F7U Cutlass

[dy031101]

Ah...... the F7U-3 Cutlass.  The first time I saw this aircraft, I instantly realized that this one has the look.

Alas, didn't take me long to find out that it also has the "Ensign Eliminator" nickname......

Weak nose landing gear that is prone to collapse, engines that fails to live up their promises by a long margin, and bad carrier handling quality gave it a very bad reputation and led it to be quickly superseded as soon as Crusaders were available.  Yet a few vague accounts claimed that the aircraft was otherwise rugged and manuverable- globalsecurity.org actually claims that the plane was popular with those who flew it until they had to land the thing.

So here are my questions.  What are the alternative engines, domestic or from Britain, that should have been used instead of the Westinghouse engines?  Was the long nose landing gear on the Cutlass really necessary?

In short, could the Cutlass have been fixed?

Edit: Bad Spelling.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Anything can be fixed with enough $$$.  It really was a shame about the Cutlass though.  It's one of my favorite USN machines too.

I'm sure Evan will have better info on engine specs, but surely if the Crusader had not come along something better than the J-46 would have been suitable for an upgraded Cutlass.  

The long nose gear was to raise the angle of attack for launch, the same way the Royal Navy Phantoms had an extending nosegear for launch from the small (relative to US CVs) Ark Royal.  The Crusader's variable incidence wing was designed for this same reason.

Great whiffing potential there with French Marine Cutlasses.

[jcf]

The Crusader's variable incidence wing was designed for this same reason.

A concept previously used on the Supermarine 322 'Dumbo'.





Jon  

[dy031101]

I'm sure Evan will have better info on engine specs, but surely if the Crusader had not come along something better than the J-46 would have been suitable for an upgraded Cutlass.

I was thinking what if Vought entertained the idea of an alternative engine as an insurance right when they came up with F7U-3, but hey, a further upgraded Cutlass with a good pair of engines against F5D-1?  That'd be the battle of my two (of many   ) favourites.

The long nose gear was to raise the angle of attack for launch, the same way the Royal Navy Phantoms had an extending nosegear for launch from the small (relative to US CVs) Ark Royal.

Would an extendable nose gear have been stronger than the long fixed-length one?

[The Rat]

One of my favourite aircraft of all time, and until the B-2 came on-line the closest thing to a flying wing that ever entered service. Lousy? Yeah, 2 words - Westinghouse engines. They ruined more aircraft than 10,000 klutzy students on cheap drugs. The Vought Pirate was also a victim, but the real tragedy was the way they ruined the X-3. Should have stuck to building refrigerators.

The obvious whiff would be new engines, but I might also lengthen the forward fuselage and add canards.

[Daryl J.]

From the odd shaped Lindberg kit:

Stretch the fuselage in front of the air intakes, keep the cockpit in it's current position, add a spine similar to the MiG-21 or F-5E Tiger II, continue the fuselage out behind the engines in a F-4 Phantom/Demon/Voodoo fashion with a conventional T-tail.   Wing vertical stabs eliminated.   Main wing given reduced sweep on aft.  Suitable radar nose, uprated engines of course.   Nose gear height adjusted a bit to make the stance similar to the A-4 Skyhawk.



Daryl J.

[jcf]

Odd shaped?

Looks pretty much like an F7U-1 to me.



Jon

[Joe C-P]

I propose that single vertical aft will look more like a Skyray, plus you'll notice the wheels retract into the bottom part of the wing stab, so that part would remain. I would try shortening them both, adding to the leading edges to make them deeper, and angling the upper part outward like on an F-18.

I agree with your other changes. Maybe no guns (if you want a 1960's model), and how about wingtip launchers for Sidewinders?

[The Rat]

I've always thought the Gutless had great whiffing potential. Replacing the engines is a must, Westinghouse ruined more aircraft than Erich Hartmann. My plans have always been to lengthen the fuselage both ahead of and behind the cockpit, and perhaps add canards. The twin tails would remain in my universe.

[Mossie]

Geoff did a German Cutlass, scroll down on this page:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,15039.msg223378/highlight,cutlass.html#msg223378

[dy031101]

I would only ask for replacement of the engines and the adoptation of a double-telescoping front landing gear like that of F-4K.

I found the short nose kinda cute on the Cutlass though...... would be nice if making the radar compatible with semi-active guided weapons wouldn't make a bigger radome necessary......

[Jschmus]

Anthonyp did an Israeli F-7:

[KJ_Lesnick]

A Super-Cutlass would be pretty cool.

Longer, pointier nose, area-ruling, bigger engines, supersonic-inlet ducts with wings something like the F4D/F5D Skyray/Skylancer or F-4 Phantom.

It would still have the tailfins on the wing, and would be tailless with the same highly raised cockpit and stuff.


Sound cool?


KJ Lesnick

[JayBee]

I can not remember where I got this picture from, so apologies to anyone if I am breaking any copyright.
I think it looks so cool.

[jcf]

I've always thought the Gutless had great whiffing potential. Replacing the engines is a must, Westinghouse ruined more aircraft than Erich Hartmann.

Not entirely true about the Westinghouse engines through the J34 (non-afterburning variants at least), the major problems came with the developmental difficulties on the J40 and J46. In the case of the J40 the problems impacted the new designs the engine had been chosen to power, four Navy and two Air Force, six projects all starting within a year of each other, and each project had a different intake design and installation requirements. A new engine design to power six new types all being developed concurrently. Do ya see the potential for problems there? The entire fiasco led to a change in procurement and planning policies.

As to the developmental difficulties and slow deliveries of the afterburning J34s for the F7U-1 and associated performance problems, while it is true that Westinghouse messed up... a former executive later admitted they didn't increase engineering and production staff as quickly as needed on their development programs, Vought also shares the blame. The F7U-1 never met its weight guarantees, ballooning from an agreed contract empty weight of 9,711 lbs to 12,387 lbs, with Westinghouse expected to make up the shortfall by boosting engine performance.

The Westinghouse J34 successfully powered the F2H, F3D, F6U, and T2J "Buckeye".

There is an interesting side-note about the afterburner installation added to the J34s that powered the McDonnell XF-88A... McDonnell
developed the installation in-house after Westinghouse and the USAF tech folks said the available space, @ 33 inches, was too short for
an effective afterburner.

Jon