-2P (2MN) and a VF-172 F2H-2 (210R). In the USAirfix produced kit, the decals are by Scalemaster for an F2H-2B of VF-101 (103T) and an F2H-2P of VC-61 (30PP); the BuNo of the VC-61 aircraft should be 128874 rather than 128784. The MPC issue had below average quality decals for only an F2H-2, 116T. Microscale Decal Sheet Number 72-268 provided markings for VF-22 (116F), VF-11 (116T), and VF- (214P) aircraft and includes detail markings which are not on the kit decal sheets. Unfortunately the lack of Microscale scholarship and/or accuracy results in errors like white rather than red static source markings. In general, the Navy -2Ps were trimmed in orange - not red - markings while the Marine -2Ps had red markings. The Microscale tail trim decals will be hard to apply. The Scalemaster trim should probably be orange rather than red and the tail trim is not provided or shown.

Hobby Craft 1/72 Scale F2H-3: This kit is obviously based on Airfix's. The fuselage halves and the wing and horizontal tail are new, the details of the cockpit, the engine inlet/exhaust, and the landing gear are copies of those in the Airfix kit. The kit omits the tail skid/tiedown and the pitot installation which was located on the lower right side of the fuselage. Some of the wing control surface and flap lines are missing along with those for the main gear wheel well doors although they are all shown on the kit drawing. The tailhook cutout is slightly wrong. The kit canopy has a thick section at the top which is objectionable. The tip tanks appear to be mounted slightly too far aft. The 20 mm cannon openings should be backfilled and the upper cannon port might look better if it appeared to angle downward. The fuselage is slightly undersized, but in view of the work required to modify the Airfix kit to the bigger Banjo configuration that I described in IPMS Update Volume 17 Number 6, I suggest that you ignore this shortcoming as well. You should also ignore the main gear door and retraction strut locations shown on instruction sheet step 5. Hobby Craft copied the Airfix -2 nose gear which is unfortunate, since the -3/4 nose gear installation was notably different as you can see by comparing the kit part to the box art, which is more accurate. The -2 gear was a trailing arm type, with the forward end of the fork acting as the lower side of the scissors. The fork of the -3/4 gear was fixed relative to the strut and a damper/centering spring was added. The scissors was on the aft side of the strut.

The sit and nose gear door open position are the most noticeable differences. The normal stance of the -2 was slightly nose low while the -3/4 sat slightly nose high. The -2 nose gear doors were splayed wide open whereas the -3/4 nose gear doors were only vertical when open. The forward end of the nose wheel well and the nose gear door was also a different shape. The kit wingtips will have to be modified to add a bulge on the lower side if you depict one without tip tanks that had provisions for them. (The -2 also had this bulge, but was less often flown without tanks since it had less internal fuel than the -3/4.)

1/72 Scale F2H Vacuform kits: Long ago, AirModel produced an F2H-2 kit which approximates the Banshee size and shape and features crude engraved detail and a poor excuse for a canopy. (Some of the subsequent AirModel kits were better quality.) I built an AirModel F2H-2 a few years before the Airfix kit was released. About this same time, I had just finished upgrading the 1/72 Monogram kit of the F-14 Mockup to a production F-14 when Hasegawa released their first F-14 kit. As a result of these experiences, I have a great deal of trouble building any kit that isn't accurate and state of the art. Execuform produced a very plain kit of the -3/4 which is even worse than early AirModel quality. The wings and tail surfaces are very thick and the fuselage shape is best described as vague. There is a photo of a model made from this kit and it looks like a caricature of a -3. Falcon Triple Conversion II included a -3 fuselage and wings along with an inaccurate C-1A fuselage and various antennae for an EP-3E. I haven't built it and probably won't since the Hobby Craft kit is a significantly easier starting point. I've also noticed that the plastic on some of my old Triple Conversion kits is very brittle.

An Banshee enthusiast, Unit19, compiled this list of web sites that might be of use:
F2H-3 Walkaround
F2H-2 Walkaround
F2H-2P Walkaround
1/48 Collect Aire F2H-2/2P/2N Review by Fotios Rouch
1/48 Collect Aire F2H-2P Review by Fotios Rouch
*1/48 Hawk/Testors F2H Review by Don Fogal
*1/48 Hawk/Testors F2H Review by Henry Townsend
*1/48 Hawk/Testors F2H Review by Steve Mesner
*1/48 Hawk/Testors F2H Review by Darren Roberts
*1/48 Hawk/Testors F2H Review by Tony Prince
1/48 Collect Aire F2H-3/4 Review by Fotios Rouch

*And finally, Harold Offield's review of his F2H-2:

Changing from Blue to Gray/White

2009-12-19T11:30:00.000-08:00

After some experimentation, including leaving aircraft in a mostly natural metal condition like the Air Force*, the Navy decreed in February 1955 that tactical aircraft were to be painted light gull gray on top (except for control surfaces) and white on the bottom. This took time to accomplish (for example, natural metal aircraft being overhauled were not required to be completed in the gray/white scheme until July 1955). For a year or so, aircraft in some squadrons were in three different schemes like these Red Ripper F2H-3/4s.

VF-61 deployed with F9F-8s in two different schemes as late as March 1956.

Note that the VF-61 Cougars are trimmed in what appears to be "orange", which is actually a shade of yellow. The second squadron in an air group had previously been trimmed in white when aircraft were gloss sea blue.

White trim was not nearly as dramatic with the gray/white scheme so the trim assignment for the 200-series squadron was changed to orange-yellow.

The rudder was not originally to be painted white but this requirement was formally introduced in December 1961. However, some rudders were white before that, particularly on aircraft that might be assigned to deliver a nuclear weapon, to minimize the thermal effect of a nuclear explosion on the thin-skinned control surface.

Anti-glare panels and walkways were originally dark gull gray but this changed over time to non-specular black, particularly the anti-glare panels.

Before March 1954, Navy jet fighter cockpits were basically black from the consoles up and interior green below; ejection seats were interior green, at least in the sea-blue painted Panthers and -2 Banshees. After that, the cockpits were to be dark gull gray with black consoles and instruments. I'm not sure whether the sides of the cockpit and the instrument panel itself were now gull grey at this point but the intention was to lighten up the cockpit interior. (There was also cockpit-color experimentation circa 1956 which resulted in at least some FJ-3 Furies having a bilious green interior.) The change was made to both new production and aircraft coming out of overhaul but certainly not immediately. For one thing, it took time for the direction to flow down to the manufacturers and overhaul depots, the revised drawings and manufacturing/overhaul paperwork to be prepared and approved, etc. Aircraft in production or overhaul at the time would certainly not be subjected to the change because of the rework involved. Therefore a fleet airplane that had just come out of overhaul in early 1954 might not get a gray/black interior for a couple of years, if ever.

However, if the exterior is gray/white, then it's likely that the interior is gray/black since the interior change predated the exterior change. It would appear that ejection seats became black with the change to grey/white but there were exceptions. For example, the F4D ejection seat was black in early grey/white airplanes but subsequently became dark gull grey like the cockpit interior. (There was apparently no specific color assigned to the ejection seat officially until May 1963, when they were to be painted dark gull grey; however, the Martin-Baker seats were always black...)

The official change to white wheel wells was not made until July 1956. Before this, they were either sea blue, zinc chromate, or white. At some point early on in the gray/white era, the interior of speed brakes and flaps/slats and the edges of the landing gear doors and other "pinch points" were to be red. However, this doesn't seem to have been consistent applied for a while. The F4D Skyray landing doors, for example, appear to have been rarely edged in red, although the interior of the slats was red later on. Also note the light gull gray rudders, the dark gull gray anti-glare panel, and the black ejection seat in the following picture early in the F4D's operational career.

As shown in the F4D photo, rescue warnings were originally red with white letters. These eventually became yellow with black letters. The configuration of the jet intake warnings also changed over time.

The leading edges of the wings and tail surfaces on all tactical aircraft (it had been just the jets) were now to be protected from erosion by the application of Corogard, a gray epoxypolymide paint (requires a hardener) that was “aluminized" with the addition of aluminum particles. It was a relatively thick coating and the perceived color and shininess varied with lighting and length of time since it had been applied. Some knowledgeable observers report it as being close to silver when new that weathered to a light gray. Another reported shade is close to aluminum lacquer paint. Another description is “semi-gloss medium metallic gray.”

*April 1952: An experimental natural metal finish was to be evaluated on approximately 100 F9F-5s (and at least one F9F-2), all F7U-3s, 100 F2H-3s (and apparently some F2H-4s) and all FJ-2s. Also see here.

F3D Skyknight

2009-12-12T09:50:00.000-08:00

Paul Bless knows a lot more about the Douglas F3D Skyknight than I do and is generously sharing it. (Also see Steve Ginter's excellent F3D monograph here.)

First, there were three basic configurations: three XF3Ds (BuNos 121457-9), only 28 F3D-1s (BuNos 123741-123768), and the F3D-2s. There were also post-production mission modifications to the -2. A swept-wing -3 was initiated but cancelled by the Navy before it left the drawing boards. The F3D was redesignated F-10 in the 1962 designation system change mandated by DoD.

The XF3Ds had the very small engine nacelles, big speed brakes on the side of the aft fuselage, and a teeny tail bumper. They were powered by two Westinghouse J34 engines with a total thrust of 6,000 lbs.

For the production airplanes including the -1, the engine nacelles were significantly enlarged. According to one of the Service Test reports, "Weight and space provisions are made for the J34-WE-32, J34-WE-38, or J46-WE-2 engines, with and without afterburning." (It's not clear what dash number engines were installed in the production -1s or their rating. Depending on the source, they were -34s with a total thrust of 6,500 lbs or 6,800 lbs or -38s with a total thrust of 7,000 lbs, among others.) As Paul has pointed out, Douglas was also trying to interest the Air Force in the F3D as a substitute for its troubled F-89 at the time; this would have required installation of either the afterburning J-34-WE-15 or J-34-WE-17. Another change that affected the engine installation was an increase in the internal fuel capacity from 1290 gallons to 1350, which displaced the engines down and outboard slightly.

On the production -1, the size of the two existing speed brakes was significantly reduced and a large brake was added to the bottom of the fuselage, similar to the AD Skyraider installation. The latter proved to be unsatisfactory and was either not installed on or removed from the last 18 production -1s. The skid-type tail bumper on the XF3D was changed to a wheel-type tail bumper on the -1.

The roll control change between the XF3D-1 and the production -1s, which was an increase in the boost ratio from 15:1 to 20:1 proved to be inadequate. The -2s got wing spoilers for roll control in addition to the ailerons and for boost-off flight, an automatic mechanical advantage shifter providing a 2:1 ratio in lieu of the control stick extension feature which was also used on the F4D and the A4D.

Unfortunately, the F3D never got an engine with enough thrust so that its aerodynamic performance matched the capability of its night fighter avionics suite. There were very few deployments aboard aircraft carriers. Most of the F3Ds were operated by the Marine Corps from land bases.

The Korean War did provide a situation perfectly matched to its strengths, which was escort at night of Air Force B-29 fighters. In effect, the F3D crews were trolling for MiGs with the B-29s as bait. Even though the MiG pilots had no on-board radar, it wasn't as one-sided as you might expect because they were being vectored by ground controllers using radar and the F3D engine exhaust was very bright and readily visible at night. The F3D crew relied on their tail-warning radar to break away when a MiG came in behind them. The resulting kill ratio was seven MiGs and one probable against one F3D loss.

VC-33, the all-weather night attack squadron that provided detachments to air groups deploying on aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean and North Sea, evaluated the F3D as a replacement for the AD-5N, but determined that the Skyraider was more effective due to its much greater endurance and bomb/rocket carrying capacity.

The F3D was also valued for its size during the development of the air-to-air guided missile. The first one pressed into this service was the second XF3D.

This was followed by modifications of both -1s and -2s for testing by VX-4 and subsequently operational use by the Marine Corps. The -1M and -2M changes included removal of the 20mm cannons as well as a new, longer nose incorporating the Sparrow I missile control system. Although carrier qualified, none deployed with an air group aboard a carrier.

Paul also provided the following on the F3D-2B: "(It) was actually a series of modifications incorporated in approximately 114 (if I remember correctly) of the standard F3D-2’s to allow them to carry either the MK-7 or MK-12 special weapons... It was basically a two gun aircraft; removing two 20 MM weapons and armament components to allow for installation of the various ballistic and radar altimeter components required. The cockpit installations were all on the RO’s side of the aircraft. It also removed the tail warning radar and modified the right stores pylon to carry the weapons. The “pilot” aircraft for the modification was BuNo 127044, but I believe the intended plan was for the remainder of the aircraft to carry simply the F3D-2 designation (aka, nuclear capable F2H-3/4)."

Photo from Gary Verver

The Marines subsequently modified several F3D-2s, designated EF-10B, for electronic reconnaissance and countermeasures missions in the Vietnam War as a placeholder until the EA-6A was available.

Like the A3D, the size and relative simplicity of the F3D made it a very useful testbed. Three were taken up by the Army and used for test programs into the early 1980s.