Douglas Skyray

[peter wezeman]

The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?

Thank you,
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

"Forty Gallons. Not enough to measure, really."

[Kevin Brooks]

"peter wezeman" > wrote in message
m...
> The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
> time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
> Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
> other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?

Surely it was flown against other aircraft(note the mention of the alleged
USAF jealousy over its turning capability in the second source cited below),
but the best "nutshell" description of its capabilities and limitations
comes from Baugher's site:

"The service life of the Skyray with the Navy and USMC was relatively brief,
since the aircraft was specialized to the high-altitude interception role
and lacked the multi-mission capability that was becoming increasingly
important. The Skyray had a good climb rate, a high ceiling, a relatively
high speed, and a good radar, all features which made it a good interceptor.
However, it had a reputation of being a difficult plane to fly. The last
Skyray left service on February 29, 1964. The Skyray never saw any combat,
although it was deployed to Taiwan in 1958 and to Guantanamo in 1962 in
response to crises."
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f6_2.html

A more complete, and longer winded, description can be found at:
www.vectorsite.net/avskyray.html

"It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll, and
one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force chase-plane
pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it. Air
Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its strengths
and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with its
agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical transonic
speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's aspect
in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead sled".
One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact, there
were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have never
been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a minority
opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it a
handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked the
machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on the
level was a continuous balancing act."

Brooks

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
[ SNIP ]
> "It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll, and
> one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force chase-plane
> pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it. Air
> Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its strengths
> and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with its
> agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical
transonic
> speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's aspect
> in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
> pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead
sled".
> One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact,
there
> were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have never
> been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a
minority
> opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it a
> handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked the
> machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on the
> level was a continuous balancing act."

Presumably it was as well-loved as the F-101 Lawn Dart....ummmm, Voodoo.

AHS

[Andrew Chaplin]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> [ SNIP ]
> > "It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll, and
> > one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force chase-plane
> > pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it. Air
> > Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its strengths
> > and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with its
> > agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical
> transonic
> > speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's aspect
> > in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
> > pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead
> sled".
> > One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact,
> there
> > were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have never
> > been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a
> minority
> > opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it a
> > handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked the
> > machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on the
> > level was a continuous balancing act."
>
> Presumably it was as well-loved as the F-101 Lawn Dart....ummmm, Voodoo.

F-104 was the Lawn Dart.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[The Raven]

"peter wezeman" > wrote in message
m...
> The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
> time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
> Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
> other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?
>

Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[John Carrier]

"peter wezeman" > wrote in message
m...
> The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
> time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
> Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
> other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?

Also held the absolute speed record briefly IIRC. It had a very low wing
loading and turned quite well.

R / John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"The Raven" > writes:
> "peter wezeman" > wrote in message
> m...
>> The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding several
>> time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom II was built.
>> Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat maneuvering against
>> other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?
>>
>
> Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
> was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?

In terms of performance, a rather lower ceiling, A lot slower, and it
had about the same range/radius. I didn't handle anywhere near as
well as the Lightning. Radar performance seems to have been about the
same, with the Skyray having a bit more computer smarts.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > [ SNIP ]
> > > "It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll,
and
> > > one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force
chase-plane
> > > pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it.
Air
> > > Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its
strengths
> > > and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with
its
> > > agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical
> > transonic
> > > speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's
aspect
> > > in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
> > > pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead
> > sled".
> > > One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact,
> > there
> > > were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have
never
> > > been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a
> > minority
> > > opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it
a
> > > handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked
the
> > > machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on
the
> > > level was a continuous balancing act."
> >
> > Presumably it was as well-loved as the F-101 Lawn Dart....ummmm, Voodoo.
>
> F-104 was the Lawn Dart.

The UH-60 also garnered that sobriquet earlier in its career; those
uncommanded stabilator pitch overs at low altitude made it an apt descriptor
until they got the problem in hand, IIRC.

Brooks

> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Olivers]

Peter Stickney extrapolated from data available...


> "The Raven" > writes:

>>
>> Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning
>> which was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?
>
> In terms of performance, a rather lower ceiling, A lot slower, and it
> had about the same range/radius. I didn't handle anywhere near as
> well as the Lightning. Radar performance seems to have been about the
> same, with the Skyray having a bit more computer smarts.
>

One must consider a virtue which the Lighting did not possess....

The "Ford" as it was known in the fleet operated off the decks of all those
aging, weary ESSEX class CVAs, while the speedy and short legged Lighting
could fly, high, fast but not very far from a long ribbon of runway (and
with a decided preference for VFR conditions).

I came to SHANGRI-LA in the Summer of '62 in the Med, when CVG-10 (AK on
the tails)'s VF-13 was still flying the Ford (already painted in the new
gray from the old blue). As a CIC watch officer and novice/novitiate AIC,
I had some regular dealings with them and those who flew'em. Their
"downfall" and short service was due to the same shortcomings which reduced
the service life or caused dramatic mission alteration to a number of birds
of the era.

Like the sleek and graceful F11F, the Fords were "one dimensional".
Manaeuverable if unstable, requiring a lot of hands on flying at least to
the ear of a controller who really only "hears" interceptions, they gave
way to the F3's better radar and Sparrow adaptability in the all weather
role and the F8s substantial performance margin asa day fighter. A trifle
short-legged, the F4D couldn't meet some of the other requirements for
service on the small decks, especially any realistic air support/ground
attack missions.

They did look a bit wiggly in the pattern....

TMO

[IBM]

"The Raven" > wrote in
:

> "peter wezeman" > wrote in message
> m...
>> The Douglas F4D Skyray had high performance in its day, holding
>> several time-to-climb records that were not broken until the Phantom
>> II was built. Was the Skyray ever flown in simulated air combat
>> maneuvering against other fighters? If so, how well did it perform?
>>
>
> Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning
> which was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?

The F4D was a transonic carrier based design.
The Lightning was definitely supersonic and not carrier capable.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Guy Alcala]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> [ SNIP ]
> > "It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll, and
> > one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force chase-plane
> > pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it. Air
> > Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its strengths
> > and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with its
> > agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical
> transonic
> > speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's aspect
> > in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
> > pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead
> sled".
> > One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact,
> there
> > were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have never
> > been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a
> minority
> > opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it a
> > handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked the
> > machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on the
> > level was a continuous balancing act."
>
> Presumably it was as well-loved as the F-101 Lawn Dart....ummmm, Voodoo.

The Navy brass certainly appreciated it, and the unit that flew it as part of
NORAD/ADC. VF(AW)-3 was the squadron, and they were based at NAS North Island,
commanded by WW2 USN Hellcat ace Eugene Valencia. They won NORAD's best
squadron competition two years running, a source of great joy to the navy brass
and considerable heartburn to the USAF brass. The biggest problem with the
'Ford' appears to have been its honeycomb wing skin structure, which just wasn't
up to the rigors of day-in/day-out operations. Ed Heinemann put an entirely
different, thicker wing skin on the follow-on supersonic F5D, but it was decided
not to put it into production, probably partly because the navy wanted to spread
the wealth around a bit and not have an all-Douglas fleet. So they cancelled
the production order for the F5D and went with the F8U exclusively.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > [ SNIP ]
> > > "It was also very maneuverable, featuring an incredible rate of roll,
and
> > > one Navy test pilot who flew the Skyray said that Air Force
chase-plane
> > > pilots were desperate to find a USAF machine that could out-turn it.
Air
> > > Force pilots flew the F4D, no doubt with an eye to assessing its
strengths
> > > and weaknesses. It did have weaknesses, significant ones. Along with
its
> > > agility came a degree of instability, particularly in the critical
> > transonic
> > > speed range. This does not seem too surprising given the aircraft's
aspect
> > > in the top view, which suggests some of the aerodynamic features of a
> > > pancake; it also had a steep glide ratio, being described as a "lead
> > sled".
> > > One pilot said the Ford's handling "bordered on the bizarre." In fact,
> > there
> > > were some test pilots who despised the F4D and felt it should have
never
> > > been accepted into operational service. This appears to have been a
> > minority
> > > opinion, but even its admirers admitted the Ford's instability made it
a
> > > handful for a relatively inexperienced pilot. Skilled pilots who liked
the
> > > machine also found it tiring to fly for long distances: keeping it on
the
> > > level was a continuous balancing act."
> >
> > Presumably it was as well-loved as the F-101 Lawn Dart....ummmm, Voodoo.
>
> The Navy brass certainly appreciated it, and the unit that flew it as part
of
> NORAD/ADC. VF(AW)-3 was the squadron, and they were based at NAS North
Island,
> commanded by WW2 USN Hellcat ace Eugene Valencia. They won NORAD's best
> squadron competition two years running, a source of great joy to the navy
brass
> and considerable heartburn to the USAF brass. The biggest problem with
the
> 'Ford' appears to have been its honeycomb wing skin structure, which just
wasn't
> up to the rigors of day-in/day-out operations. Ed Heinemann put an
entirely
> different, thicker wing skin on the follow-on supersonic F5D, but it was
decided
> not to put it into production, probably partly because the navy wanted to
spread
> the wealth around a bit and not have an all-Douglas fleet. So they
cancelled
> the production order for the F5D and went with the F8U exclusively.

From what I have read, the wing structure was not the "biggest problem". The
biggest problem it faced was probably its sometime squirrely handling
characteristics; sounds like it was bordering on instability (not a bad
thing for a fighter, if you use today's models as the reference, but the
late fifties was a bit before the advent of stability augmentation via
computer controlled surfaces). This made it very agile, but it also
apparently made it kind of dangerous. Your wing structure may have been
related to another of its problems, which was its unsuitability for
offensive strike/CAS use.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

[WaltBJ]

FWIW I engaged Fords twice flying the Deuce out of R-G AFB, KC MO. The
Navy/USMC Reserves (2 sqdns each) at NAS Olathe (15 w of RG) shared
our flying area. They flew F9F8 Cougars first and quickly learned to
leave the 102 alone. Then they got Fords and started hunting. I was in
my MC4 p-suit flying a 54000 foot M 1.1 target for 4 of my friends to
execute front snaps on. We were about 75 SE of KC - I was dragging a
contrail - and my buds were doing the half roll and dive back down
recovery from their attacks when 4 Fords showed up. Some of our guys
had had no rpt no ACM training - they were ADC school products and ACM
was bad - it could hurt the radar and the high performance maneuvering
was dangerous! But I had come out of Nellis and F86 Sabres and the 25
FIS via Dogs to the Deuce and ADC and so psuit or no psuit I joined
the fun. I was hanging off one Ford's wing as he chased one of the
no-ACM guys up and down and around - the Ford driver never did see me
desopite being about 60 back and a hundred yards away. Pretty quick I
had to break off for fuel and split for home. But the Ford was easy to
hang onto. Later on I was finishing a test hop for engine change when
2 Fords ahowed up at about 35000. I let them come on in to where they
were in long gun range and as they started to pull lead I lit the
burner and began low-speed yo-yoing, keeping up the turn while pulling
up, trading IAS for altitude and then easing back down to regain IAS
while tightening the turn slightly each time. ISTR I was oscillating
between 175 and 135 KIAS. In about three cycles I was sliding back
above them - the poor old Ford couldn't equal the Deuce's capability
in that maneuver, and coudn't raise the nose enough to ever point at
me. About 150 seemed their minimum. But then the Deuce had about 740
sq ft of wing area and I was light, down to about 1500 pounds of fuel,
so the airframe weight must have been below 21000. Anyway the Deuce
had no evil quirks at any reasonable airspeed. The Flight Manual says
'picking up a wing with rudder below 95 KIAS may result in a spin' but
hey, spin recovery was simple - let go of the stick. Of course 95 KIAS
is well below level flight minimum airspeed and the VVI is pegged down
- but the beast still handled nicely, as long as you had some sky left
below you to accelerate in, cause it sure wasn't going to do it in
level 1-G flight.
Cheers - Walt BJ

[Andy Dingley]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven"
> wrote:

>Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
>was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?

No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart.

Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes
way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high
performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel
consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel
efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped
being by far the weakest link.

[John Carrier]

"Andy Dingley" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven"
> > wrote:
>
>>Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
>>was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?
>
> No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart.
>
> Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes
> way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high
> performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel
> consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel
> efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped
> being by far the weakest link.

The J-57 was pretty advanced actually. Not so sure the Avon represented any
significant improvements in T/W or SFC. It didn't match the last J-57s
(P-420, 12,400 basic, 19,500 A/B) in maximum thrust.

R / John

[Guy Alcala]

John Carrier wrote:

> "Andy Dingley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
> >>was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?
> >
> > No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart.
> >
> > Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes
> > way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high
> > performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel
> > consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel
> > efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped
> > being by far the weakest link.
>
> The J-57 was pretty advanced actually. Not so sure the Avon represented any
> significant improvements in T/W or SFC. It didn't match the last J-57s
> (P-420, 12,400 basic, 19,500 A/B) in maximum thrust.

Indeed, IIRC the original Avon's design predated that of the J57, although the
-300 series in the Lightning was a considerable improvement. I think the J57
was the first twin-spool turbojet to enter mass production, and probably the
first 10,000 lb. dry thrust engine, with excellent sfc for its day -- its
development made it possible for the B-52 to be a turbojet with intercontinental
range. Otherwise, they would have had to use a turboprop, as the Russians
themselves did with the Bear (the Bison's Achilles heel was its original
engines, which limited its range).

It was the Lightning's _airframe_ which was of another generation to the
Skyray's. The more closely comparable airframe would have been the F5D
Skylancer, area-ruled and capable of just short of 1,000 mph, although the F5D
fell in-between the F-102 and F-106 in development timescale and performance.

Guy

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Andy Dingley > writes:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven"
> > wrote:
>
>>Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
>>was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?
>
> No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart.

Yeah - the Skyray used a Pratt & Whitney JT3B (J57) 2-spool high
pressure turbojet with reliable variable-area nozzles and a reliably
lighting afterburner.
The Lightning used a single-spool, low pressure ratio Rolls Avon, and
whenever one would take off or climb, there were always bets on wheter
both, one, or no afterburners (reheat, it's a Brit after all) would
light.
The J57 provided much better fuel economy, and it, and the JT3D
turbofan flavor that followed it, are still pushing airplanes around
all over the world.

(Now, if you were to talk about the XF4D prototype's original
Westinghouse J40 - well, an engine design might be screwed up if it
were a GE, but you can be sure if it's a Westinghouse.)

> Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes
> way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high
> performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel
> consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel
> efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped
> being by far the weakest link.

Uhm, if you look at the consumption numbers for more modern engines,
you'll see that they are only more efficient when they aren't using
reheat. The greater ram drag of a turbofan means that they don't
deliver the non-afterburning thrust at high speeds that a straight
turbojet does. The extra unburned mass flow from the fan section
allow for higher afterburning thrust, but at a serious cost in fuel
flow. Consider, if you will, the example of the TOrnado, which can be
routinely outrun by a Tu-95 when it's not using reheat.

The solution to long supersonic endurance has been to make it
big enough and clean enough to fly supersonically on a relatively
small ampunt of thrust while carrying a lot of gas (SR-71, B-58,
F-111, A-5, Mirage IV), or make it able to cruise without
reheat. (Concorde, F-22 - although the Concorde needs reheat for
acceleration and climb)


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster