NATC F7U Cutlass

[quemerford]

Jaw dropping looks, I'd say it would be better off not to have a flying example of this type.

Oh I don't know - I think some of us would love to see it happen!

[Xray]

Jaw dropping looks, I'd say it would be better off not to have a flying example of this type.

Oh I don't know - I think some of us would love to see it happen!

Well hell, I'd love to see a flyby of a B-58, B-47, SR-71 and a F-14 while we're at it, there is no end to what we would love to see happen.

With this aircraft's abysmal safety record and history of crashing on a dime, it is best left on the ground and in history books IMO.
Its not like it can be modified with something modern to make it safer, it is what it is - A product of its times when experimental, inherently flawed designs were rushed into production to try to get an edge in the looming cold war.

[Dan K]

...Its not like it can be modified with something modern to make it safer...

That's not the idea I got from reading the following:

https://airandspace.si.edu/air-and-spac ... ding-dream

It appears Al Casby has really done his homework. By upgrading the hydraulics and continuing dialogue with veteran pilots (and--I'm assuming--avoiding anything resembling carrier quals), he's convinced flight operations should be fairly straightforward. Is there something else he is/we are missing?

[quemerford]

...Its not like it can be modified with something modern to make it safer...

That's not the idea I got from reading the following:

https://airandspace.si.edu/air-and-spac ... ding-dream

It appears Al Casby has really done his homework. By upgrading the hydraulics and continuing dialogue with veteran pilots (and--I'm assuming--avoiding anything resembling carrier quals), he's convinced flight operations should be fairly straightforward. Is there something else he is/we are missing?

For sure there were issues with the Cutlass, but presumably many were resolved before it went out of service.

Using the F-86H as another example, its J73 engine had an awful reputation to start with (Ti140 compressor disc failures, quality issues, starter explosions, IGV scheduling/failures etc), but despite only ever equipping that one type, it became a reliable engine and it's sad that the 80s/90s project to get one airworthy was nixed by something as random as a flood.

It's hard to appreciate how much basic aerospace technology has progressed over the last few decades when it comes to materials and failure detection, but those two aspects alone make an airworthy F7U something sensible that not so long ago would indeed have seemed foolhardy.

[Xray]

...Its not like it can be modified with something modern to make it safer...

That's not the idea I got from reading the following:

https://airandspace.si.edu/air-and-spac ... ding-dream

It appears Al Casby has really done his homework. By upgrading the hydraulics and continuing dialogue with veteran pilots (and--I'm assuming--avoiding anything resembling carrier quals), he's convinced flight operations should be fairly straightforward. Is there something else he is/we are missing?

He can say and theorize whatever he wants, nearly certain it will [thankfully] never be put to the test - It had far more serious design issues than just underpowered engines and failure prone hydraulics, in addition to being a maintenance nightmare. I think its highly likely it would never get a certification to fly, especially around crowds of people.

[quemerford]

He can say and theorize whatever he wants, nearly certain it will [thankfully] never be put to the test - It had far more serious design issues than just underpowered engines and failure prone hydraulics, in addition to being a maintenance nightmare. I think its highly likely it would never get a certification to fly, especially around crowds of people.

Well I hope he succeeds: he certainly seems to be doing a great job from what I've seen. I have a lot of time for people who do stuff like this: it's far easier to be a nay-sayer.

[JohnB]

He can say and theorize whatever he wants, nearly certain it will [thankfully] never be put to the test - It had far more serious design issues than just underpowered engines and failure prone hydraulics, in addition to being a maintenance nightmare. I think its highly likely it would never get a certification to fly, especially around crowds of people.

Thank you Capt'n Buzzkill!

You may be right, it may be an aeronautical question best left unanswered, but from reading Casby's blog in the link posted above, he certain seems to know what he is doing and is Well aware of the type's history and shortcomings.

So to me, he is more than welcome to try.
After all, aviation would be a very empty field of it wasn't for dreamers who put their time, money, and occasionally lives, where their heart is.
I wish him the best.

[Xray]

I have no reason to doubt that the guy knows what he is doing, lots of guys who knew what they were doing have been killed often by factors beyond their comprehension or control - And quite a few in this very jet.
Buzz kill for sure, but I fear a wreck would be inevitable, if not on its maiden flight ,, And people would say well gee, who would have ever guessed that an aircraft type that lost a full quarter of its production run in accidents, one which more than a few naval aviators flat out refused to fly, one that was routinely kicked off carriers and failed with the Blue Angels because of consistent safety issues and crashes, would have ever had any problems with a guy trying to fly it more than half a century later ??

Now a taxi'ing version would be cool, ala the Vulcan in UK [don't know if they still make taxi runs], but yeah that would be be a disappointing half measure to those enthusiasts who yearn to see it grace the skies once again.

[quemerford]

I have no reason to doubt that the guy knows what he is doing, lots of guys who knew what they were doing have been killed often by factors beyond their comprehension or control - And quite a few in this very jet.
Buzz kill for sure, but I fear a wreck would be inevitable, if not on its maiden flight ,, And people would say well gee, who would have ever guessed that an aircraft type that lost a full quarter of its production run in accidents, one which more than a few naval aviators flat out refused to fly, one that was routinely kicked off carriers and failed with the Blue Angels because of consistent safety issues and crashes, would have ever had any problems with a guy trying to fly it more than half a century later ??

Now a taxi'ing version would be cool, ala the Vulcan in UK [don't know if they still make taxi runs], but yeah that would be be a disappointing half measure to those enthusiasts who yearn to see it grace the skies once again.

He's already stated that the hydraulics will be upgraded to a contemporary 3000psi+ system, which will not only be more reliable but save weight. It goes without saying that the engine accessories will also be upgraded to deliver that pressure, again reliably and with associated weight savings. I'm not sure what else he'd be allowed to do (presumably in the Experimental category), but who knows? But to understand how that would affect the aircraft's airworthiness you'd need to know the root cause of the F7U's poor record in period. If it was 100% down to the hyd system then I'd say he's got it fixed. It wasn't of course, but unless someone can come up with firm data to show accident causes and percentages then it's unfair and unrealistic to say that a wreck would be inevitable when you don't know for sure why it would.

Can anyone provide data?

And for the record, there are at least three Vulcans in the UK which are regularly taxied

[Cutlass]

I know someone well who can provide that data….I can provide the details of each and every F7U accident and incident and the causal factors responsible. In VERY FEW cases was the aircraft at fault, either through manufacturing defect or design. In those few cases, the issues were corrected and never again caused issue. But you won’t read any of that on Wikipedia.

Gentlemen, this aircraft is the most mis-understood, maligned machine since the GeeBee, and yet when presented with the irrefutable evidence to the contrary, almost every single armchair aviator chooses to disparage the Cutlass and it’s Westinghouse engines as if they single-handedly caused both the plague and the Holocaust combined.

Almost everything Cutlass that you read on Wikipedia is incorrect, as well as the oft-repeated tripe that permeates the magazine rags ad nauseum. Ive gotten to the point where I’ve stopped trying to provide valid information from primary source documents because it isn’t accepted…. The basement dwellers believe what they wish to believe and are unwilling to accept anything to the contrary. Seemingly, the F7U is the “dead horse” that certain folks need to strike repeatedly in an effort to feel relevant with every snide “Gutless Cutlass” and “Ensign Eliminator” quip.

For whatever it is worth, Tommy Thomason and I have partnered a few years ago to bring the true story of the F7U to light in book form. This effort, with all information gleaned from primary sources and my own 55 years of research dedicated to this single subject will hopefully provide the true student of the subject with the real answers. To those who just need a whipping post to make themselves feel better, it probably will have no effect. So be it.

Did the Cutlass have flaws? Sure it did. All early jet aircraft had flaws. All
Modern aircraft have flaws…..But making the F7U out to be the devil incarnate only serves to highlight one’s ignorance of the subject. In interviewing over 200 F7U pilots, including three astronauts, not one “hated” the aircraft. However, it is quite telling that of all the pilots that did detest the Cutlass, they all had one thing in common….. they never flew it.

I’ve read post after post in many platforms ( including this thread) waxing on ad nauseum the same tired derisive mantra. I can say to Xray, that your repetition of incorrect assessments and skewed statistics knowledge of the F7U program simply betrays an arrogant ignorance of the subject matter. I’ll address each separate assertion of yours should you so desire, but suffice it to say, you got every single assertion wrong. I do however wish to thank you for your lack of confidence in my ability to achieve my goal, as it is your type of negativity, sprinkled with smugness, that drives me to keep going in this lifelong endeavor. I need dudes like you, if for nothing more than providing the opportunity for a chuckle and a shake of the head.

[quemerford]

I know someone well who can provide that data….I can provide the details of each and every F7U accident and incident and the causal factors responsible. In VERY FEW cases was the aircraft at fault, either through manufacturing defect or design. In those few cases, the issues were corrected and never again caused issue. But you won’t read any of that on Wikipedia.

Gentlemen, this aircraft is the most mis-understood, maligned machine since the GeeBee, and yet when presented with the irrefutable evidence to the contrary, almost every single armchair aviator chooses to disparage the Cutlass and it’s Westinghouse engines as if they single-handedly caused both the plague and the Holocaust combined.

Almost everything Cutlass that you read on Wikipedia is incorrect, as well as the oft-repeated tripe that permeates the magazine rags ad nauseum. Ive gotten to the point where I’ve stopped trying to provide valid information from primary source documents because it isn’t accepted…. The basement dwellers believe what they wish to believe and are unwilling to accept anything to the contrary. Seemingly, the F7U is the “dead horse” that certain folks need to strike repeatedly in an effort to feel relevant with every snide “Gutless Cutlass” and “Ensign Eliminator” quip.

For whatever it is worth, Tommy Thomason and I have partnered a few years ago to bring the true story of the F7U to light in book form. This effort, with all information gleaned from primary sources and my own 55 years of research dedicated to this single subject will hopefully provide the true student of the subject with the real answers. To those who just need a whipping post to make themselves feel better, it probably will have no effect. So be it.

Did the Cutlass have flaws? Sure it did. All early jet aircraft had flaws. All
Modern aircraft have flaws…..But making the F7U out to be the devil incarnate only serves to highlight one’s ignorance of the subject. In interviewing over 200 F7U pilots, including three astronauts, not one “hated” the aircraft. However, it is quite telling that of all the pilots that did detest the Cutlass, they all had one thing in common….. they never flew it.

I’ve read post after post in many platforms ( including this thread) waxing on ad nauseum the same tired derisive mantra. I can say to Xray, that your repetition of incorrect assessments and skewed statistics knowledge of the F7U program simply betrays an arrogant ignorance of the subject matter. I’ll address each separate assertion of yours should you so desire, but suffice it to say, you got every single assertion wrong. I do however wish to thank you for your lack of confidence in my ability to achieve my goal, as it is your type of negativity, sprinkled with smugness, that drives me to keep going in this lifelong endeavor. I need dudes like you, if for nothing more than providing the opportunity for a chuckle and a shake of the head.

Nice to have you here Al: I wish you all the best in your awesome endeavour.

And your use of phrases such as, "...you won’t read any of that on Wikipedia" and "...valid information from primary source documents" really float my boat. I've worked in the aircraft industry for 42 years now and still despair when I see plagiarised garbage produced as 'evidence' and primary-source data dismissed. Don't give up - we'll get there one day!

And I'm sure many of us would love to see progress reports on your work! (please)

[Forgotten Field]

Al,
Okay, I'm on your side. If you have an on-line presence, please send me a link so I can put it on Forgotten Field's links page (under construction). I remember a while back you were looking for the driving APU's used with these. I am sorry to say that I witnessed the scrapping of three of them several years before you were looking for one.

I was a student pilot when I purchased my L-5. After I bought it, there was a string of people from my airport who showed up to give me "advice" about the airplane, such as "The engine came from a tank," "the wood wings are junk," "it ground loops easily," and my personal favorite, "you should have bought a Cessna 172." I don't know when I started, but I began asking these people if they ever flew the L-5. One guy had a ride in one, once. The rest were telling all the hangar couch knowledge they had gleaned from all the "critical male communication" (bullsh**ing) sessions they had partaken over the years. There had been an L-5 at my field at one point; the guy used it to ferry deceased persons from the Baltimore area back to the Eastern Shore when somebody died on our side of the Chesapeake Bay. I never got to talk to him, but he ran his business for 3 years until he got a job as an airline pilot. By the way, and for informational purposes only, the O-435 was adapted to fit the M-22 Locust tank, the L-5 wood wings are stressed to +11g, -6g, they are more dangerous on take off than landing because the elevator has full authority before you have full rudder authority, and if you ever want to trade your L-5 to me for a C-172, I'm your man to make that happen....

I am interested in the CG-4A Gliders from WWII. The parts and pieces I have in my collection have been through the ringer, and I have done much research on these aircraft. There are many, many published sources by authoritative writers who condemn the aircraft. But none of them have flown them. I have spoken to a large number of people who rode in the CG-4A into combat, and they universally say they were afraid of the experience. I wouldn't dispute them in any way- it would pretty scary to glide into an uncertain landing if you had not done it before, which is a typical experience of the glider riders in WWII. I have found the CG-4A to be an incredibly well engineered aircraft, although the method of building them using "new" aviation manufacturing concerns caused certain problems, like lack of interchangeability of parts between manufacturers.

My point in all this is that science, engineering, design, and operational characteristics all come together in various ways. I am a fan of the L-5, from hundreds of hours of flying it, I am a fan of the CG-4A, from hundreds of hours of studying its design, and I am now a fan of the F7U since I gather that the USN did not waste the tax payer's money so much as they were making a leap forward in technology perhaps without all the necessary capability required to make it a PERFECT success. Same thing the Wright Brothers did, as well as every other design/operational team did after them.

If you fear for the lives of those of us who dare to want to fly these dilapidated, obsolete and deadly aircraft, I recommend you volunteer to help us and keep us straight. If you pass the vetting to actually put your hands on working on these death-traps, perhaps you might develop another sense of the situation.

[Xray]

Yes, by all means, address each and every one of my false assertions point by point.
I can understand the reasons for you being upset so I won't follow in your condescending approach, sure I and everyone else would be interested in what you have to say.

[JohnB]

I'd liked to see more about the project and background in the type's reputation
Would be a great story for Air Classics or the AAHS Journal.

In the mwantime, I've ordered the Thomason book that Mr. Casby mentions, that way I'll know something more than the basics.

As an AF-centric guy, I have more or less put the F7U, F4D, F11F and F3H into to the "low production and short service life" box of Navy types that filled carrier decks between the Panther/Cougar and the Crusader and Phantom periods.

Anyway, this discussion, and Al's enthusiasm, will hopefully prompt more people into learning something new about an interesting type.

Last edited by JohnB on Sat Dec 31, 2022 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Cutlass]

Yes, by all means, address each and every one of my false assertions point by point.
I can understand the reasons for you being upset so I won't follow in your condescending approach, sure I and everyone else would be interested in what you have to say.

Okay, let’s start with your first assertion, that 1/4 of the production run were “lost” in accidents. This is a prime example of the misconstrued statistics that permeate most discussions of the type. “Lost” leads one to believe that 25% of the aircraft were catastrophically destroyed. This could not be further from the truth. To begin with, the Cutlass, as a result of its long gestation period and delay reaching the fleet, found itself thrust into roles it was never originally designed for…. General purpose fighter, missile interceptor, nuclear delivery capable attack. As a result, in spite of it being the first to assume the last two of these tasks in the navy, it was by definition a “placeholder” aircraft to function in these roles until mission dedicated aircraft exited development and reached the fleet. In the case of missile interceptor it was a placeholder for the F3H-2M. Likewise, nuclear delivery saw it assume the placeholder role for the A4D. Even in the general purpose fighter role, it was the replacement for the failed XF10 Jaguar that never materialized.

This resulted in a fiscal situation that saw the F7U-3 series to be considered a one-tour aircraft, meaning that no plans were made for the aircraft to transit an overhaul facility in preparation for a second bite at the apple service-wise. Because of this, airframes that sustained very minor damage incurred in normal operations, or airframes that sustained moderate ( but fixable) damage in accidents such as runway excursions were not repaired. The spare parts contracts that normally follow the initial production contracts were not proffered as the prevailing wisdom held that the airframes would soon be replaced by purpose built fighters, interceptors, and dedicated attack aircraft coming down the pipeline.

This lack of spares, and BuAer’s reluctance to fund repairs to airframes sustaining minor damage resulted in these airframes being “struck off charge” or less eloquently “sent for scrapping.”
Due to BuAer’s antiquated, yet rigid system for classification of asset status, these airframes that were fully repairable, and fully viable candidates for rework, were simply classified as unrepairable due to accident or incident. It is much akin to taking your new Tesla to the store and getting a shopping cart “ding” in the door….. instead of getting the dent pulled out, you scrap the car and wait for next year’s model to hit the showroom floor, electing to walk in the meantime.

So this 25% “lost” or “destroyed in accidents” figure that is flung about with much aplomb and glee by the uninformed is inclusive of all these repairable damages which were administratively elected to be ignored…..and which by the way, were rarely caused by the aircraft. Pilot and maintenance errors were rampant not due to a fault of the machine, but by the soon-to-be ubiquitous complexity not seen before in the fleet. You cannot desire for capability and simultaneously lambaste the resultant complexity needed to achieve it.

This is but just one example of the “statistics” related to the F7U that without in-depth research into the “why” is often taken at face value after its repetition codifies it as “fact”. I certainly don’t fault you X-ray for mindlessly repeating what you’ve read and re-read countless times on Wiki and in the rags, but hope to instill the afterthought that perhaps when told with foot-stomping enthusiasm that the sky is silver or gold…. that perhaps you just might be being misled and there is more to the story…..

Next?

Last edited by Cutlass on Sat Dec 31, 2022 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.