AD (A-1) Skyraider Original vs Extraction Seat

The Navy contracted for the incorporation of the Stanley Aviation Corporation Yankee seat in at least two squadrons of its AD (A-1) single-seat Skyraiders. This was an extraction system as opposed to an ejection seat. In the event that the airplane needed to be jettisoned, the pilot was pulled out of his seat by a cable attached to a rocket as opposed to riding a seat that was propelled by a rocket (originally an explosive charge) out of the airplane. For more on the Stanley seat, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/10/yankee-tractor-rocket-escape-system.html.

The original AD seat and the one incorporating the extraction system were similar in appearance but very different in detail. The most obvious indication of the Stanley seat is the presence of a tube (the rocket) added to the right side of the existing canopy actuation mechanism that was usually concealed under a canvas cover (I'm not sure why but I suspected that it was prone to leaking).

The armor plate behind the pilot's headrest appears to have been unchanged but the head rest was now mounted to the seat structure, which included two U-shaped channels on each side of the seat.

An extraction initiation handle was located at the front side of the seat cushion.

The headrest of the original seat was narrower, with its forward surface bowed outward vertically, and mounted to the armor plate. The seat consisted of a back and a bucket. (Note that the canopy actuation mechanism is not shown in the following illustration and that there would almost always be cushions/parachute in the seat.)

There was, of course, no extraction handle.

This is the comparable illustration for the Yankee seat. (Note that the control column is not shown.)

The Air Force modified both its single-seat and wide-body Skyraiders with the extraction system.

Lockheed P/F-80 Canopy Development

Why do I make a blog post concerning an Air Force fighter? Because the Lockheed P/F-80 was operated by the Navy, including an at-sea evaluation of the P-80A. The Navy also operated some F-80Cs as jet trainers. One subtle difference between the two models (and it must be pretty subtle because it seems to have been recognized only rarely and not by kit manufacturers) is the location of the windscreen and the length of the canopy.

I've covered the carrier-trials P-80A here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/11/lockheed-p-80a-carrier-trials.html ; much of the same material was covered in a Tailhook Topics Draft post here: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/02/lockheed-p-80-shooting-star.html.

Craig Kaston just provided me with photos that he took this weekend of the P-80A at the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino and the P-80C fuselage in the storage yard at the Yanks Air Museum. They provide a direct comparison of the location of the windscreens of the two canopies with respect to panel lines and access doors whose location did not change, e.g. the aft cockpit bulkhead and the instrument panel, when the canopy was redesigned for the installation of the ejection seat.

Note that the Planes of Fame P-80A has the later F-80C canopy resting on the top of the fuselage* (it probably wouldn't fit properly if it was closed because of the different mechanism used to slide it). The extra length of the F-80B/C sliding canopy (the location of the aft end of the canopy remained the same on both the A and the B/C, so the length increase required by the relocation of the windscreen was in the forward part of the sliding canopy) is also evident by the fact that the aft interior structure of this canopy would not rest against the cockpit headrest when the canopy was closed.

Craig also pointed out the difference in the boundary layer vent that I had not noticed.

*It is an example of the occasionally necessary and inobvious kludge by museums that sometimes leads to a blunder by model kit manufacturers.

Things Under Wings - Drop Tanks Update

For a primer on Douglas drop tanks, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/07/douglas-low-drag-external-fuel-tanks.html

Now take a close look at this picture:

Normally, both the A4D and the AD would have 300-gallon drop tanks under the wings. In this case, however, the A4D is carrying 150-gallon tanks and the AD, which is in the standard tanker configuration, 400-gallon tanks.

For more on the AD tanker configuration, see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/10/texaco.html

A3D Skywarrior External Pylons

Rick Morgan provided the following with respect to the A3D-2T Skywarrior external pylons discussed here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/09/ta-3b-skywarrior.html. (Rick also provided pictures of TA-3Bs with the pylon and practice bomb dispenser that I've added to that post.)

Concerning pylons on A3Ds, as I understand it all of the Versions had hardpoints to attach them.  This is a photo of a VQ-2 EA-3B in the Med refueling from a VA-216 A-4B off Saratoga in 1967 with what I believe is an ALQ-31 pod installed.

An old VQ friend tells me that they actually flew fighter training missions during this period with the equipment due to the lack of other EW assets in 6^th fleet, most of the other aircraft being in Vietnam.  This is the only time I’ve found so far where EA-3Bs were actually used for active jamming. (Contrary to a lot of published references, I have yet to find a VQ operator who used the EA-3B for jamming in Vietnam- the stories undoubtedly confuse the EAs for EKAs).

The ERA-3Bs  at VAQ-33/34 carried ALQ-76 pods on their pylons, of course.

For a brief description and a picture of the ERA-3B (and an explanation of A-3 Bombers versus Versions), see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/09/mighty-skywarrior.html

TA-3B Skywarrior

The trainer designation for the TA-3B is a little confusing since it was a bombardier trainer, not a pilot trainer. Although you can find otherwise, I'm pretty sure that no Skywarrior ever had dual controls.

This was the TA-3B:

It was a Version as opposed to a Bomber. For an explanation of that and a bit more background on the TA-3B, see: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/09/mighty-skywarrior.html and http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/05/trumpeter-148-a3d-forward-fuselage.html

There were some notable external differences between the TA-3B and the other Versions.

The third crew position on the flight deck faced forward.

Some more views of the flight deck:

The view of the flight deck from the cabin of a VA-3B transport

The canopy configuration was unique since it had a trainee sextant-sight opening above the jump seat on the flight deck.

The bombardier crew position was relocated to the cabin, so the periscope fairing was located farther aft.

The TA-3B had windows on both sides of the cabin instead of only on the right like the EA-3B.

The 20 mm turret was just a sheet metal fairing with a window on its lower side for a camera to score bombing accuracy.

Since it did not have a bomb bay, wing pylons were added to carry practice-bomb dispensers. These pylons were subsequently used on A3Ds modified for missile launch and other test requirements and the aggressor ECM jamming trainer requirement (ERA-3B). (Note that the wing shown is the original one; all the TA-3Bs had the CLE wing: see link above.)

 Rick Morgan provided pictures of a VAH-123 TA-3B with the practice-bomb dispensers on the pylons:

The Bigger Banjo

Kitty Hawk has announced a 1/48th scale kit of the F2H-3/4, which is a welcome addition to the modeling catalog, at least for Naval aviation enthusiasts. The three-view that they've published, however, appears to have some small errors and I'm trying to contact them to offer assistance. On line comments on the kit have also revealed a lack of knowledge about the F2H derivatives. If your Banshee background is a little weak or you want to know more about the airplane, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/12/f2h-banshee-modeling-notes.html

I thought I had posted this old Tailhook Topics article about converting one of the -2 kits (and the Hawk/Testor's kit was actually based on a XF2H-1 flight test article) but apparently not:

Note for example the difference in the size of the horizontal tail between my drawing, which was based on a  pretty good McDonnell lines drawing, and the Kitty Hawk illustration that you can find on modeling sites.

More later...

Vought XF4U-1 Corsair

I've been collecting material on the XF4U-1 for many years. I've never been satisfied by the three-view drawings that became available or the ones I did. Recently, Bill Spidle came to the rescue once again with Vought factory drawings that satisfied my concerns and proved, as I expected, that the relationship of the wings and empennage did not change between the prototype and the production Corsairs. I was surprised to discover that the XF4U-1 turtleback was notably lower than the production airplanes. However, it now seems logical that when the cockpit was moved aft, Vought raised it a few inches in order to reduce the impact on the all-important visibility past the nose necessary for carrier landings. As subsequent incidents would demonstrate, it wasn't enough.

Warren Eberspacher created a set of drawings in the early 1970s that appeared in issues of Air Classics and the American Aviation Historical Society Journal. For some reason, he shortened the distance between the wing and the empennage along with making other detail errors. The Lloyd Jones drawings in Bert Kinzey's D&S Volume 55 contain the same fuselage length error. Japanese illustrators Hidel Maki and Riku Watanabe got the length right but not the subtle change in fuselage depth aft of the cockpit.

Another wrinkle is that the modifications were made to the prototype over time. For example, after the July 1940 crash, the engine was moved about 4.5 inches forward, which can be discerned from close examinations of before and after pictures, and the exhaust stack fairing was modified. I show the later cowling in the side view above.

Except for the exhaust stacks and the gun ports, the cowling looks pretty much identical to the earliest production Corsair with the 360-degree cowl flaps.

David Weeks reminded me about the propeller change that probably occurred during the post crash rebuild:

I was aware of the difference in ailerons between the prototype and production Corsairs, but the rudder and elevators were also different, at least initially: the rudder's aerodynamic balance did not extend as far forward and the elevator was broader in chord. I don't know exactly when these were modified, but it appears that the rudder change was accomplished before the elevator change. In this picture, the XF4U has the production rudder but the elevator has not yet been changed.

In this picture, taken after the elevator change, you can still see the fairings on the tail cone for the larger elevator.

Note the tube extending out of the fuselage for the spin chute installation. The XF4U had a stinger-type tail hook that was installed initially and also for shore-based testing but in most pictures, the spin-chute tube is present.

Another notable difference between the XF4U-1 and the production Corsairs was the shape of the cooler inlet in the leading edge of the wing.

Note the angled panel line outboard of the inlet on the production Corsair.

Whereas the oil cooler was partially hidden by the production inlet, it was not in the prototype's:

I also added various details to the top view and a scrap bottom view of the left wing from pictures.

I'm pretty sure that the size and location of the downward vision window is correct. For a description of the anti-aircraft bomb concept, see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/06/antiaircraft-bombs.html. The water sensor on the bottom of the wing automatically deployed the flotation bags.

The prototype had a more complex flap system than the production airplanes, with a small span-wise fore flap above the leading edge of the main flap. This created a double slot arrangement that was not carried forward to production.

National Archives via Joe Hegedus

Note the 360-degree cowl flaps. The picture was taken pre-crash, so the airplane has the short cowling, smaller aero balance on the rudder, big elevator, and propeller with the tapered tip. It is also one of the few pictures taken when the tailhook was installed.

The XF4U-1 was evaluated with both 9.5 and 5 degrees of aileron droop.

Any benefit to stall speed was more than offset by the higher aileron control forces in the landing configuration.

David Weeks wrote and illustrated an article about his excellent conversion of a Tamiya's 1/48 F4U-1 "birdcage" into an XF4U-1 in the January/February 2011 issue of the IPMS/USA Journal (also see http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/features/xf4u148dw_1.htm). Although he used the Jones' drawing, the fuselage length error is not at all evident.  The October 2004 issue of FineScale Modeler has an illustrated description of Paul Boyer's equally excellent conversion of Hasegawa's 1/72 F4U-1 "birdcage".

There is pretty complete coverage of the XF4U-1 cockpit in the comprehensive guide to the Corsair by Rafe Morrissey and Joe Hegedus (see http://www.sampublications.com/books/modellers-datafile/f4u-corsair/prod_21.html or http://www.squadron.com/The-Vought-F4U-Corsair-SC-SAM-Publications-p/sa5912.htm). For some reason, the left console wasn't included, so here it is:

More later,