Anyone have any experience with the F7U "Gutless Cutlass"

[MuseumTech]

I was wondering if there were any retired Naval Aviators who have
flight hours logged with the dreaded F7U Cutlass. I work at the
National Museum of Naval Aviation here in Pensacola. We currently have
one on display. Aesthetically speaking, it's a pretty nice looking
plane, but I have read a lot of negative things about it. Were the
flaws merely due to the low performance of the Westinghouse engine?
Were there other flaws? I would love to hear any stories from people
who flew this plane.
Thank you and Happy Holidays

[Greasy Rider]

On 2 Jan 2005 19:07:34 -0800, "MuseumTech" >
postulated :
>I was wondering if there were any retired Naval Aviators who have
>flight hours logged with the dreaded F7U Cutlass. I work at the
>National Museum of Naval Aviation here in Pensacola. We currently have
>one on display. Aesthetically speaking, it's a pretty nice looking
>plane, but I have read a lot of negative things about it. Were the
>flaws merely due to the low performance of the Westinghouse engine?
>Were there other flaws? I would love to hear any stories from people
>who flew this plane.
> Thank you and Happy Holidays

There must be an echo in here from 12/22/04.

[Mike Beede]

In article . com>, MuseumTech > wrote:

> Were the
> flaws merely due to the low performance of the Westinghouse engine?

I've just been reading John Moore's book _The Wrong Stuff_. He did some
carrier-qualification trials on the F7U and seemed to be of the opinion that
it wasn't just the engines. I recall something about an uncontrollable spin
departure that was unfortunate. Anyway, it's worth reading for his take
on the Flexdeck program--he claims to have made more wheels-up landings
in jet aircraft than anyone else.

I _think_ this Amazon link will take you to the book.

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188380910X>

Mike Beede

[~^ beancounter ~^]

that F7U is a weird looking plane....imho...

[Tex Houston]

"~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> that F7U is a weird looking plane....imho...
>
As are almost all USN aircraft.

Ducking, weaving and laughing,

Tex Houston

[~^ beancounter ~^]

tex...

really? i didn't think the f14's
and f16's were bad looking...

..> that F7U is a weird looking plane....imho...


As are almost all USN aircraft.
Ducking, weaving and laughing,


Tex Houston

[Tex Houston]

"~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> tex...
>
> really? i didn't think the f14's
> and f16's were bad looking...

Even though the USN has used a handful the F-16 is an Air Force design.

Tex

[~^ beancounter ~^]

tex....air force design...nice lookin' plane....
it looks fast, just sitting there on the tarmac
or flight deck......

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 1/3/05 8:41 PM, in article
. com, "~^ beancounter ~^"
> wrote:

> tex....air force design...nice lookin' plane....
> it looks fast, just sitting there on the tarmac
> or flight deck......
>

....and looks great on my tape deck as I'm gunning it. And it's never been
on a flight deck.

--Woody

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Beede > writes:
> In article . com>, MuseumTech > wrote:
>
>> Were the
>> flaws merely due to the low performance of the Westinghouse engine?
>
> I've just been reading John Moore's book _The Wrong Stuff_. He did some
> carrier-qualification trials on the F7U and seemed to be of the opinion that
> it wasn't just the engines. I recall something about an uncontrollable spin
> departure that was unfortunate. Anyway, it's worth reading for his take
> on the Flexdeck program--he claims to have made more wheels-up landings
> in jet aircraft than anyone else.

Well, there was the fuel system that fed both afterburners from a
single sump tank, which wasn't all that big. The transfer pumps for
the other tanks couldn't refill the sump tnk as fast as the ABs could
suck it out - leaving with a pretty good chance of losing the airplane
to fuel exhaustion woth 3/4 of a ful load still aboard.

Or the slow changover mode in the powered flight controls - there was
a mechanical backup, with some manner of mechanical advantage system.
All very good, but the changover when losing the powered controls took
'bout 10 seconds. And, of course, the things always failed when you
were going straight up or straight down.

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

[[email protected]]

ISTR the Cutlass holds the jet fighter record for the most turns in a
spin - something around 40 before it hit the ground. The pilot left
about turn 25 or so but the camera recorded the entire trip. BTW that
earleir comment about one great turn reminds me very much of the F102 -
all the smash converted to a lot of G in about 25 seconds.
Walt BJ

[Pechs1]

Tex-<< Even though the USN has used a handful the F-16 is an Air Force design.
>><BR><BR>

And the more things change, the more they stay the same. F-16N went away(thanks
NAVAIRSYSCOM), and now back in Fallon...GREAT jet, particularly with contract,
GD(when I was flyin' it) maintenance.

Not a better adversary A/C for ther USN in existence.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Tex-<< As are almost all USN aircraft. >><BR><BR>

ALMOST is right. F-4 and F-8 were not wierd looking. F-14 sure is tho.

Remember, altho the USAF had doragtory names for the F-4, the USN never did. I
heard 'double ugly, Rhino, Leadsled' all the time in the USAF, when on exchange
but in 10 years in the USN, it was the 'Phantom', my favorite jet.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Paul Michael Brown]

> And the more things change, the more they stay the same. F-16N went
away(thanks
> NAVAIRSYSCOM), and now back in Fallon...GREAT jet, particularly with contract,
> GD (when I was flyin' it) maintenance.

Why was contractor maintenance by General Dynamics employees superior to
Navy maintenance?

[Dave in San Diego]

(Paul Michael Brown) wrote in
:

>> And the more things change, the more they stay the same. F-16N went
> away(thanks
>> NAVAIRSYSCOM), and now back in Fallon...GREAT jet, particularly with
>> contract, GD (when I was flyin' it) maintenance.
>
> Why was contractor maintenance by General Dynamics employees superior
> to Navy maintenance?

Primarily continuity in personnel and experience, just like the NADEP
maintenance. Teaching sailors to work on F-16s is not cost effective
since there is a single location for them. In a three year tour you
*might* get two good years of work out of most maintenance techs. First 6
months is getting up to speed, last 6 months is training your
replacement, and there is always leave, etc. in the middle.On top of
that, with the single location, they lose the skills after they transfer
out. Doesn't make sense.

Dave in San Diego