Hot Research Topics > Aircraft, Armor, Weapons and Ships by Topic

F-6A (F4D) Skyray and F5D Skylancer

(1/8) > >>

Jschmus:
Greg Goebel just posted his history of the F4D Skyray.  A lot of it looks familiar, but there is some information I hadn't read elsewhere.

Air Vectors F4D Skyray

KJ_Lesnick:
The F4D Skyray was quite an impressive airplane with an extraordinary thrust to weight ratio for it's day, light wing-loading, and some instability yielding extraordinary maneuverability (however, difficult to fly), and it even proved itself capable of supersonic (marginally) speed.

One thing about the plane that strikes me as coming up way short was it's speed.  It really wasn't all that fast, owing largely to a blunt nose, and probably not the most efficient inlets in the world.

While I have heard explanations as to the blunt-nose being due to it being harder for radar to see through a sharp nose, and supersonic speed was an afterthought, planes like the F-90, the F3H-1 (The F3D flew around the same time as the F4D - 1951) had sharp nose and managed to successfully integrate radar. 

When you factor the fact that had the plane been faster, it would have also had a faster rate of climb (enabling it to perform it's mission better) -- and the J-40 which to the best of my knowledge was to power it, was believed to have been a lot more powerful than it turned out, and the J-57 was MORE than able to achieve supersonic flight, the design would have been better with a pointy nose, slightly modified inlets and a few other modifications to enable it to achieve supersonic-speed.  The F5D (albeit powered by a different engine) kind of proved this as well, however the F8U was comparable in performance and rendered it unnecessary...

However if a plane like the F-4D had performance comparable with a faster plane like the F-100, back in that era... how would it have affected history? 


Kendra Lesnick
BTW:  Would it have affected the F-4 development

dy031101:
From what I've heard, the problem isn't so much as its speed but its relatively poor endurance (which makes it a relatively poor multi-role aircraft; soon the USN decided that it wasn't sophisticated and/or expensive enough to remain specialized).

Of course, aerodynamic refinement could potentially raise endurance as well.

Weaver:
Apparently, when they picked the Crusader over the Skylancer, somebody from the flight-test team rang up Ed Heinemann and said "why did they pick that when your's is two-tenths of a mach faster?"..... :rolleyes:

Polly Ticks wins again......

dy031101:

--- Quote from: Weaver on July 08, 2008, 07:54:51 pm ---Apparently, when they picked the Crusader over the Skylancer, somebody from the flight-test team rang up Ed Heinemann and said "why did they pick that when your's is two-tenths of a mach faster?"..... :rolleyes:
--- End quote ---

Wasn't the Skylancer to have been able to launch Sparrow II?  Could its radar have been adopted for Sparrow III instead?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version