Naval Fighters Number 116: Boeing F4B and Export Variants by CAPT Richard Dann

There aren't too many meticulously researched, in-depth books about U.S. Navy airplanes that served before World War II. Dana Bell's Painting the Fleet is one. Steve Ginter has published some in his Naval Fighters Series, including Richard Dann's excellent monograph on the Grumman F2F/F3F,  reviewed by Barrett Tillman on Amazon:

 Steve Ginter's "Naval Fighters" series has long been one of the industry standards, maintaining a consistently high quality of research, writing, and illustrations. That's certainly true of Richard Dann's latest contribution, detailing Grumman's prewar biplane fighters, the F2F and F3F predecessor of the F4F Wildcat.

If anybody wants more information on the F2F and F3F, he should call Tom Cruise because it appears to be Mission Impossible. Aside from the authoritative text covering both designs, Dann includes a micro view of the air frames by Bureau of Aeronautic's number, tracing the service history and usually ultimate fate of each. "Rivet counters" will appreciate the close-up photos, factory drawings, and descriptions of construction and modifications.

Aside from fleet coverage, the book addresses the biplane fighters' movie appearances and civilian use. And warbird enthusiasts will welcome a single-source reference of the examples preserved in museums across the country.

Dann's latest one for Steve is the equal of his F2F/F3F book:

I

It is available from Steve Ginter and summarized here: http://www.ginterbooks.com/NAVAL/NF116.htm.

I urge you to directly order the books that Steve publishes because of the discount that he has to provide to book vendors like Amazon. More revenue to him equals more books that he will publish like Rich Dann's, who is currently researching his next book that will cover the Grumman FF/SF.

 Some summary reviews of his F4B book by aviation enthusiasts/historians:

Tom Chee:  I'm very impressed with  comprehensive coverage of key examples from all blocks produced and presentation of vast amount of photos, drawing, individual histories, tables, etc. Consolidated of all that info must have been challenging, but in any case, the results are well organized. A job well done and thanks for a great effort! It shows.

Mark Aldrich:  Outstanding work! The depth of research and volume of data are astounding. Rich deserves huge credit for the long effort he put in to this project and Steve deserves it as well for providing a platform for the publication and dissemination of historical works off the beaten path. Well Done! 

Don Linn:  This is a beautiful book with tons of excellent images and production data. Rich you did an excellent job.

 

Chance Vought F7U-3 Cutlass

 

https://www.crecy.co.uk/vought-f7u-3-cutlass

JATO vs. RATO

 

Every once in a while, someone wonders why rocket-assisted takeoff is called JATO (Jet Assisted Takeoff) instead. According to Captain Robert C. Truax, who was literally the Navy's rocket scientist (also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Truax), it was as follows:

"My job at the Bureau of Aeronautics (beginning in 1946) was to set up a permanent jet propulsion deck and to draw up a program for the Bureau to pursue in the field of rocket development. Since at the time 'rocket' was a science-fiction term associated only with crackpots, the term 'jet propulsion' was always used. My program included the setting up of an in-house Navy project at the Engineering Experiment Station to develop liquid-propellant JATOs for the PBY airplane as well as rocket propulsion for guided missiles, sounding rockets, and manned aircraft."

It appears that JATO was generally used to describe solid-fuel propellant takeoff assist and subsequently thrust enhancement using liquid-fuel propulsion was at least sometimes described as a rocket engine.

For my post on his rocket-powered, manned interceptor proposal, see:

 https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2012/11/and-now-for-something-completely.html

For some of my other posts on JATO, see:

 https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/07/jato.html

https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2017/07/f8u-3-auxiliary-rocket-engine.html

https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/01/truculent-turtle.html 

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2018/09/special-hobby-fh-1-phantom-and-xfd-1.html

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2020/04/lockheed-p2v-3-neptune.html

Comparing U.S. Navy Swept-Wing Fighter Service Careers

 Every once in a while on the internet, with respect to U.S. Navy swept-wing fighters before the introduction of the F8U Crusader and the F4H Phantom II, I read something like "X did not have a very long service career" or plaudits for one that was more of an also-ran, if not an outright disappointment.

When I wrote U.S Naval Air Superiority once upon a time, I created an illustration of deployments by year by type for the Navy's first swept-wing fighters and the F2H-3/4 Banshee.

A deployment was defined as an extended one, i.e. at least six months. One to two-month shakedown cruises were not included.

By that figure of merit:

                         Years        Deployments

F9F-6/7            3               22

F9F-8               3                16

Total              ~5                 38

FJ-3                4                19

F7U-3            2                7

F11F               3                6

F2H-3/4        ~6               38

F4D-1           ~5               18 

F3H-2            7+            44

Note that engines and aerodynamics peaked with the J57/J79 and area rule, respectively, so the F8U Crusader and the F4H Phantom II had much longer careers than the fighters they replaced. Improvements thereafter were with avionics in the same basic airframes until the next significant innovation in engines, low bypass-ratio fans, were introduced with the F-14.

The earlier retirement of the F9F-8 relative to the FJ-3 when the F8U/F11F were available to deploy is a little misleading: the Navy elected to modify some -8s as -8Bs armed with the Mk 12 nuke and assign them to attack squadrons while waiting for the availability of the A4D Skyhawk.

Note that the F11F made one fewer deployment than the F7U-3 (and fewer were built), primarily because it was inferior to the F8U in almost every respect except handling qualities on approach. It was, of course, assigned to the Blue Angels and as a lead-in fighter in the Training Command for many more years. The Cutlass's short career?: most will have to wait for the publication of my F7U-3 book for a proper assessment of the reasons why ( a preview: it wasn't because it had an unacceptable accident rate, weak nose landing gear, unreliable engines, low thrust-to-weight, etc.)

With respect to the all-weather fighter requirement, the F3H is often cited as a failure and having a short career when in fact it was clearly superior to the others in terms of longevity of service with carrier air groups (the F4D was relegated to shore-based Marine squadrons as soon as the F4H became available). For those seven years, it was the only fighter in a deployed carrier air group that could engage and likely shoot down an incoming jet bomber in all-weather conditions. Supposedly underpowered, that was with respect to the fighters not lugging around big radar-guided missiles and the avionics necessary to use them effectively.

A Brief History of USN Helicopter Minesweeping

 I had intended to post this here but inadvertently created it in my modeling blog. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2022/12/a-brief-history-of-usn-helicopter.html

 One comment there so far from Richard "RJ" Tucker:

Wow! Does this article take me back. I was on the USS Nashville (LPD-13) in 1981 when we deployed on a mine countermeasures deployment with four RH-53Ds from HM-14, two mine-sweeping boats in the well, and an EOD det. We were with the USS Leader and USS Illusive MSOs (Mine Sweeper Ocean). Lots of NATO mine counter measures exercises in the North Atlantic and Med. Great liberty! Lightning paced ops at the mind boggling speed of 8 kts.

He provided a link to a picture of Nashville with RH-53Ds on board:

 

Barricade and Barriers Example

Once upon a time, before angled decks, it was important to differentiate the barricade from the barriers, which are no longer needed on angled-deck carriers.

This is an illustration of the usual arrangement of cross-deck pendants, barriers, and the barricade on an Essex-class carrier:

Note that there are 12 cross-deck pendants (the last one of which goes across the elevator; it had to be pulled forward when the elevator was needed), five barriers, and one barricade. There are four control stations for the cross-deck pendants and one each for the five barriers. An enlisted man is assigned to each control station. In the case of the barriers, one of his responsibilities is to raise and lower his barrier as required, notably prop barriers to be up for prop plane approaches and down for jet approaches; Davis barriers are the reverse.

The difference between the original barrier and the Davis barrier is important. For a refresher, see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2010/10/barriers-and-barricades-one-more-time.html

It was also important, in the event that the hook caught a late wire and a trap seemed assured, that the aft-most barrier be lowered if an arrestment seemed assured so the plane did not engage it, possibly causing damage to the plane and likely disrupting the flow of landings, delaying them.

This is a pretty good example of a late trap by an F9F Panther that also resulted in a barrier engagement. The prop barriers are down and the Davis barriers, up. Note that the hook did catch a late wire/pendant but the first Davis barrier was still up. The plane's nose landing gear snagged its activator strap appropriately (there was also a retractable post immediately in front of the windscreen to activate the barrier in the event of a nose landing gear collapse).

Also note that in this instance, the Davis barrier cables (as opposed to the canvas activator straps) did not engage the main landing gear struts, which was how the jet was to be brought to a stop by the Davis barrier. That was because there was an engagement "window" with respect to the airplane's speed. Too slow, and the cables fell back to the deck before the main landing gear got to them; too fast, and the cables had not yet been pulled up high enough to clear the wheels and snag the struts (this latter case resulted in the addition of the barricade to the mix).

Every once in a while, someone posts a picture of a barricade engagement on an angle-deck carrier and refers to it as the barrier. Sometimes I comment that it is properly known as the barricade, not barrier, and the poster or someone else is offended at being incorrectly corrected. However, as far as I know, it is still officially designated the barricade in the current CV-NATOPS manual as it was in July 2009.