HIS [SSUE:ISLE OF GRAIN NAVAL TRIALS STATION BEARDMORE INFLEXIBLE ® LOCKHEED XP-49 DAUNTLESSES IN MEXICO ® DASSAULT’S FLAMANT. INDONESIA'S ARMED FORCES MUSEUM @ FAA’S VETERAN DAK SKYRAY AND SKYLANCER ~ TROUBLESOME DELTASsaree May 1983 Al —e WeMe IMPROBABLY INFLEXIBLE Beardmore's sient Inflesibie bomber of 1928 used «technology doomed lng Infor it took tthe as Peter Coney expla DASSAULT’S WORKHORSE der deteied hrtory of Daseasl’s jack-of al tredes, the tin ined Flamant he frst prdcion type aber the fama name, PER? LIGHTNING In the XP-49 Lockheed hoped to amprove on thei P-38 Lining, 1 was not tobe and ‘oniy one was produced Willan esse decries hy HEINEMANN’S SHORT-LIVED ‘FORD’ While the FAD Shyray may have hoon quite a loaker and very advanced, it and the FLAMANT iproved ESD Skylancer were nt loved by the US Navy. Using first hand accounts, Mike Splckdesribes the Foes quale. Inchules cute—"FORD'— It is a truism of aircraft design that if it looks right, it generally will be right. Such is however not always the case. The Douglas F4D-1 Skyray, designed by the legendary Ed Heinemann, had an exceptionally pleasing if futuristic appearance. Performance was outstanding for its day, and in the 1950s it took a hat-full of world records. It was widely reputed to be popular with its pilots, and yet shortly after the last aircraft was delivered, it began to be phased out of front line service. Mike Spick, with the aid of former Skyray driver Jacques Naviaux, examines this apparent anomaly. ERMAN RESEARCH programmes of World War Two helped to shape the Skyray. In May 1945, a team from the Douglas Aircraft Company visited Occupied Germany to examine technical progress there. Among other things, they discovered the tail-less delta work carried out by Dr Alexander Lippisch. His definitive fighter was to have been the Lippisch LP-13a, which used a liquid- fuelled rocket for take-off, after which it was to be powered by a ramjet which used powdered coal fuel. Projected maximum speed at altitude was 890kt (1,650km/h); a fantastic figure for 1945. The LP-13a was still a paper study, but the unpowered DM-1 prototype. built to explore the low speed handling characteristics of this radically new configuration, was virtually complete. It was shipped back to the USA for flight testing, before finding a permanent home in the Smithsonian Institution. (It is stored at the Paul E Garber restoration and storage facility of the National Air and Space Museum, Silver Hill, Maryland.) With the advent of the turbojet. previously undreamed-of speeds seemed to be just around the corner and the hunt was on to find the most favourable airframe configuration. Lippisch’s delta seemed to offer a possible solution. PAGE 62 AIR ENTHUSIAST/FORTY-NINE With hindsight, it would not have worked. The LP-13a wing was near enough a triangle, with sharply swept leading edges and a slight forward sweep on the trailing edges, broken only by a circular intake at the apex of the triangle and a tailpipe at the rear. A conventional fuselage had been eliminated by thickening the wing and a very large triangular fin housed the upper part of the cockpit in its leading edge. The result was that the thickness/chord ratio of both wing and fin gave a transonic drag rise so great as to rule out the possibility of supersonic flight This was quickly realised by Heinemann’s team, although the potential of the tail-less delta layout was fully appreciated. The next three years were spent in refining the concept to the point where it became viable, although with many other projects under way, work proceeded at a low intensity Meanwhile the ‘Cold War’ had set in, and the new threat had become the fast jet bomber flying at high altitude, typically 500mph (805km/h) and 40,000ft (12,190m). The speed of the threat would make warning time very short, making an exceptional rate of climb, coupled with high speed, imperative. In 1947, the US Navy issued a specification for an interceptor that could reach this altitude in no more than five minutes, a seemingly impossible figure at that time By now, the Douglas team had developed the tail-less layout, designated D-571, to the point where it showed real promise. The wing of course had to be thin and there was thus no way of eliminating a fuselage, which was tailored tightly around the cockpit and engine, with a ‘solid’ radar nose. This determined that wing root intakes should be used, with a bifurcated duct meeting in front of the compressor face. The increase in section of the wing root thus caused was extended aft to provide volume for bladder tanks, giving rise to an early example of wing/body blending which predated the F-16 and F/A-18 by more than two decades, ending in a small fillet on cither side of the nozzle. The wing shape has traditionally been hard to describe. ASs of the second XF4D-1, BuNo 124587. (Both Douglas, via Author) Douglas press release of the late 1950s called it bat-winged, but this is clearly a nonsense. Neither was it a delta. Leading edge sweep was 52.5°, curving back even more steeply outboard to broad rounded tips. The trailing edge featured a shallow sweep, broken only by small inboard fillets at the junction with the fuselage. It can best be described as a fairly orthodox swept wing of very low aspect ratio, used in a tail-less configuration. The cockpit was set well forward, giving an excellent view out and down, but like many others of the then new generation, it was faired into the dorsal spine, reducing rearward sibility. The whole was finished off with a tall, steeply swept fin. The powerplant had not yet been selected, although the Westinghouse YJ40, a USN- funded engine still in the paper development stage, with a predicted maximum thrust in the region of 10,500]b (46.7KN) scemed the most suitable. Douglas submitted their proposal to the USN Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) in September 1948, and a Letter of Intent covering two prototypes with the USN designation of XF4D-1 was issued on December 16 of that year. The new fighter was to be called the Skyray, due to a real or imagined resemblance to the manta ray fish. It was just one of half a dozen advanced fighters under development for the Navy at that time. From paper to prototype Initial progress was slow. There were many problems to be overcome in turning the unorthodox design into flying hardware. The all-important Mock-up Review was due in October 1949, and only a day or two earlier, when the wooden mock-up was tilted into the carrier landing approach angle, the carrier deck, which was painted on the wall in front of it, vanished beneath the nose! Desperate measures were needed. Just prior to the review, an engineering team sawed off the nose and fitted a new one with a sharply sloping top. That was one problem overcome, but there were others. There was in fact something which could have rendered the whole project abortive. The Westinghouse J40 turbojet was later to prove a major disaster area, although this could not be known at that time, Heinemann made one very far-sighted decision at an early stage when he designed the fuselage to accommodate an engine diameter of 42 in (107cm), whereas the diameter of the J40 was just 40in (102cm). This gave much greater flexibility in the choice of powerplant, which paid off handsomely later. Many of the problems arose from the tail-less configuration; others from the unexplored areas of aerodynamics of that era. peo , the first production F4D-1, Note the test probe. (via Author) BuNo 1; Model trials showed that the Skyray would sink after leaving the cartier deck. The slightly earlier Vought F7U Cutlass, also a tail- less design, overcame this same problem by fitting a very long nosewheel leg to increase angle of attack on the deck, but this was not practicable for the smaller F4D-1. The solution adopted was to locate the catapult attachments in such a position that the Skyray rotated to an alpha of 20° as it left the deck. Although a rather hairy-sounding procedure, it worked. One of the characteristics of the delta configuration, and the F4D-1 planform was sufficiently alike for it to behave like one, was that there was no clearly defined point of stall, and low speed angles of attack could be achieved which were too steep to be usable for take-off and landing. This meant that there was a distinct possibility of grounding the rear end. To guard against this, a small bumper and tailwheel were fitted. Other problems involved the flight control system (FCS), which was tied into a flight control computer; also a new thing in those days. Due to the high aerodynamic forces involved, the FCS had to be hydraulically powered, then given artificial ‘feel’ to prevent the pilot from overstressing the airframe. The use of elevons for contro] in both pitch and rolling planes, required a lot of ingenuity in the control column linkage, and differential gearing in a ‘stick mixer’ housing was adopted. Artificial feel was provided by springs in the centre pedestal and a bob weight in the ‘stick mixer’ housing provided additional pitch control feel. Just to complicate matters, manual reversion was also required. This was something else, due to the high control forces required. In the event of a double hydraulic failure, the control column could be extended by depressing a release catch and pulling upwards. The extra length obtained gave the pilot added leverage, but the muscle power needed was still very high. As the Flight Handbook stated: “manual control of the airplane is marginal, and is not recommended for use at high airspeed.” Yet another bright idea was the Mechanical Advantage Changer System (MACS). This varied the ratio of stick-to-elevon movement from 1:1 at low speeds or high altitudes, to as much as 3:1 at high speeds and low altitudes. Automatically operated by an electric servo motor, MACS maintained relatively constant stick-travel to control response across the entire speed/altitude range, reducing control sensitivity at high speeds and limiting elevon deflection in certain flight regimes, the idea being to prevent the pilot from buying an over-g. But more of this later. Frequent problems encountered by early swept wing jets were yaw and dutch roll. To offset the worst effects of these, the rudder was manufactured in two sections. The lower section was unboosted and cable operated by the rudder pedals. The upper section was hydraulically powered by a 1,000psi system (the main hydraulics were 3,000psi), with travel restricted to +/-15° in order to minimise the effect of a *hard-over’ failure. Its prim function was automatic yaw damping, but it was slaved at all times to the manual rudder as a supplement. At speeds of less than 208kt (385km/hr), it automatically coupled to lateral control column movement to assist in co-ordinated turns. Past experience had taught Heinemann that combat aircraft were invariably afflicted by galloping weight growth during the development and early service phases, as all the ‘nice to have’ items were nailed on. When this happened, wing loading went up, thrust loading came down, and performance and manoeuvrability suffered. Heinemann had made weight reduction a fine art in the past, the Skyray was no exception. Most of the structural skin was two layered aluminium alloy only 0.03in (0.76mm) thick, which is not much better than the stuff you wrap around your Christmas turkey. The inner skin was corrugated to give strength. It was light and resistant to buckling and its structural strength allowed main members to be reduced in section, thus saving even more weight. Gradually the prototype hardware came together, but one essential item was still missing. Westinghouse was still lagging with the engine. To get the flight test programme under way, the smaller and much less powerful Allison J35-A-17 was fitted. This had to be mounted well aft to keep the centre of gravity in the right place. The first XF4D-1 was finally made ready. Flight testing and problems Resplendent in midnight bluc USN livery, XF4D-1 BuNo 124586 PAGE 63DOUGLAS F4D-1 SKYRAY 1 Radome 2 Radar scanner dish 3 Scanner tracking mechanism 4 Radome attachment points 5 AN/APQ-SO radar equipment module 6 Radar equipment withdrawal rails 7 Pitot head 8 Windscreen panels 9 Mk II Mod I optical sight 10 Instrument panel shroud 11 Radar azimuth, elevation and range indicator 12 Front pressure bulkhead 13 Rudder pedals 14 Nosewheel door, closed after cycling of undercarriage 15 Door mounted AN/ ARN-21 bearing and range antenna 16 Electrical connectors 17 Nosewheel forks 18 Castoring nosewheel 19 Self-centring snubbers 20 Nosewheel leg door 21 Shock absorber leg strut 22 Cockpit floor level 23 Side console panel 24 Engine throttle lever 25 Control column 26 Radar scope camera 27 Upward hinging cockpit canopy 28 Rear view mirrors 29 Stand-by comp 30 Canopy open pc 31 Flush HF antenna 32 White position light 33 Canopy rear bulkhead 34 Canopy jettison actuator and pneumatic balance strut 35 Ejection seat headrest and face blind firing handle 36 Pilot’s Douglas ejection seat, most aircraft retrofitted Martin- Baker Mk P35 seat 37 Safety harness 38 Ejection seat launch rails 39 Rear pressure bulkhead 40 Boundary layer splitter plate ion 41 Radio and electronics equipment bay 42 AN/APX-6B IFF antenna 43 AN/ANR-25 UHF homer 44 Port air intake 45 Heat exchanger air intake 46 Venting air intake 47 Intake duct structure 48 Hydraulic reservoirs 49 Boundary layer spill duct 50 Formation light 51 Canopy hinge point 52 Heat exchanger exhaust duct 53 Air conditioning equipment bay 54 Venting air louvres 55 Engine control equipment 56 Bifurcated intake duct 57 Front spar root joint 58 Wing root equipment bay 59 Ventral catapult strop hook 60 Fuel filler cap, total internal capacity 533 Imp gal (640 US gal, 2,423 litre 61 Engine ac y equipment gearbox 62 Forward main engine mounting 63 Port wing root fuel tank 64 Pratt & Whitney JS7-P-8 afterburning engine 65 Engine bay sidewall 66 Bleed air supply duct 67 Engine oil tank 68 Compressor bleed spill duct 69 Engine bay firewall 70 Dorsal spine fairing ing fuel and cable ducting 71 Starboard main undercarriage bay 72 Anti-collision light 73 Starboard mainwheel, stowed position 74 Ventral cannon muzzle apertures 75 Recoil springs 76 Ammunition feed chutes 77 Starboard M-12 20mm cannon 78 Wing fold hydraulic jack 79 Starboard automatic leading edge slat, open 80 Slat rails 81 Wing fold hinge joint 82 Elevon hydraulic actuator 83 Starboard outer, folding, wing panel PAGE 64 AIR ENTHUSIAST/FORTY-NINE 84 AN/APN-22 antenna 8S Starboard navigation light 86 Elevon trim actuator 87 Outboard elevon 88 Starboard wing folded position 89 Wing fold jury strut 90 Inboard elevon trim actuator OL Starboard inboard elevon 92 Wing skin panelling 93 Inner corrugated skin doubler 94 Starboard upper airbrake panel, open 95 Formation light 96 Pitch trimmer electric motor and gearbox 97 Rear engine mounting 98 Close pitched fuselage frames 99 Fuel tank access panel 100 Port airbrake panel, upper and lower surfaces, open 101 Airbrake hydraulic jack 102 Pitch trimmer control screw jack 103 Afterburner ducting 104 Wing rear spar and fin spar attachment main frame 105 Cable actuated rudder hinge control 106 Fin rib construction 107 Formation light 108 Remote compass transmitter 109 Servo rudder hydraulic actuator 110 Fin tip aerial fairing 111 AN/ARC-27A UHF antenna 112 Fuel jettison 113 Upper, servo rudder 114 Rudder rib construction 115 Lower, mechanical rudder segment 116 Exhaust shroud 117 Afterburner nozzle control jacks 118 Variable area afterburner nozzle 119 Exhaust nozzle fairing 120 Port wing folded position 121 Port pitch trimmer 122 Pitch wimmer construction 123 Deck arrester hook 124 Retractable tail bumper 125 Wing panel root rib 126 Ammunition magazine, 65 rounds per gun 127 Rear spar 128 Port inboard elevon © Mike Badroke 1993 ATR ENTHUSIAST 142 Slat guide rails 129 Elevon rib construction 130 Inboard elevon trim actuator 131 Rear spar hinge joint 132 Elevon control rods 133 Outboard elevon trim actuator 134 Port outboard elevon 135 Elevon horn balance 136 Port navigation light 137 Outer wing panel rib construction 138 Air portable starter pack 139 19-round rocket launcher 140 Port automatic leading edge slat 141 Leading edge barrier guard barrier guard 143 Front spar hinge joint 144 Port elevon hydraulic actuator 145 Hydraulic accumulator 146 Control rod linkage 147 Port wing fold hydraulic Jack 148 Slat rib construction 149 2.75in rocket projectile 150 7-round rocket launcher 151 Frangible nose cap 152 Outer wing pylon 153 Electrically powered mechanical advantage change mechanism 154 Port 20mm cannon installation 155 Ammunition feed chutes 156 Cannon mounting sub frame 157 Mainwheel leg pivot linkage, wheel legs flat On retraction 158 Main undercarriage pivot mounting 159 Hydraulic retraction jack 160 Oxygen bottle 161 Mainwheel leg drag strut 162 Port mainwheel bay 163 Wheel bumper 164 Wing front spar 165 Cannon barrels 166 Ventral muzzle apertures 167 Fuel tank pylon 168 Port mainwheel 169 Mainwheel barrier guard, initial operations only 170 250 Imp gal (300 US gal, 1,136 litre) external fuel tank, 125 Imp gal (150 US gal, 568 litre) alternative 171 External tank filler cap 172 Mainwheel door, closed after cycling of undercarriage 173 Control system transonic trim change compensator 174 Missile launch rail 175 AIM-9B Sidewinder air-to-air missile 176 ‘NAVPAC’ carried on fuselage centreline pylon 177 AN/ARN-12 marker beacon receiver 178 AN/ARN-14E VOR antenna 179 Optional flight refuelling probe PAGE 65looked sleek and purposeful. Despite the unusual configuration, the control surfaces were simple. Automatic one piece slats, actuated in flight by dynamic air pressure, occupied about one third of the leading edge outboard, while virtually all the trailing edge was taken up with large horn-balanced one piece elevons, operating in unison for pitch control and differentially in roll. In fact both slats and elevons were only nominally one piece, as they crossed the line for wing folding, and were therefore in two pieces, although operating as one. Inboard of the elevons, the small trailing edge fillets were utilised as trimmers. Four small speed brakes were fitted inboard aft on the wings; two on the upper and two on the lower surfaces. The nose wheel retracted forward beneath the cockpit, while the widely spaced main gear wheels also retracted forward into the thickest part of the wing. The tail bumper gear mentioned earlier automatically retracted 10 to 15 seconds after the main gear made contact with the runway. This delay did not of course apply when the tailhook was extended. First flight of XF4D-1 124586, took place on January 23, 1951, with Douglas test pilot Larry Peyton at the controls. All went well, but with the underpowered Allison engine nothing spectacular could be attempted. Robert Rahn had been appointed as chief engineering test pilot on the Skyray and he now took over the comprehensive debugging required by all new aeroplanes. The second XF4D-1, BuNo 124587, also powered by a J35 turbojet, soon joined the first aircraft in the flight test programme. During 1952, both aircraft were fitted with the Westinghouse YJ40-WE-6, rated at 7,0001b (31.1KN), but it was not until the following year that the afterburning WE-8, rated initially at 11,100Ib (49.3KN), became available. High speed turbulence, caused by flow breakaway over the boat- tail rear end, was an early problem. At first it was thought that this © AIR ENTHUSIAST 1993, Inspiration? A view of what the completed Lippisch LP-13a would have looked like. (Pete West) was partly due to increased base drag caused by the undersized J35, but with the afterburning YJ40-WE-8 installed it immediately became much worse. Extensive redesign was undertaken, but the changes caused the rudders and trimmers to resonate at their natural frequency. These too were redesigned: a pen nib fairing was added below the rudder, and the trimmers, which were part of the wing/body fillet, were greatly enlarged and extended well past the nozzle, giving an inverted W trailing edge, reminiscent of modern ‘stealth’ aircraft. By this time, many other problems had arisen, not the least of which was the radically new thin skin. This dented, and even tore, very easily. But without a major structural redesign. it could not be rectified and Douglas pressed ahead. Intake design was still in its infancy and despite various tweaks, choking and flow separation occurred; something that was to dog the aircraft throughout its service life. Other troubled areas were the flight control computer and the autopilot, which in those days was only to be expected, while the occasional “hard-over’ hydraulic system failure produced some frightening moments. At these times the manual r on control system proved its worth. Having delayed progress with the engine, Westinghouse was now behind schedule with the radar. Finally, the YJ40 was proving very temperamental. Things were not all bad. Rate of climb and rate of roll were proving better than predicted — the latter requirement was an PAGE 66 AIR ENTHUSIAST/FORTY-NINE BuNo 139208, the proterype FSD-! Skylancer. (A J Walg collection) unprecedented S500°/sec. In the event, nearly double this was achieved on test. A 4g turn could be sustained at Mach 0.8 and 30,000ft (9,144m), even with the WE-6 engine. Then, in August 1953, Robert Rahn exceeded Mach | in level flight for the first time. Finally, in what was probably the zenith of its fortunes, the Skyray set two new world speed records. The first prototype was written off when Rahn experienced a ‘hard-over’ hydraulic failure at high speed and low level, causing the elevons to command a pitch-up which overstressed the airframe, bending the wings up and taking part of the structure past the yield point. The second XF4D-1, by now powered by the YJ40- WE-8 engine, was the aircraft used for the record attempts. The absolute world airspeed record came in for a lot of attention during the summer of 1953. The first mark, of 715.745mph (1,151.84km/hr), was set by Lt Col William Barnes of the USAF on July 16, flying a North American F-86D. This record was surpassed on September 7 by Neville Duke in the Hawker Hunter with 727.6mph. (1,170.92knVhr), and then again on September 25 by Mike Lithgow in the Supermarine Swift with 735.7mph (1,183.96 km/hr). Excitement was at fever pitch at the Marine Corps base at El Centro when Lt Cdr James Verdin, the USN project pilot for the Skyray, took off on October 3, to set a new figure of 752.9mph (1,211.64km/hr). The Brits were shocked at such unseemly haste in being deprived of their record, with an aircraft that they had barely heard of. What they failed to realise was that the USAF was if anything even more shocked at this naval upstart poaching on what they saw as their exclusive territory! Just to prove it was no fluke, Robert Rahn then took the 100km closed circuit at 728.1] Imph (1,171.74km/hr) on October 16. Earlier in the year, it had become obvious that the YJ40 was a major disaster area and an alternative engine was sought. The choice settled on was Pratt & Whitney's larger, heavier, and more powerful J57-P-2. While this justified Heinemann's decision to provide for a larger diameter, many detail changes had to be made to accommodate it, significantly delaying production. Yet other delays were caused by troubles with the thermionic valves used in the computer and radar. The microchip had been invented some years earlier, but it had not yet filtered down to the level of operational hardware. Meanwhile flight testing proceeded apace, Lt Cdr Verdin and Cdr Marshall Beebe flew carrier qualification trials on USS Coral Sea between October 26 and 30, and shortly after, the requirement to reach 40,000ft (12,191m) in under five minutes was convincingly demonstrated. Into service The first production Skyray, BuNo 130740, powered by the J57-P- 2, made its maiden flight on June 5, 1954. Piloted by Robert Rahn, it comfortably exceeded Mach | in level flight on its first outing and proceeded to demonstrate quite remarkable levels of performance. At last the flight envelope could be comprehensively explored and the F4D-1 proved to be an excellent weapons platform. In all, 650 were ordered, including one static test airframe, although 230 of these were later cancelled, for a total of 419 aircraft delivered by December 22, 1958. First unit to be equipped with the Ford, the name derived fromNORMAL CONTROL 180" POINT ( 4090 FLET aurituce Gast" BOG MANUAL CONTROL (NOT RECOMMENDED) ee a Two diagrams from the F4D-1 Flight Handbook (AN 0/-40FBA-/, revised to September 15, 1961) showing the procedure for a flame-out landing with normal control (left) and manual control (right). The wording under the heading for normal control sums up what the Navy thought of a manual flame-out landing! (via Author) the contraction of its designation, was Composite Squadron: VC-3, based at NAS Moffett in California, which received its initial complement of F4D-Is on April 16, 1956 and was responsible for service evaluation. Shortly after, VF-74, based at NAS Oceana, Virginia, became the first of 12 USN squadrons to operate the type. The Marine Corps was also equipped with the Ford; VMF-115 at MCAS Cherry Point being the first of eight USMC squadrons to receive the F4D. During its service the Skyray underwent many modifications, In all, four engine variants were used; the JS7-P-2 in the early stages, followed by the uprated -8; -8A: and -8B, the difference between these being that the -8 had a flap-type exhaust nozzle; the - 8A had an iris-type nozzle. while the -3B was modified to give greater afterburning thrust at altitude. From BuNo 134744 onward, a ‘pop-open’ nozzle was used to provide sufficient electrical current to operate the Aero 13F fire control system on the ground with the engine idling. Internal fuel was carried in two 320 US gal (1,211 litre) bladder tanks in the wing roots, with a choice of fuel between JP-3 and JP-4 when land based, and the denser JP-5 for carrier operations, although AVGAS could be used in an emergency. This quantity gave a very low fuel fraction and in squadron service it became standard practice to carry two 300 US gal (1,135.5 litre) underwing drop tanks. The pre-production batch of 11 aircraft was fitted with the Douglas lightweight ejection seat, which had a minimum safe operating height of 8OOft (244m). This gave little leeway for malfunctions at low level and all later machines featured the Martin Baker MKk-PS. This had much lower minima, with an ejection envelope of 50ft (15m) altitude at speeds between 120-370kt (222- 686km/hr) and 200ft (61m) at speeds from 370kt (686km/hr) to Vmax. This was the current state of the art and the Martin Baker seat was to prove its worth many times over. With carrier operations, ditching was always a possibility. Like a forced-landing on rough terrain, this was a very hazardous undertaking and only to be attempted where ejection was not feasible, such as after a power loss on take-off, or a ‘soft’ cat shot. The Skyray usually sank within seconds of contact with the water and normally the canopy could be jettisoned at depths of up to 1Sft (4.57m). The final production batch, BuNos 139030-139207, and such earlier aircraft as were modified, had a canopy relief valve located above and behind the pilot's head which allowed water into the cockpit to balance the internal and external pressures, allowing the canopy to be jettisoned at even greater depths. The Ford's prodigious rate of climb, combined with its rather marginal fuel capacity, which sometimes led to an almost equally precipitous rate of descent, placed heavy demands on the cockpit environmental control system. Windshield and canopy icing could be a problem, and Nesa glass, containing electrical heating elements, was installed in the optically flat windshield panel. This was not always enough and in any case it did nothing for the quarter lights and canopy. The final production batch was fitted with an independent windshield and canopy hot air blowing. Even this was not perfect. If the temperature was set too high, the cockpit got far too hot and the refrigeration unit turned itself on. This not only had the effect of cooling the pilot’s nether regions while his head cooked, but it could produce fog in the cockpit thick enough to obscure his view of his instruments! Another problem was the carly radar. Westinghouse had got well behind schedule with this, and at first an interim ranging radar was fitted. Models with the early radar were easily identified by their more pointed radomes. The AN/APQ-50 was not fitted on the production lines until BuNo 134745, followed by °751, °766, then *853 and all subsequent machines, being retrofitted to °744, '746, 747, °749 to °753, °755 to °761, °764 and °767 to °852. Many of the modifications made during the production run were fairly minor, such as a switch from gaseous to liquid oxygen, and plumbing for a full pressure suit. In the event a partial pressure suit was more often worn. The D-1 Automatic Control System (ACS) was very advanced for its day. Designed to allow the pilot to concentrate on fighting with the aircraft rather than flying it, the ACS featured automatic pitch trim, yaw damping and co-ordinated turns, It could not only maintain level flight, but hold a constant altitude or an established heading, a selected bank angle, or climbs and dives. Loitering turns, very useful for flying a pattern while the pilot concentrated on his radar scope, could also be made with ACS. Primary armament was four 20mm Mk 12 Mod 0 cannon with 65 PAGE 67rounds per gun, fed by a linear chute magazine. The guns were mounted in the wings inboard of the slats, with underwing ejector chutes for the empties, located just behind gun gas purge doors which opened automatically when firing. The Skyray was one of the last fighters ever to carry wing guns. With his usual foresight, Heinemann had made provision for two hardpoints, plumbed for drop tanks. A further five were later added for ordnance. The other air-to-air weapon widely used was the 2.75in (70mm) folding fin aircraft rocket, carried on early aircraft in up to four Aero 6 six-shot pods. Later Fords mounted four Aero 7D pods with 19 rockets in each. The Skyray has often been reported as being able to carry bombs of up to 2,000Ib (907kg), but the Flight Handbook makes no mention of them. The Aero A-1A towed target was yet another store and the most potent weapon of all was the AIM-9B Sidewinder, which was used in the later stages of service. Flying the Ford The Skyray was an exciting aircraft to fly in more ways than one and is invariably described in the literature as popular with its pilots, even though its handling left much to be desired in many respects. Let’s take a look. The F4D-1 was very definitely a ‘hot ship’. In addition to its absolute speed records, it set five new absolute time to altitude records during May 22-23, 1958. Flown by Marine Corps Major Edward LeFaivre, it reached 3,000m (9,843ft) in 44.39sec; 6,000m (19,685ft) in one minute 6.13sec; 9,000m (29,527ft) in one minute 29.8lsec; 12,000m (39,370ft) in one minute 51.23sec; and finally 15,000m (49,212ft) in two minutes 36.05sec. These figures were all the more remarkable when one remembers that just a few years earlier, the original target of 40,000ft (12,191m) in five minutes had been thought unattainable. The secret lay in a combination of low wing loading, little more than that of a Spitfire of nearly 20 years earlier, combined with a thrust/weight ratio approaching that of the F-104. This enabled it to climb at the incredibly steep angle of 70° with the pilot lying almost flat on his back. The second USN squadron to equip was VE(AW)-3, based at NAS North Island, San Diego. This was a shore-based unit assigned to North American Air Defence Command. VF(AW)-3. Commanded by Pacific War ace Gene Valencia, not only won the Norad Trophy two years running in the teeth of fierce competition from the USAF, but caused havoc with local air traffic control. After several complaints from airliners about being buzzed from directly below, they were forced to adopt a much flatter angle for their climb-outs. PAGE 68 AIR ENTHUSIAST/FORTY-NINE The low wing loading made for good agility, especially at high altitude, while the exceptional rate of roll, which I doubt has ever been surpassed, enabled the Ford to change direction quickly. This was in part conferred by the ultra low aspect ratio of the wing, which among operational fighters, has only been bettered by Saab’s J35 Draken. Another benefit of the low wing loading was that in the event of engine failure, the Ford was quite an effective glider. At an indicated airspeed of 220kt (408km/hr), it had a flameout range of 77nm (143km) from 50,000ft (15,239m), or 31nm (57km) from 20,000ft (6,096m), which vastly exceeded that of any modern fighter. The high for the era thrust loading allowed the Ford to be shoved around corners remarkably well. A fault common to tail-less deltas was that as speed bled off, alpha increased and so did drag, until the point was reached where drag exceeded available power. This was called getting on the back of the drag curve, from which, unless a considerable amount of altitude was available, was an irrecoverable situation. The high thrust loading of the Ford minimised this shortcoming. Part of its popularity among its flyers was down to the macho effect of flying the hottest ship around. [t was known as the Ten Minute Killer, as this was popularly supposed to be the time taken to carry out its baseline interception mission. It also gained the more sinister soubriquet of Ensign Killer and its accident rate was appalling; higher than that of any other contemporary fighter. Or was it that it only took ten minutes to kill an ensign? Marine Pacific War ace Marion Carl made a revealing comment in a letter dated July 3, 1957. Assigned to Marine Air Group 33 at El Toro, he had just evaluated Grumman’s F-11F-1F. He observed: “It's a pleasure to fly the plane after working with something like the F4D”, A little later he wrote “The trim change isn't bad — particularly for someone used to the F4D.” This was hardly flattering coming from such an experienced pilot. The F4D was obviously no picnic. So how did the young squadron jock fare? Jacques Naviaux graduated from the US Naval Academy with distinction in 1959, was commissioned in the Marine Corps, then passed through Basic Officers School and Flight School before being assigned to VMF (AW)-542 in 1961. He writes: View from the cockpit “Z wanted to fly fighters, and had my sights set on the Crusader, whose pilots sported 1,000 miles an hour patches, Everything is aRECOMMENDED AIRSPEED- 220 1aS (via Author) Also from the Flight Handbook, diagram showing flame-out glide range. Douglas F4D-1 Skyray Specification Powerplant: One afterburning Pratt & Whitney J57-P-8B turbojet rated at 10,200Ib (45.3KN) military, 16,000Ib (71.1KN) maximum. Performance: Viax at sea level, Mach 0.94; at altitude Mach 1.05. Service Ceiling, 55,000ft (16,763m). Initial Rate of Climb, 18,300ft/min (93m/sec). Combat Radius c306nm (556km). Internal Fuel: 640 US gals, 4,352lb (1,874kg) using JP-5. Fuel Fraction as percentage of combat weight 0.19. Loadings at Combat Weight: Wing, 41lb/sq ft (198kg/m?). Thrust, 0.7 LIb/Ib (kg/kg). Weights: Empty, 16,0241b (7,268kg). Combat, 22,6481b (10,273kg). Maximum Take-off, 28,000Ib ( 12,701kg). Dimensions: Length, 45ft 84in(13.93m). Span, 33ft 6in (10.21m). Height, 12ft 1 lin (3.94m). Wing Area, 557sq. ft (51.75m*). Aspect Ratio, 2.01. Armament: 4 x 20mm Mk 12-0 cannon with 65 rpg, and either four 19 shot pods of 2.75in (70mm) FFARs or four AAM-N-7 Sidewinders. © AIR ENTHUSIAST 1993 matter of timing, and I showed up just as they were looking for a regular officer who could be assigned to a squadron for deployment to Japan, and VMF(AW)-542 was the next to go. | was told that it was a great assignment, and that I would love the Ford as it had an afterburner. 1 joined Marine All Weather Attack Squadron 542 in the summer of 1961, and flew the Ford until October 1963. It was my first assignment out of Training Command, in which I had flown my final 25 hours in Grumman FI1F-1 Tigers. Like other fighters of the era, there was no two seat conversion trainer; one’s first flight in the Ford was made solo, with an instructor in a chase aircraft. First flights were known as FAM-Is. The accident report from one FAM-1 was mandatory reading at the time. It was actually a FAM-1 refly, the first flight having gone badly. The hapless pilot experienced engine problems, and his chase pilot talked him into shooting a flameout approach, a maneuver for which we never trained. (It was however in the Flight Handbook.) Navy doctrine at the time was to eject. The pattern involved a 180° turn at 170kt (315km/hr) from a Starting altitude of 5,000ft (2.438m). In this case, the Ford touched down about the midpoint of an 8,000ft (2,438m) downhill runway at 179-180kt (332-334km/hr). In the excitement of flying this pattern, the pilot failed to reduce the throttle, and the engine was still developing a significant amount of thrust. Application of the brakes resulted General arrangement, F4D-1 Skyray. (Pete West) Douglas F5D-1 Skylancer Specification Powerplant: One afterburning Pratt & Whitney J57-P-8B turbojet rated at 10,200Ib (45.3KN) military, 16,0001b (71.1KN) maximum. Performance: Vmax at sea level, Mach 0.986; at altitude Mach 1.44. Service Ceiling, 57,500ft (17,525m). Initial Rate of Climb, 20,790 ft/min (106m/sec). Combat Radius, cS80am (1,074km). Internal Fuel: 926 US gals, 6,297Ib (2,856kg) using JP-5. Fuel Fraction as percentage of combat weight 0.26. Loadings at Combat Weight: Wing, 441b/sq ft (214kg/m’). Thrust, 0.651b/Ib (kg/kg). Weights: Empty, 17,4441b (7,913kg). Combat, 24,4451b | (11,088kg). Maximum Take-off, 28,072Ib (12,733kg). Dimensions: Length, 53ft 9%in(16.40m). Span, 33ft 6in (10.2Im). | Height, 14ft 9%in(4.51m). Wing Area, 557sq ft (51.75m*). Aspect Ratio, 2.01. Armament: Four ‘flip-out’ rocket packs each containing 18 2in (Simm) spin stabilized rockets, or two AAM-N-3 Sparrow Ils. PAGE 69immediately in two blown tires, and the airplane went off the end of the runway and through the fence with no noticeable reduction in speed. Continuing through a beanfield, the core of the airplane continued up a slight embankment and onto a railroad track, where it was struck by a train in one of the few train/plane collisions in history. The pilot was pulled from the burning wreckage by the train conductor and lived to fly again! The Fords that I flew were not quite like the record setters, but it was an exciting airplane to fly, with flight characteristics that were unique enough to warrant retention of the aircraft as a flying demonstrator in the Navy flight test school long after it had left fleet service. The unusual configuration led to some very difficult engineering problems in providing the aircraft with reasonable flying qualities. Today's fly-by-wire systems use a computer with appropriate This was not a problem; that came going the other way; decelerating from supersonic. to subsonic produced an eye- watering 4.5g pitch-up. For the pilot who was already in a high-g turn, the result was cumulative, resulting in instant overstress! The engineering solution was the transonic trim compensator, but like many of the cockpit systems of thai era, it usually did not work. (This could have been very embarrassing in a close combat scenario, as the only option would have been to unload the aircraft as speed bled off, thereby giving an opponent at six o’clock an easy target.) In addition to the non-reversible elevon controls, the Ford had a manual back-up mode in case both hydraulic systems failed. The control forces were about 100Ib (45kg) per g, and to cope with these the stick could be extended, giving the pilot greater leverage. 1 personally do not know of any cases where a disconnected ; © AIR ENTHUSIAST 1993 Douglas F4D-1 Skyray Service users USN: VC-3: VF-3; VF-13; VF-23; VF-51; VE-74; VF-101; VF- 102; VF-141; VF-162; VF-213: VF-881; VF-882. USMC: VMF-113, VMF-114; VMF-115; VMF-215; VMF-314; VMEF-S13; VMF-531; VMF-542. Douglas F4D-1 Skyray/F5D-1 Skylancer, production XF4D-1, BuNo 124586- 124587, two aircraft. F4D-1, BuNo 130740-130751, 12 aircraft: 134744-134973, 230 aircraft; 139030-139207, 178 aircraft. BuNo 130751 was used as a static test airframe. Bu 136163-136392, 130 aircraft, were. cancelled. F4D-2, BuNo 136293-136392, 100 aircraft, all cancelled. FSD-1, BuNo 139208 and °209, two aircraft and 142349 and 142350, two aircraft. BuNo 142351 — 142357, 143392-143400 and 145159-145201, 58 aircraft, cancelled. software which is able to compensate for all kinds of nasty aerodynamic and stability characteristics, but in those days the designer was faced with having to produce an aircraft that the average, or even below average pilot, could fly. T hey didn’t always work... When transitioning from subsonic to supersonic flight, the center of pressure shifts from quarter chord to half chord, producing a nose-down tuck in the transonic region. (Given the exceptionally broad chord of the Skyray wing, this was quite a distance.) In the Ford, this produced a stick force of the order of 25-30lb (11-14kg). PAGE 70 AIR ENTHUSIAST/FORTY-NINE General arrangement, F5D-! Skylancer. (Pete West) landing was made by a fleet pilot, although it was apparently common during early flight testing. The Ford had neutral to negative roll stability, coupled with great amounts of adverse yaw. Unlike other jets of the era, the use of rudders was required, especially in the landing pattern, FAM-]s were ofien characterised by spectacular yaws on lift-off, caused by somewhat asymmetric gear retraction combined with the rudder control shift. FAM-] flights tended to draw a large audience, who were then more than prepared to participate in the debrief! With its high (for that era) thrust/weight ratio, the Ford accelerated rapidly, but suffered from severe duct flow choking at high angles of attack. Hitting afterburner with anything over 3.5g on the airplane usually resulted in a compressor stall. This was really spectacular at night, when flames came out of the intakes. Most of the aircraft on the flightline had burnt paint around the intakes. Fortunately the JS7 proved remarkably tolerant of such abuse. (Compressor stalls were an all too frequent occurrence, and could also be caused by icing of the inlet ducts or guide vanes; low air temperature and density at high altitudes; fuel control malfunction, or rapid reduction of power in supersonic flight.) The twin spool compressor had a bleed air valve which was prone to icing. Under that condition, use of the afterburner, or even full power, would result in a compressor stall. In the winter months in Japan, it was not uncommon to have a cloud deck from 200ft (61m) up to 40,000ft (12,191m). T launched more than once with the goal of reaching VMC conditions on top, only to have thepower limited by bleed air icing, which limited me to 35,000ft (10,667m). Since this was before the days of radar approaches, we operated on block times, thus one had the opportunity to spend the next hour in the holding pattern! Stopping the airplane could be a major problem, particularly on @ wet runway. Carrier aircraft tires are narrow and very high pressure. The term ‘hydroplaning’ was not current when I flew the Ford, but the phenomenon was. On a slick runway, a layer of water or steam can form between the tire and the surface, making brake effectiveness virtually zero. If we had the option, we always used the Morest field arresting gear in wet conditions, rolling into it with the tailhook extended. The next best thing was to shut the engine down, thus eliminating some 800Ib (363kg) of residual thrust at idle. A relight could be obtained at as low as 15% by hitting the igniters, and bringing the throttle lever around the horn Jrom idle cut-off to idle, allowing us to taxi in. I flew one very interesting cross country as a wingman. We had stopped off in Pensacola, but my flight leader was determined to get to New Orleans. The weather was terrible — thunderstorms in all quadrants, tornados reported and a pilot report from a 727 that was unable to hold altitude between 5,000 and 25,000ft (1,524- 7,620m). At the time I had about 20 hours on type, and was not anxious to fly into a tornado. Also the Ford had a very limited fuel capacity. We always flew with two 300 gal drop tanks, but as one wag said, “It had barely enough fuel to get from here to there on a nice day!” My flight leader was one of those individuals with a knack of alienating people instantly, and he had made a lifetime enemy of the Navy Chief who was on duty as the forecaster that day, The Chief provided us with a probably reasonably accurate forecast that was below our landing minima for every destination that I could find. As the relationship between my flight leader and the Chief worsened, I became convinced that he would never provide us with a decent forecast. We would have to wait for the next shifi. 1 did not mind that at all. Time was on my side. The weather could only improve. Jt turned out the Chief did not know what our minima were. He thought they were 200fi (61m) ceiling and one mile visibility, when in fact they were 200 and I'4 mile. This gave us a legal destination of NAS New Orleans. I don’t remember what we used as an Two F4D-1s from VMF(AW)-531 at Atsugi, Japan, 1962. (via Author) alternate for filing purposes, but it must have been marginal indeed. More pilot reports came in; severe turbulence reported by large aircraft, but we were all weather fighter pilots. I did ask for one concession. I told my leader that I would go, but only if I had flight lead. I was at least smart enough not to want to try to Sly formation through a thunderstorm or whatever else we were likely to encounter. Much to the dismay of the ground crew, we manned in driving rain and launched for New Orleans. The weather was not as bad as forecast, but not good either. On arrival at New Orleans we were informed that the TACAN was down, therefore no instrument approach was available. My flight leader had many flaws, but the single-minded pursuit of a goal was not one of them. While I concentrated on planning for one of our shaky alternates, my leader talked the FAA controller into giving us 4@ radar approach. Bear in mind that in those days there was no such thing! We were prototyping! Fortunately the weather had improved to an overcast at 400ft (122m) and several miles visibility. Since there is nothing to run into in the flat Mississippi delta, it was not a particularly hazardous procedure and we broke out over NAS New Orleans at 400ft (122m) for a visual landing. That was when the next crisis surfaced! The main runway was closed, leaving only the 6,000ft (1,829m) secondary, which would have been marginal even when dry. But it was wet. My flight leader told me to burn down and land. Options were really limited now. Having burned down to landing weight, if something else soured, the only alternative would be to sneak over to New Orleans International under the weather. This would probably create a major incident and put me in the position of having to meet all sorts of people that I had no desire to meet. The Ford had no fuel dump valve, and I wanted to be as light as practicable for my very first short wet runway landing. However, one could get rid of fuel at a very rapid rate by using afterburner. Our technique was to put the gear down, speedbrakes out and use ‘burner until gear limit speed was reached, then out of ‘burner , back to idle until we slowed to 150kt (278knVhr), then repeat the process. Even then, long before noise pollution became a major issue, an airplane circling over the base at 300ft (91m) using afterburner PAGE 71View of the cockpit, in flight over Japan 1963. Radar target with steering e and dot can be clearly seen. (via Author) would not go unnoticed, and I had that awful feeling that someone far senior to either one of us was going to be curious, if not downright offended. 1 landed without difficulty, using the engine shut-down technique and taxied into the chocks, where I was met by an obviously irate Commander, who wanted to know Uf 1 was the flight leader. Oh no sir, kind sir” quoth I. “It is he whom you seek,” pointing out my leader's airplane. The truly livid Commander glared at me and said “You go sit over there. You have a flight violation!” It turned out they had just waved off the Chief of Naval Operations because the TACAN was down and the CNO’s pilot had not been innovative enough to design his own approaches. We didn’t really get any heat on this one, mostly because the FAA had violated their own procedures and were not anxious to air any dirty laundry. The squadron did its day carrier qualifications in 1962, on the USS Ranger, a 60,000 ton Forrestal class carrier. Its Steam catapult was a big improvement over the hydraulic catapult on the Antietam, on which I qualified as a student. Nothing prepares one for the first cat shot, nor can I describe it adequately . My first was marked by having the contents of my knee board fly over my left shoulder from the acceleration forces, leaving me with a blizzard of paper in the cockpit. On the catapult the pilot is merely along for the ride — no flying is involved. One does not even hold the stick. On one launch as a student I grabbed the stick prematurely, producing an over-rotation that I thought was minor. It was not however minor enough to escape the notice of the ship’s captain, who gave me an immediate verbal critique over the radio, justifiably so, as they had lost a plane and a student the previous week from the same cause. The Ford required a lot of rudder in the pattern, but had adequale power response. (Bolters were in fact done in military power, according to the Flight Handbook.) It also had very stringent deck landing weight and fuel limitations. Operating from Ranger about 60 miles (110km) off the coast of C ‘alifornia, we had a maximum trap (arrested landing) weight limit that meant only 2,350Ib (1,066kg) of fuel, while our bingo Juel (the amount needed to reach a divert field) was 1,950lb (S85kg). That meant that we had three passes at most. This was operating in good weather with PAGE 72 AIR ENTHUSIAST/FORTY-NINE a number of suitable diversion fields available. Switch to bad weather, or even marginal weather with limited or no divert fields available, and it is easy to extrapolate to a very hazardous undertaking. In keeping with our seemingly basic policy of doing everything the hard way, we did our night carrier qualifications on the much smaller USS Lexington. These were far more difficult. The flight deck is a very hazardous environment, full of noise, propellers, jet intakes and jet tailpipes, not to mention tie-down chains and other obstacles. Before the adoption of red floodlighting, the deck could be pitch black, the only visual reference for the pilot the lighted wands of the plane director. A moving plane director would leave the pilot with absolutely no sense of relative motion while taxying in a very limited space on top of a 6Oft (18m) high steel cliff with no guard rails. In those days the flight deck crew were not equipped as they are now, with life preservers and strobe lights. On one occasion a crewman was blown over the side by a turning jet and was only saved because he managed to catch a wand thrown to him by a quick-thinking plane director. Without the light, he would have had a very slim chance of survival. Given its low fuel capacity, and the overall state of carrier operations in that era, which did not include in-flight refuelling as a back-up on every recovery, the Ford was not very suitable for carrier operations and thus had a limited life in the fleet. The radar was good for its day. A working radar, which was not all that rare, could detect a fighter at 24nm (44km), and track it at 20nm (37km). (The Flight Handbook gives maximum range as 200nm (371km), which seems a little optimistic.) Once locked on, the pilot’s task was to fly the steering circle and the steering dot, keeping the latter centered in the former and holding down the trigger until the rockets fired. I looked at a lot of radar scope film and only once saw the dot inside the circle on firing. It just wasn't that easy to do. The basic weapon for all weather interception was the 2.75in (70mm) rocket. The plan was to fire a salvo of four 19 shot pods on 4 110° lead collision course, with a firing range of 1,500ft (457m). Thave no idea what the advertised probability of kill was, but it shouldn't have been very high. Whether or not we would have hit anything on a regular basis is a matter Jor conjecture, but I think not, although I did manage to shoot down a drone at Point Mugu for one of the only recorded kills. A salvo of 76 2.75in rockets would certainly have been unnerving to an adversary though. We flew practise firing runs using rockets against a Delmar towed target; a device that looked like a bomb, which was towed on @ 7,000ft (2.133m) line. The firing aircraft carried a Delmar Scorer, a combination radar and 35mm camera. In theory the Scorer would record the weapon flight and measure the range to the target, giving a scoring evaluation. Only once while reviewing Delmar runs did I see both a rocket and a target in the same frame. We also used Sidewinders, for which the target was towed 25,000jt (7,625m) behind the towing aircraft. A lot of our firing runs, including some at low altitude, were conducted with the pilot flying under a hood, to simulate instrument conditions. The hood consisted of an opaque plastic cloth with snaps on one end that clipped onto the top of the instrument panel, the other end fixing to the back of the pilot's helmet. In order to keep the hood from sagging in the middle and obscuring the top of the instrument panel, he was forced to fly with his head erect! Another handicap to overcome. For obvious reasons, the hooded shooter was always accompanied by a chase pilot. The fact that we had a very primitive weapons system did not dampen either our enthusiasm or dedication, We trained with a great deal of rigor, although as I found out later, a limited amount of knowledge. However, we never did fly the Ford as close to the edge of the envelope as we did later with the A-4 in air combat manoeuvering, which was just as well, because we would probably have wound up with asymmetric slat deployment, with a resultant violent roll/yaw. VMF(AW)-542 was the last Ford squadron to deploy to the Far East. In October 1963, we flew our aircraft to Kizuarzu in Japan, for the long trip home to the airplane graveyard at Litchfield Park, Arizona, where they were interred. We then sat in Japan with no aircraft for a month, until we were relieved by the first Marine Phantom squadron to deploy”.F4D-1 139031 of VF-13 seen on board the USS Shangri-La during a visit to Southampton in October 1960. (MAP) From Skyray to Skylancer Redesignated F-6A towards the end of 1962, the Skyray was finally retired from front line service in 1964. It saw little other usage, although it was used as a research vehicle by NASA and in 1961 carried out Sparrow air rocket launches from the Missile Center, Point Mugu, while the second XF4D-1 was loaned to General Electric to flight test firstly its new J79 turbojet, and later the CJ805-3 jet transport engine. This was not quite the end of the story. Heinemann had quickly realised that the flimsy skin of the F4D- 1 was a mistake. In December 1952 he began planning a successor. Many structural and aerodynamic advances had taken place during the gestation period of the original aircraft and these were incorporated into the new design to correct previous weaknesses and deficiencies. At the same time, advances in avionics 1-PLACE FEET IN STIRRUPS 2HOLO HEAO WELL AACK ANO BODY TENSE 3.GRASP FACE CURTAIN HANDLE WITH BOTH HANDS AND PULL TO LIMIT OF | TRAVEL. 4, HIGH ALTITUDE EJECTION: IF NOT EQUIPPED WITH & BAROMETAIC - OPENING PARACHUTE, FREE -FALL TO APPROXIMATELY 10,000 FEET BEFORE PULLING RIPCORD AGEL F \ SETTISON HANDCE ewensency cancer | seTTisoM LEVEN —y Back to the Flight Handbook, ejection details. (via Author) technology would improve nighVall weather capability. This was first designated F4D-2N and in October in 1953, BuAer ordered two pre-production articles, prototypes being bypassed because the -2N was at first considered a modification of the Skyray. This order was later increased to 19. The new machine looked very similar to the original, but apart from the wing planform, it was very different. The fuselage was lengthened and the recently discovered area rule applied to reduce supersonic drag. The fragile skin of the F4D was replaced by relatively thick milled aluminium alloy, entailing many structural changes and the vertical tail made larger. The wing itself was given a reduced thickness/chord ratio and the huge trailing edge fillets reduced in size. The optically flat windshield was replaced by a drag-reducing V-section similar to that of the Convair F-102, with a matching canopy shape. The inlets were redesigned with sharp lips. Internal fuel increased by almost half as much again. Finally it was proposed to use General Electric’s powerful new J79 turbojet, although in the event this was never fitted. The autopilot and flight control system were transistorized, and the manual reversion system, with its extending control column, was dropped. The Westinghouse X-24A fire control system was planned, to give an improved automatic collision course interception capability. The cannon in the wings were deleted and replaced by four retractable boxes each containing 18 2in (51mm) spin stabilised rockets and two AAM-N-3 (later AIM-7B) Sparrow II missiles, which amazingly for the time were to use active radar homing, were to be carried on underwing pylons. After all these changes, almost nothing of the original machine remained, and the F4D-2N was redesignated FSD-1 and named Skylancer. The first aircraft, BuNo 139208, first flew on April 21, 1956, with Robert Rahn at the controls. It easily exceeded Mach | first time out on the power of the J57-P-8B as fitted to later Skyrays. Just prior to this, the Navy notified Douglas that compressor stalls and duct flow separation problems would not be acceptable, which led to a last minute panic, replacing the new sharp inlets with more rounded lipped ones. The Skylancer outperformed the Skyray across the board, but only four were built before the project was cancelled late in 1956. There were just too many good fighters around at the time, and the new Navy fighter selected was Vought’s F-8 Crusader. The four completed F5D-Is ended their days as test vehicles with NACA (later NASA). Among other programmes, they investigated escape trajectories for the projected Dyna-Soar spacecraft. Jacques Naviaux went on to greater things, including 325 combat missions flying Phantoms with VFMA-122 from 1967. He retired with the rank of Colonel and is currently Director of Marketing for Radar Systems, Hughes Aircraft Company. He now flies sailplanes. PAGE 73