Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:25 pm
quemerford wrote:And it also demonstrates why historians need to be very careful when using Wiki, since its contributors do not fully understand what verifiable data is; the reader will usually not know either. As a result, heresay, magazines and books are often cited as being 'the Bible' when they either cannot be, or are not by dint of their derivation.
Excellent point. I have been able to assist several highly regarded historians over the years. There are several who post here on WIX and none that I know even remotely rely on Wiki for research. Wiki IMO is quite useful as a starting point for further detailed research though. So there's that.
I have certainly learned more here on WIX than any other source I know of regarding older military aircraft. Nothing is better than to post a few photos and then read the responses from those who really know their "stuff".
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:15 pm
In case there is in any doubt about Wiki (other dubious sources are available), I thought I'd take a look at the F-86D page (apologies for a tad of thread drift, but it is pertinent to Al's justification regarding plagiarised, incorrect and unverified information). This is a screen shot, taken just a few minutes ago from the Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... -86D_Sabre):
("F-86G" was temporarily assigned to an F-86D subtype and also temporarily to the variant which became the F-86H; the F-86L did not mount four cannon). So in just one sentence, two major pieces of incorrect information.
But I'd also concur with Mark's comment: Wiki can be a good starting point for providing a framework on more detailed research, so long as you verify what is written there by use of robust data.
Back to the Cutlass I hope.
("F-86G" was temporarily assigned to an F-86D subtype and also temporarily to the variant which became the F-86H; the F-86L did not mount four cannon). So in just one sentence, two major pieces of incorrect information.
But I'd also concur with Mark's comment: Wiki can be a good starting point for providing a framework on more detailed research, so long as you verify what is written there by use of robust data.
Back to the Cutlass I hope.
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:05 pm
Anyone can cherry pick looking for inaccuracies, I think this goes back to what I said previously:
"Folks have got to fact check and critically think things over no matter what the source"
As far as pilots who actually flew it not being "primary sources", Ok point granted, even though they may know 10X more than all of us combined about the Cutlass, that is still only their opinions - But I would tend to give more credence to those opinions vs those who never flew it.
Much of the wiki writeup, which I have just now looked at, seems to be sourced from this
In the early jet age, pilots had good reason to fear the F7U
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-spac ... -12023991/
So I don't know, if anyone sees inaccuracies there, feel free to point them out. It really comes down to a game of numbers and stats.
* How many were produced ?
* How many were lost to accidents ?
* How do the numbers stack up against other aircraft of that era ?
* How long were they in service ? [Not long]
* Why did it have such a short service life ?
It says in the above article "the Cutlass had the highest accident rate of all Navy swept-wing fighters." Is that a fact ? I don't know, assuming it is, it speaks for itself.
"Folks have got to fact check and critically think things over no matter what the source"
As far as pilots who actually flew it not being "primary sources", Ok point granted, even though they may know 10X more than all of us combined about the Cutlass, that is still only their opinions - But I would tend to give more credence to those opinions vs those who never flew it.
Much of the wiki writeup, which I have just now looked at, seems to be sourced from this
In the early jet age, pilots had good reason to fear the F7U
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-spac ... -12023991/
So I don't know, if anyone sees inaccuracies there, feel free to point them out. It really comes down to a game of numbers and stats.
* How many were produced ?
* How many were lost to accidents ?
* How do the numbers stack up against other aircraft of that era ?
* How long were they in service ? [Not long]
* Why did it have such a short service life ?
It says in the above article "the Cutlass had the highest accident rate of all Navy swept-wing fighters." Is that a fact ? I don't know, assuming it is, it speaks for itself.
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:12 pm
Xray wrote:Much of the wiki writeup, which I have just now looked at, seems to be sourced from this
In the early jet age, pilots had good reason to fear the F7U
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-spac ... -12023991/
It says in the above article "the Cutlass had the highest accident rate of all Navy swept-wing fighters." Is that a fact ? I don't know, assuming it is, it speaks for itself.
You really need to read Al's comments in this thread.
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:41 pm
quemerford wrote:Xray wrote:Much of the wiki writeup, which I have just now looked at, seems to be sourced from this
In the early jet age, pilots had good reason to fear the F7U
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-spac ... -12023991/
It says in the above article "the Cutlass had the highest accident rate of all Navy swept-wing fighters." Is that a fact ? I don't know, assuming it is, it speaks for itself.
You really need to read Al's comments in this thread.
You are stuck on suggesting what I should do.
I read Als comments if it means anything to you, if I recall correctly he said that everything I had said was wrong, and he sure didn't prove that to me. He has some interesting observations and he is obviously a dedicated, passionate, knowledgeable man.
I have no use for bickering and going back and forth, but you seem to want to drag things along that path.
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:06 pm
X-ray, we seem to be having a “cool hand Luke” moment here, i.e. a “failure to communicate”…..
Regarding your reliance on the quoted quips from Whitey Feightner, Wally Schirra, and John “the wrong stuff” Moore, let’s analyze these.
Feightner at the time of his quip about “I just quit” was the highest time F7U-1 Navy pilot. He conducted most of the NATC testing of the aircraft and performed the only carrier suitability trials of the F7U-1 aboard Midway, which ended with a structural failure caused by increasing high sink trials aboard the ship. The whole purpose of the tests were to ascertain the good and bad points of the design from a shipboard operational standpoint, which he did, and which directly resulted in the furtherance of the design into the F7U-3. Following these tests, Feightner was chosen to join the Blue Angels since he was the highest time F7U pilot and the most qualified to integrate the aircraft into the group. His quip of “I just quit” was totally tongue in cheek, and repeated in his presentations because it garnered a laugh. He didn’t quit, rather performed every show assigned provided the aircraft could be maintained in an “up” status. This was difficult because the Navy had no F7U-1 spares, so Vought had to support the group’s two F7U’s. With only 14 aircraft produced (keep in mind that for all practical purposes, even though these were “production” F7U-1s, they were still experimental models undergoing development. Due to a lack of spare parts and the difficulty of Vought technicians to support the team while simultaneously trying to support the company’s development efforts with the remaining -1’s, the experiment ended shortly thereafter. So….. 1. he didn’t quit. 2. He went on to become engineering officer (and later CO) of VX-3 flying the F7U-3 (and helped solve the vexing engine flameout issue when the cannons were fired along with John Glenn), and continued to fly F7U’s during that tenure. The “I just quit” line was a joke my friend, and one that Whitey used in most of his presentations for comedic effect. I had the pleasure to talk at length with Whitey about his time in the Cutlass, and even have many of his F7U related keepsakes.
Wally Schirra…. Already explained earlier. Wally tailored his responses to his audience for much the same reason as Whitey. Both were master showmen in their later years and Wally savored the attention.
Best takeaway….. he thought it was an incredible aircraft in “his” hands, but too much for a new ensign. Truth of the matter?….. fewer ensigns had problems with the transition and operation than pilots experienced in other jets. Learning requiring de-learning….
Finally John Moore. John had a way with words and could turn the most mundane story into knee-slapping hilarity. It’s funny to read Moore’s NATC reports while he was assigned as a test pilot on the -3 (high sinks) and -3M (carrier suitability). None of the deprecating vitriol we saw later on when such techniques assisted in the humor department. John, if you knew him, would use anything at his disposal for a laugh, especially in print. So let’s take just a couple example from “The wrong stuff”. His friend Johnny Long’s back breaking gear collapse…. Oooh funny stuff the way Moore told the story. Weak nose gear, bad design, blah blah blah…. It sells books right? But he never mentioned that Long landed short of the runway, hit the edge of the concrete, and sheared off all the gear. The accident was attributed by both Chance Vought and BuAer as 100% pilot error!
How about Moore’s wild ride itself. He ends up saying the aircraft had “the wrong stuff”. But what really happened? Well, he was testing a new underwing fuel tank attachment during simulated arrested landings at NATC Patuxant. The newly installed shore-based arresting system was not set properly, and when he snagged the wire it didn’t pay out. In essence he hit a brick wall. Now he very well could have extolled the F7Us ability to grab a non-paying arresting wire without any structural failure of the arresting hook or fuselage structure, but he chose instead to laughingly blame the nose gear. The nose gear was subjected to loads so far in excess of any designed (or BuAer contracted) specifications, that ANY aircraft would have suffered the same collapse. I would posit that had this occurred in any other aircraft (read weaker aircraft- the F7U-3 series structure was virtually “unbreakable “) that he probably would have been killed. It was the strength of his Cutlass, that allowed him to survive a mistake that was no fault of the aircraft. Another classic example of blaming the F7U for the shore based errors, ship based errors, maintenance errors and heaven help us, pilot errors that destroyed countless F7Us. But, relayed with wit and sarcasm the story leads one to believe otherwise, and is ripe for the Wiki-lovers and the research-lazy to grasp onto like titanic flotsam.
Regarding the statistics you mention, I’ve already covered the why, where, and how’s of these “facts” and will not bore everyone with needless repetition. The issue is that you believe what you down deep WANT to believe, and there is seemingly no changing that…. But you are wrong, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. I don’t profess to know much about most things, but this aircraft is, as pathetic as it may sound to some, my life. I wouldnt steer you wrong, even if I’m not your definition of a “primary source”
Al
Regarding your reliance on the quoted quips from Whitey Feightner, Wally Schirra, and John “the wrong stuff” Moore, let’s analyze these.
Feightner at the time of his quip about “I just quit” was the highest time F7U-1 Navy pilot. He conducted most of the NATC testing of the aircraft and performed the only carrier suitability trials of the F7U-1 aboard Midway, which ended with a structural failure caused by increasing high sink trials aboard the ship. The whole purpose of the tests were to ascertain the good and bad points of the design from a shipboard operational standpoint, which he did, and which directly resulted in the furtherance of the design into the F7U-3. Following these tests, Feightner was chosen to join the Blue Angels since he was the highest time F7U pilot and the most qualified to integrate the aircraft into the group. His quip of “I just quit” was totally tongue in cheek, and repeated in his presentations because it garnered a laugh. He didn’t quit, rather performed every show assigned provided the aircraft could be maintained in an “up” status. This was difficult because the Navy had no F7U-1 spares, so Vought had to support the group’s two F7U’s. With only 14 aircraft produced (keep in mind that for all practical purposes, even though these were “production” F7U-1s, they were still experimental models undergoing development. Due to a lack of spare parts and the difficulty of Vought technicians to support the team while simultaneously trying to support the company’s development efforts with the remaining -1’s, the experiment ended shortly thereafter. So….. 1. he didn’t quit. 2. He went on to become engineering officer (and later CO) of VX-3 flying the F7U-3 (and helped solve the vexing engine flameout issue when the cannons were fired along with John Glenn), and continued to fly F7U’s during that tenure. The “I just quit” line was a joke my friend, and one that Whitey used in most of his presentations for comedic effect. I had the pleasure to talk at length with Whitey about his time in the Cutlass, and even have many of his F7U related keepsakes.
Wally Schirra…. Already explained earlier. Wally tailored his responses to his audience for much the same reason as Whitey. Both were master showmen in their later years and Wally savored the attention.
Best takeaway….. he thought it was an incredible aircraft in “his” hands, but too much for a new ensign. Truth of the matter?….. fewer ensigns had problems with the transition and operation than pilots experienced in other jets. Learning requiring de-learning….
Finally John Moore. John had a way with words and could turn the most mundane story into knee-slapping hilarity. It’s funny to read Moore’s NATC reports while he was assigned as a test pilot on the -3 (high sinks) and -3M (carrier suitability). None of the deprecating vitriol we saw later on when such techniques assisted in the humor department. John, if you knew him, would use anything at his disposal for a laugh, especially in print. So let’s take just a couple example from “The wrong stuff”. His friend Johnny Long’s back breaking gear collapse…. Oooh funny stuff the way Moore told the story. Weak nose gear, bad design, blah blah blah…. It sells books right? But he never mentioned that Long landed short of the runway, hit the edge of the concrete, and sheared off all the gear. The accident was attributed by both Chance Vought and BuAer as 100% pilot error!
How about Moore’s wild ride itself. He ends up saying the aircraft had “the wrong stuff”. But what really happened? Well, he was testing a new underwing fuel tank attachment during simulated arrested landings at NATC Patuxant. The newly installed shore-based arresting system was not set properly, and when he snagged the wire it didn’t pay out. In essence he hit a brick wall. Now he very well could have extolled the F7Us ability to grab a non-paying arresting wire without any structural failure of the arresting hook or fuselage structure, but he chose instead to laughingly blame the nose gear. The nose gear was subjected to loads so far in excess of any designed (or BuAer contracted) specifications, that ANY aircraft would have suffered the same collapse. I would posit that had this occurred in any other aircraft (read weaker aircraft- the F7U-3 series structure was virtually “unbreakable “) that he probably would have been killed. It was the strength of his Cutlass, that allowed him to survive a mistake that was no fault of the aircraft. Another classic example of blaming the F7U for the shore based errors, ship based errors, maintenance errors and heaven help us, pilot errors that destroyed countless F7Us. But, relayed with wit and sarcasm the story leads one to believe otherwise, and is ripe for the Wiki-lovers and the research-lazy to grasp onto like titanic flotsam.
Regarding the statistics you mention, I’ve already covered the why, where, and how’s of these “facts” and will not bore everyone with needless repetition. The issue is that you believe what you down deep WANT to believe, and there is seemingly no changing that…. But you are wrong, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. I don’t profess to know much about most things, but this aircraft is, as pathetic as it may sound to some, my life. I wouldnt steer you wrong, even if I’m not your definition of a “primary source”
Al
Last edited by Cutlass on Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:23 pm
One final thing. X-ray has listed a litany of questions regarding the stats. I’ve addressed many of them, but not all. Rest assured that Tommy Thomason’s and I are addressing every statistic on the -3 series will address every question using the primary sources that serious historians acknowledge as such.
Please keep in mind X-ray that the very youngest F7U pilots are 89 years old. Some are sharp as a tack, some are suffering the fate that we probably will all suffer. If you asked me anything about the Convairs, Electra’s, 737’s, 757’s I’ve flown thousands of hours in, I doubt I would even remember how to start any of them! I only know how to start an Airbus because I darn near do it every day….. but soon, those details and memory will also fade, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to take my word on anything regarding it when I’m out to pasture. In the same way, the memories of my respected F7U predecessors are absorbed with honor and respect, but backed up with primary source data. If it matches, good. If not, you gotta dig deeper, if the truth is what you seek. If it isn’t, then ask me how to start a Convair!
Hell if I know!
Please keep in mind X-ray that the very youngest F7U pilots are 89 years old. Some are sharp as a tack, some are suffering the fate that we probably will all suffer. If you asked me anything about the Convairs, Electra’s, 737’s, 757’s I’ve flown thousands of hours in, I doubt I would even remember how to start any of them! I only know how to start an Airbus because I darn near do it every day….. but soon, those details and memory will also fade, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to take my word on anything regarding it when I’m out to pasture. In the same way, the memories of my respected F7U predecessors are absorbed with honor and respect, but backed up with primary source data. If it matches, good. If not, you gotta dig deeper, if the truth is what you seek. If it isn’t, then ask me how to start a Convair!
Hell if I know!
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:29 pm
Cutlass wrote:
<big snip>
Regarding the statistics you mention, I’ve already covered the why, where, and how’s of these “facts” and will not bore everyone with needless repetition. The issue is that you believe what you down deep WANT to believe, and there is seemingly no changing that…. But you are wrong, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. I don’t profess to know much about most things, but this aircraft is, as pathetic as it may sound to some, my life. I wouldnt steer you wrong, even if I’m not your definition of a “primary source”
Al
This is reminiscent of when I owned a type of light aircraft that had a bad reputation around the FBO water cooler. The tales that were told as gospel around the water cooler were amazing. Strangely, none of the people spouting those tales had researched, flown, or owned the type in question. At the time, I read every single NTSB accident report in the 15 year history of the type and the stories shared around the FBO water cooler had nothing in common with what was in the NTSB reports. It was amazing. And it was virtually impossible to convince people to change their mind when presented with research/facts vs what they'd heard at the water cooler...
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Wed Jan 18, 2023 12:10 am
Kyleb wrote:This is reminiscent of when I owned a type of light aircraft that had a bad reputation around the FBO water cooler. The tales that were told as gospel around the water cooler were amazing...
At least the folks at the FBO were (probably) pilots.
At the museum where I volunteer, I was showing someone the aircraft in our auxiliary hangar. One of the ships in there is a friend's Bonanza 36, we are giving it a home since its own hangar was damaged by a fire in an adjacent hangar.
The guest was a businessman who has pilot friends, and was pretty well informed about aviation, when I pointed out the Bonanza (which is pretty historic in its own right, being the very first production 36), he said.. "Ahh, the Doctor Killer"...
He certainly knew of the V-tail reputation, but not the whole story.
He believed the gossip that the type had a terrible safety record because they came apart in flight.
I explained why they came apart in flight...usually overstressed from losing control in IMC. Not really the fault of the design.
He had never heard anything other than the basic water cooler talk, made all the worse by being a non-pilot who might not know that there is usually more to a reputation than the oft-repeated "stories".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Didn't "60 Minutes" do a hatchet job on the type in the '80s?).
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:03 pm
After much work, I’m proud to announce that our book on the F7U-3 series aircraft is now available! Published by Crecy as the first in their “Famous American Aircraft” series, the book is available through Casemate in the US, as well as Amazon worldwide. Tommy Thomason and I worked tirelessly over the years to bring an unabashed review of the Cutlass while refuting the ever-present derisive bias found in most discussions of the type. I sincerely hope that those with an interest find our work helpful, as it personally represents 54 years of committed research and collecting.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
- Attachments
-
- IMG_8386.jpeg (130.59 KiB) Viewed 2103 times
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:17 pm
I have it Al: from what I've read so far I can see it's (as expected) very well researched and put together.
It's waiting in line for me to finish a couple of other books but I can't wait!
It's waiting in line for me to finish a couple of other books but I can't wait!
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Thu Oct 31, 2024 3:09 pm
Excited to read it Al! thanks for the heads up!
Tom
Tom
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Thu Oct 31, 2024 6:14 pm
Christmas shopping made easy!
After seeing Al's comments here and a magazine article in Air & Space, I'm looking forward to it.
I bought the Ginter book on the -1 as a warm-up.
After seeing Al's comments here and a magazine article in Air & Space, I'm looking forward to it.
I bought the Ginter book on the -1 as a warm-up.
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Fri Nov 01, 2024 7:41 am
Was that Cutlass #129679 at New Orleans ever saved? Thanks.
Re: NATC F7U Cutlass
Fri Nov 01, 2024 10:04 am
After an attempt to begin a removal of small amount of surface panels - a week of rain and an impending nation-wide truckers strike, I had to abandon attempt for removal. A couple of months later, the Cutlass was put up for scrap and sold to Edward Levy Metals, New Orleans La. at .0227 cents per pound. I made a call to the Company, but apparently aircraft gone (probably off to smelters) - nothing left. Sad end to a great possibility...