American Military Transport Aircraft Since 1925

This was a pleasant surprise. I never expected to see an entire book dedicated U.S. military fixed-wing transports. Yet another book on fighters, bombers, or strike airplanes, yes. But transports, even as important as they are to the services? Moreover, it’s clearly a labor of love based on its considerable breadth and depth of content. E.R Johnson is the author; he has written three other well-received books on aviation subjects. The esteemed Lloyd S. Jones did the three-view drawings. Aviation historian David W. Ostrowski provided the majority of the many photographs.

Presumably in order to hold publishing cost down, it’s soft cover and there are no color pictures. That’s pretty much where the frugality stops. Including the index and glossary, there are 480 pages of text, pictures, and drawings. One hallmark of scholarship and quality is the care taken to provide captions under the photographs that add content rather than state the obvious or worse, contain errors. Although the book is generously illustrated, with one or more on almost every page, there is plenty of text including specifications and a three-view provided for each airplane entry.

The book is divided into three main sections: 1925 to 1962, 1962 to present, and utility and miscellaneous transports since 1962. I’ve had a lifelong interest in airplanes and there are several that I haven’t heard of and many that I know little about.

Checking one that I am familiar with did reveal an error. The General Motors TBM-3R entry repeats the usual misstatement that it could carry seven passengers. Strictly speaking, it was a seven-place airplane, with one of the seats occupied by the pilot and another usually reserved for a loadmaster/crew chief. So it was intended to carry five passengers. I also doubt that the bomb bay was used to carry someone on a litter as the text implies; there was no hope of his survival if the airplane had to be ditched or crash landed. Also see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/01/tbm-3r-cod.html.

However, that may well be the only mistake in the book and skimming other entries with which I am familiar, I didn’t notice any more. The interweb is very useful for fact checking and looking up background on aircraft and incidents of interest but the accuracy and completeness vary significantly. I much prefer books like this. McFarland provided it to me for review but I would have bought it anyway.

McFarland's website to order books is www.mcfarlandpub.com; the phone number is 800-253-2187. It’s also available from Amazon and as an ebook (see www.mcfarlandpub.com/customers/ebooks for providers).

F4H-1, F4H-1F, F-4A?

This shouldn't be that confusing but I was momentarily discomfited by a poorly worded description of the transition recently so herewith an summary illustrated history.

The F4H-1 (F for Fighter, H for McDonnell Aircraft, 4 for the fourth fighter that the Navy was serious about having McDonnell develop) first flew in 1958. It was powered by two J79-GE-2 engines.

Early in the F4H production program, the Navy decided to change to the more powerful J79-GE-8 engine. As a result, the designation of the first 47 F4H-1s that had the early production inlet was changed to F4H-1F in May 1961 when the last one was accepted. (A retroactive redesignation without a configuration change was unusual but not unknown; at least if you give me time, I might think of another one.) The F suffix denoted an engine change. Subsequent production with the -8 engine were still F4H-1s for a short while.

In November 1962 the airplane designations of the Army, Navy, and Air Force were changed to be common and consistent. As a result, the F4H-1F became the F-4A and the F4H-1 became the F-4B, which I have to admit is a more straightforward way of identifying the production configuration change.

The main external difference between the standard production F-4A and F-4B was the engine inlet.*

Based on a review of pictures looking at the position of the leading edge of the fixed ramp relative to access doors and the lower-right kick-in step, I had concluded that the F-4B ramp extended slightly more forward than the F-4A ramp, by perhaps an inch. This difference was also evident on McDonnell lines drawings but it is so small that it could easily be within the accuracy of those particular drawings. However, I recently confirmed this on a visit to the Quonset Air Museum, hosted by Larry Webster, because there are examples of both the A and B fuselages there. That particular difference, is of course, insignificant in model scales: the only difference likely to be noticed on very close examination is that the right side of the A's lower-right kick-in step is vertical whereas the B's is angled forward.

 In addition to the changes shown in the illustration above, the inlet boundary layer discharge system was modified as well: the major difference was in the shape and size of the exhaust vents on the upper side of the nacelle aft of the inlet and the addition of vents on the bottom of the nacelle aft of the inlet. The original outlets on the inboard side of the variable ramp were probably deleted.

Most of the F-4As were assigned to training squadrons VF-101 (Oceana, Virginia) and VF-121 (Miramar, California).

Five were used in project LANA to compete for the Bendix Trophy in May 1961, celebrating the 50th anniversary of U.S. Naval aviation (L for 50 + ANA for Anniversary of Naval Aviation). It was a cross-country time-trial race from Ontario International Airport, California to NAS New York. The fastest Phantom averaged 870 mph for two hours and 47 minutes. Three subsonic in-flight refuelings were required.

The last F-4A built, BuNo 148275, was retired in April 1968. It has been on display at the U.S. Naval Academy at  Annapolis, Maryland since 1969. It is periodically repainted by the midshipmen in a different squadron's markings.

Robert F. Dorr Collection

*The flush canopy and small radome, which is what most people associate with the early F4H, was only on the first 18 of a total of 47 F4H-1Fs. The remaining 29 had the raised canopy and at least two of the first 18 had the bigger radome. For more on the configurations of the early F4Hs, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/11/early-phantom-iis.html

A Brief History of F8U Crusader Armament

The Navy originally bought the F8U Crusader as a carrier-based "day fighter". That basically meant that it didn't also need to be capable of finding and shooting down another aircraft in low visibility conditions, e.g. cloud, or at night. It turned out to be the last of the pure gunfighters in the Navy.

For a summary of F-8 (F8U-1/2) Crusader configurations by suffix letter , see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/f8u-crusader-variations.html

The F8U-1 (F-8A) did have a small radar that the gun sight used for automatic ranging but did not provide visual assistance to the pilot. It was armed with four 20 mm cannon and 2.75-inch rockets.

 The rocket pack tilted down when the rockets were to be fired:

The rockets proved to be not only not effective except as an area suppression weapon due to inaccuracy but also downright dangerous. To maximize the number carried versus the frontal area of the pack, one set of 16 was loaded ahead of another. If a rocket in the forward set did not fire, the one behind it, when fired, might stay in the pack, still burning. Rockets occasionally did not clear the pack, which meant that it could not be retracted and could potentially keep one of the nose gear doors from opening, which meant the nose gear would not extend.

 The combination of useless and hazardous resulted in them being deactivated in the fleet. For a bit more on the rocket pack, see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/12/missed-it-by-that-much-ii.html

For various reasons, the Navy didn't shut off production of F8Us with the rocket pack for a while, resulting in the Controller General telling Congress in July 1964 that the Navy could have eliminated them and saved about $4 million in 1958 (about $31 million now) instead of having Vought build 306 F8Us with that capability.

Far more effective than the rocket pack, at least from an air-to-air standpoint, was the addition of heat-seeking Sidewinder missiles, first two, one on each side of the fuselage:

If two Sidewinders was good, four would be better. This capability was introduced with the F8U-2 (F-8C) but there were a couple of extendable legacy things that had to be avoided, the inflight refueling probe on the left side of the fuselage:

And the ram air turbine (RAT) on the right side:

(Also see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2009/01/rats.html)

As a result, the two-Sidewinder pylon on the right was not a mirror image of the one on the left and no two missiles were oriented exactly the same:

Note that these illustrations include the wing pylons added with the F8U-2NE (F-8E).

Visual-assist radar was added to the F8U beginning with the F8U-1E (F-8B). However, it wasn't going to be much of an all-weather fighter if it wasn't armed with an all-weather missile. A radar-guided Sidewinder, the AIM-9C, was developed, qualified, and deployed. It was, however, subsequently withdrawn reportedly because its envelope was too restricted and it wasn't very reliable. (I don't know why the Sparrow III capability was never incorporated.)

The AIM-9C is on the upper rail and the 9D on the lower.

 U.S. Navy via Gary Verver

Since a carrier air group can only carry so many airplanes, general-purpose fighters that had a strike capability were preferred to one-trick ponies like a day fighter. As a result, wing pylons with a stores capability of 2,000 lbs were introduced with the F8U-2NE (F-8E) and retrofitted to the F-8Cs and F-8Ds that were remanufactured to be F-8Ks and F-8Hs respectively:

Note that although qualification of the Bullpup on the F8U began, it wasn't completed and no squadron deployed with the capability. For a bit more on that, see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/10/general-purpose-f8u.html

It was apparently intended that the pylons also be used to carry external fuel tanks. Vought flight tested them but for some reason that capability was also never used in the fleet as far as I know.

For one thing, the F8U already had great endurance for a jet and for another, the likelihood of the tank hitting the horizontal stabilizer may have been off-putting. (If this was a concern, it was overcome during Vought A-7 development.)

However, the F8U was qualified to carry bombs on the pylons and two-shot Zuni rocket pods on the two-station Sidewinder pylons, four Zunis to a side.

Although carrier-based F8U squadrons fired Zunis and dropped bombs, primarily on air defense suppression missions, the shore-based Marine squadrons probably employed it in the ground-attack role to a greater degree, dropping whatever was at hand:

For a scaleable illustration of the pylon with a Mk 84 bomb, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-brief-history-of-f8u-armament.html

Your Speed May Vary

Once upon a time, the U.S. Navy and Air Force vied with each other and the military services of foreign countries to set aircraft performance records in speed and altitude. Attempts at surpassing the existing records did not always reflect operational capability although the record-setting aircraft usually bore a much closer resemblance to their counterparts on the flight line than say, some of the air racers at Reno to their original configuration.

For example, in the days before jets had enough power to exceed the speed of sound in level flight and the attempt had to be made at an altitude just above the ground, the venue for the record attempt was increasingly someplace hot. The limit on speed had become the abrupt change in drag with Mach number. Mach number varied with air temperature. Higher temperatures meant a higher Mach number and therefore the airplane could achieve a higher speed over the ground.

However, the record aircraft were almost never stock. Engines vary more than you might think in terms of horsepower and thrust even before being tweaked for more. Engine and other limits were routinely exceeded at the expense of durability and safety. Removal of nonessential stuff, e.g. military equipment, to reduce drag and weight was a standard practice. (If guns and ammunition were carried, the fact was always worthy of note in the press release announcing the record.)

I was recently reminded of a couple of examples of somewhat more extensive modifications. The thrust provided by the J79 engines in the F4H-1 that then LtCol Robert Robinson (USMC) used to set a speed record of 1,606 mph in December 1961 was augmented by water injection.

 Robert F. Dorr Collection

If you look closely at the aft cockpit of the record setting airplane, you'll see what appears to be the water tank.

Note also the non-standard reinforcement of the windscreen. According to Robbie, the windscreen over-temperature light was on for most of the speed run, warning of imminent failure.

Needless to say, Phantoms in the fleet were not capable of anywhere near 1,600 mph.

Even more extensive modifications were made to a Navy HSS-2 in pursuit of a helicopter speed record. In February 1962, it was used to set a record of 210 mph versus a fleet Sea King's top speed of not much more than 150 mph.

 The most significant modification was the replacement of the landing gear with skids. It was also lightened as much as possible and tape and filler applied to reduce drag. For more on that project, see http://www.thisdayinaviation.com/5-february-1962/

Unofficial speed records were even more likely to approach bogus. One example is the well- publicized report that the XF4U-1 had demonstrated a speed of 400 mph. For a discussion of the unlikelihood of that, at least in late 1940, see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/10/400-mph.html.

Sometimes the false claim was at least somewhat inadvertent. On 17 June 1980 during envelope expansion with a full load of research instrumentation and no particular attention paid to drag reduction, the Bell XV-15 tiltrotor research aircraft achieved a measured true air speed in level flight of 301 knots as first calculated by engineering.

Much celebration ensured and a press release immediately issued by marketing. As it turned out, the initial calculation failed to take into account the correction required on the outside air temperature measurement, understandably because it is negligible at the speeds that helicopters normally achieve. When recomputed correctly, the actual speed was a few knots less than 300. Bell management chose not to update the number since it had already been promulgated worldwide. In any event, the milestone did not have the expected impact because 301 knots—while roughly twice that of a helicopter not tricked out like the HSS-2—was half that achievable by a jet-powered VTOL like the Harrier. Not until the XV-15 flew at the Paris Air Show in 1981 and it was subsequently flown by guest pilots did the operational benefit of the tiltrotor concept become apparent to prospective customers.

COD Redux

Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) is normally provided by an airplane that utilizes the arrested landing gear and catapult to arrive and depart. Shore-based helicopters sometimes deliver or pickup personnel and packages when a carrier is not too far away. Because of the drag of the rotor, helicopters have half the range or less of an airplane of the same size. (These CH-53Es are actually landing on Truman to refuel on their way to Kearsarge.)

The tiltrotor is an aircraft that combines the hover capability of the helicopter with the speed and range of a turboprop airplane. The Bell-Boeing V-22 is the first operational tiltrotor, initially assigned to Marine Corps for troop transport and logistics. Recently, VMX-22 conducted an evaluation aboard Bush of the V-22 as a supplement to the existing Grumman C-2 COD capability. One benefit is that the V-22 does not require the use of the catapult and arresting gear so it can takeoff and land regardless of the status of the spot aboard the carrier or existing flight operations.

Following the evaluation, the V-22s were loaded with Marine Corps and Navy personnel and their personal equipment for the flight back to the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, Virginia.

This is a picture taken a few years ago of V-22s in airplane mode used for enroute cruise.

This were not the first evaluation of the V-22 aboard an aircraft carrier. This picture was taken of a V-22 aboard Bush in March 2012, when night operations were part of the testing. An at-sea evaluation has also been accomplished aboard Truman.

It Never Fails

After I finally decide that I've found everything I'm going to find about a subject and my monograph on it is published, somebody shows up with something. In this case, it was the F7U-1 and Rick Koehnen. He was looking through the photos on the Flicker photostream of the San Diego Air & Space Museum (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/) and saw some photos of an F7U-1 in flight.

San Diego Air & Space Museum

I had guessed from the following picture that the F7U-1 assigned to Pt Mugu had participated in an air show, based on the fact that there were Air Force Thunderbird F-84Gs in the background.

I'm certain of that now. Another picture taken at the same event shows the Point Mugu markings on the fin.

San Diego Air & Space Museum

The venue was probably the first air show to be held at NAS Miramar, California in October 1953, based on the fact that the Thunderbirds had just come into being in June. The diamond formation of F9F-6s in the air with the F7U-1 are the Blue Angels.

For much, much more on the F7U-1 and the transition to the F7U-3, buy my monograph that is available from Sprue Brothers (http://store.spruebrothers.com/product_p/gin094.htm), the publisher (http://www.ginterbooks.com/NAVAL/NAVAL.htm), and Specialty Press (http://www.specialtypress.com/vstore/showdetl.cfm?Product_ID=2537&DID=8). See Amazon only for the reviews: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0984611479

Developments in Naval Aviation 1945-1950

Click HERE