Tailspin Turtle

Uh - not much. A little less than 3/16 of an inch. The overall length difference is about 1/4 inch. However, it is a little easier to preceive it as a slightly incorrect relationship of the speed brake and canopy to the engine inlet.

Here's my best guess at the two different tails, using dimensioned Grumman drawings that may not be absolutely precise in shape. It turns out that the -5 engine tailpipe was angled a bit upwards and the horizontal stabilizer was higher, which I hadn't recognized before. The inlet fillets may also extend a bit farther aft on the -5 (Grumman was trying to increase the critical Mach number).

This is a condensed version of my contribution to the subject on another site, hopefully with all my incorrect statements now corrected. First, this is the sideview from a Grumman F9F-2B drawing with the overall length dimension of 37' 11 5/16" highlighted: I was chastised on the other site for recommending that it be used to make a shape comparison. Do so at your own risk. The F9F-5 was created by increasing the length of the fuselage eight inches immediately aft of Fuselage Station 172 which is the aft end of the speed brake well, increasing the size of the vertical fin and rudders, and

All your questions answered at: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/ Plus he's still updating the list...

An F4D Skyray made a deck launch from Ark Royal in late 1957. Lieutenant Max Morris had landed his VF-101 F4D on the Ark in a cross-decking exercise from Saratoga and discovered that his holdback fitting was damaged. He only needed 600 feet of deck even with full internal fuel.

With respect to his first flight in the Me 262 in 1943, did he say "Als ob ein Engel schiebt" or Als wenn ein Engel schiebt" or something different from either of those?

Does anybody know more about the circumstances behind this photo, e.g. was it an evaluation of interservice in flight refueling compatibility, an evaluation of an Air Force developed tank/drogue for possible Navy use, or? It was taken in April 1958 at Pax. The rig is similar to one proposed by Vought and demonstrated with the F7U.

If I remember correctly, there isn't an FSN color for chromate. Bell built and primed the XV-15 wing to the same spec as Rockwell Tulsa did the fuselage:

The weight determination phase looks like this: If the airplane sits nose up, it's important to balance it at the nose up attitude. Otherwise, you might not put in enought weight:

Actually, the F4D Skyray was capable of the same crazy scheme of flying a fire control system directed collision course with the bogey and hosing it with a bunch of 2.75 inch unguided rockets on Hal's command. Of course, it only took one rocket to hit... Thanks for the follow-up. T

Dark gull gray - same as A4D during that time period.

I'd say that the Bridges at Toko-Ri is the most accurate airplane movie ever made, with the exception of using jets in Korea for dropping bridges. To oversimplify, jets were for flak suppression; the Skyraiders did the heavy lifting. The movie is so accurate that the barrier guard springs up in front of the windscreen in the closeup before landing. Tilly was actually used at least once when the barricade (the big nylon fence, not the cross deck cables which are called barriers) wasn't available. The hook came down early. Jets didn't have a lot of time to loiter at low altitude, so if they ha

This is one version (Not my experience, I was in the fourth grade) for the F9F Panther, axial deck carrier. Procedures varied (No NATOPS). My impression is that the intervals were closer to 30 seconds, but I could be wrong. This is what was called a flat pass, with a gradual descent until you were about 35 feet above the deck level, give or take how it was pitching, on the cut. Speeds quoted were about five knots above stall, maybe a little more... We would enter the break on the starboard side of the ship at 300 plus knots, about 250'. On the break, it was a hard knife edge pull, going to

Thanks very much for the help so far. I did find an AIAA paper that states: "F3D Skyknight and F3H Demon launch aircraft had reasonably good all-weather tracking radar for the Sparrow I beam rider. The F7U Cutlass radar did not provide stable enough angle track of a target, so an optical tracking sight was provided to allow the pilot to optically track the target." The F7U-3M radar was the APQ-51. The F3H-2M radar was the APQ-51A. The Cutlass deployed more than a year before the Demon. My guess is the later radar was more accurate and the optical sight was no longer required. However, the r

Thanks for asking. According to some sources, the Sparrow I was useable only in VFR conditions, had a range of only two miles, and was limited to non-manuvering targets for all practical purposes. Is all that true? My second question concerns the process to guide it, since there was reportedly an "optical sight" involved. My guess is that the aircraft radar beam could be locked in a position that was boresighted with the gunsight. When the pilot fired the missile, did he first have to manuever the aircraft so that the missile's rearward looking antennas acquired the radar transmission for gu

Can anyone put me in touch with an old guy from Point Mugu or China Lake who worked with the Sparrow I or an old pilot who flew one of the Sparrow I armed aircraft? The details of its guidance control were undoubtedly classified at the time so I'm having trouble finding anything but vague statements about it. I know it's a beam rider, rearward looking antennas, etc. The questions relate to the reported use of an optical sight and guidance methodology which limited the missile's capability to a relatively short range and possibly clear weather...

The most significant positions are 1) all closed 2) nose flaps open, cowl flaps closed 3) both open. After shutdown, they could be in any one of the three depending on the circumstances...

The nose flaps were operated by same lever as cowl flaps. Starting from all closed, the nose flaps opened full and then the cowl flaps opened full. Starting from all open, the cowl flaps closed completely and then the nose flaps closed. The wing flaps were raised for engine shutdown and didn't bleed down. A rod on the cowling (see picture) indicated the position of the nose flaps. When fully out, the flaps were closed. When retracted so the red area didn't show, they were fully open. The Navy aircraft designation system changed in 1962.

It depends on how the kit is broken down...

You'll see different numbers but if I understand the fuselage station data (which is in inches) correctly, the -4/5 had a 10-inch plug after station 171 which is somewhat forward of the engine inlets. (The tip of the nose is at fuselage station 7.) The -6/7 had the same basic fuselage as the -5 (-5 fuselages were used to build the prototypes), with the wing root and inlet fairing being extended forward to reposition the swept wing properly with respect to the center of gravity. The -8 had an additional eight-inch plug.

The XF4U-1 is the most colorful and distinctive, not too mention the most significant - claimed to be the first 400 mph fighter...

Thanks for the prompt response. Esci/Italeri it is... T

Bearing in mind that it doesn't have to be good - just buildable... For example, is the canopy useable?

Some odds and ends - the Revell nose can't be any harder to fit to any other 1/72 F-111B kit than it is to the Revell kit itself, particularly if you want it to fix the shape as mentioned above. The Revell kit has a pretty good shape otherwise although you'll be tempted to display the escape capsule separately. The capsule fit is best achieved by wedging the fuselage sides to the correct width. The retractable landing gear on the Revell kit is really cool and it actually works. One thing to note when you use another kit is that the F-111B had the original F-111 aft gear door that opened on a

I'm pretty sure it's yellow, with the headrest cushion being a different color green than the early green seats. Both seem to have been carried over to the grey seat...