Jump to content

This can't be a good idea


Recommended Posts

Interesting comment on page,

Quote

 

Al Casby says:

February 1, 2017 at 10:27 am

Indeed, in fact Vought re-engineered the Cutlass to utilize a single J57 in a new center-section fuselage, and pitched the idea to BuAer to retrofit the existing F7U’s, as well as continue with further production. The Navy balked, most likely due to the advent of higher performing fighters in the pipeline, namely Vought’s own F8U. Had the Navy not been beholden to Westinghouse in the late ’40’s and early ’50’s, the -3 would probably have been designed around the J57 earlier. With an insanely incredible roll rate, and prodigious power, the F7U could have been side by side with the F8 in Vietnam. But, history is what it is. I interviewed Jack Christensen many years ago, who was a BuAer rep pilot in Dallas and later took the F7U-3M on the boat with VX-4. His conclusion was that properly maintained, the Cutlass was no worse than any other jet of its day, and in fact was the most aerodynamically versatile aircraft he ever flew. He loved the aircraft and had very little bad things to say about it, but did yearn for more robust powerplants. Interestingly, with few exceptions, the majority of engine-related incidents/accidents were caused by hose material failures, or maintenance errors. Properly maintained, and carefully operated, the J46’s were as reliable as any in the day.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...