Jump to content

Tailspin Turtle

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,666 profile views

Tailspin Turtle's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)



  1. In the absence of official detail (also telling in and of itself), my guess is an arresting cable failure. The snapback of the two halves would cause significant injuries to people on the deck (see videos of cable failures) and the airplane would go off the angle without sufficient airspeed to climb, necessitating the pilot’s ejection. The Navy would not want anybody else recovering the wreckage, hence the need to avoid stating that the airplane had gone in the water (see the Brit accident in the Med). The new consistency of landing at the mid point of the targeted wire increases the risk of repetitive damage resulting in its failure, although it is supposed to be inspected for visible damage often enough to preclude failure; it may be that the interval is not frequent enough or the damage is not as visible as expected.
  2. Fixed. More here plus links to more as well as comments: https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/12/f-35c-so-far-so-good.html One interesting aspect to this. The Navy introduced a carrier-landing assist system, Magic Carpet, which might be on the F-35C and takes almost all the degree of difficulty out of carrier landings. In fact, it supposedly introduced a new problem, the accuracy and consistency of touchdown resulting in excessive wear and tear at specific points on the deck and the targeted arresting wire: https://news.usni.org/2021/02/08/navy-brings-precision-landing-mode-carrier-landing-assist-tool-to-new-fighter-pilots
  3. My impression is it was more related to the mission, first for anti-ship strike and later runway interdiction for example. In both cases survivability was enhanced by coming in as low and as fast (the Buccaneer was area ruled for highest transonic speed given the thrust) as possible, which meant that in the absence of airborne radar with look-down capability, radar detection range and surface-to-air missile or radar-directed gun firing solution time was minimized. Being low, to a lesser extent, also made interception and weapons employment by a fighter more difficult. It’s also a rush for the pilot, less so for the guy in back.
  4. Thanks for the recognition and appreciation. You missed a few of FJ-4 posts that I am proud of: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/fj-4-detail-under-canopy.html https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/10/north-american-fj-44b-fury-notes.html https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2021/08/things-under-wings-north-american-fj-4.html https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/04/things-under-wings-fj-4b.html
  5. https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/03/f4u-4-modelers-notes.html https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-last-propeller-pulled-corsairs-f4u.html
  6. If the AJ was catapulted with the nose wheel swiveled aft, the nose gear would tend to jam outside the wheel well when the gear was retracted (not a big deal, since the gear would extend properly and the wheel would swivel back into position on touchdown). The right side of the nose wheel was painted white so the catapult officer would be able to easily determine that it was correctly positioned. Scroll down in this post for a picture of an AJ on a tanking mission with the nose landing gear not fully retracted: https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2016/05/power-steering.html
  7. He has enough of flightworthy J46s for a while. From the standpoint of durability and reliability and considering his F7U will be light, he is confident that they’ll be adequate for his purposes. I’ll note that the Gutless sobriquet came into being when the Navy repurposed it as a Sparrow I missile armed fleet air defense fighter, adding a couple of thousand pounds of empty weight without any increase in engine thrust, which to be fair, considering the mission, it didn’t need. As a day fighter, even with derated engines, it had a thrust to weight ratio as good as or better than the FJ-3 and F9F-8.
  8. Maybe this year I’ll finish my F7U-3 monograph, coauthored with Al Casby, who is restoring one of his to flight status. In the meantime: https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-gutless-cutlass.html
  9. With SoftScience's approval: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2021/12/sword-172-ad-4w-redux.html
  10. An excellent model, particularly given the degree of difficulty you experienced. Click HERE for my AD-4W post with links to others (also with links) including some notes on the kit. I would like to include your comments and one or two photos of your build with your permission in a new post.
  11. Old first-hand memories of the SR-71 (I was a McDonnell flight test engineer at Edwards AFB from late 1966 to mid 1968). "My" F-4K spent a lot of time on the ground run pad at the end of contractors' row at the edge of the lake bed. From time to time, an SR-71 would be tied down beside it for ground runs. When the Black Bird was about to start up, we'd shut down and go get coffee because you couldn't hear or think when it was running. The engine/afterburner start fluid was a hypergolic that ignited on exposure to air. It was therefore 1) a very positive way to get an engine started and the afterburner lit and 2) very, very dangerous stuff (the airmen who filled the TEB tank in the engine nacelle were wearing full protective fire suits and a fire truck was standing by). The start cart was powered by two big (400 hp V-8s) unmuffled automobile engines; there was a direct drive between the cart and the engine. The starting rpm of the J58 (the point at which you can add fuel/starter fluid and the engine will accelerate to idle on its own) was approximately equal to the red line of the start-cart engines. On a cold morning or late at night (it's a high desert), we had plenty of warning that SR-71 ground run was about to commence because it took some time to get the start-cart engines warmed up and running smoothly so they wouldn't stumble and ruin the start. The acceleration to J58 light-off rpm took a minute or so and at night, could be heard all over the base. At that point, the start-cart engines would be screaming with the pistons about to be swapping cylinders. With any luck, however, and a notable whump, the J58 would then light off and just under the sound of it accelerating to idle, you could hear the rpm of a relieved and exhausted start-cart winding down. More HERE
  12. That Don Hinton cockpit photo is of an F2H-2P cockpit and what looks like a radar scope is really the periscope (located in lieu of the gunsight) for aiming the downward-looking cameras by maneuvering the airplane. The radar scope was much bigger and located in the middle of the instrument panel: see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/12/f2h-banshee-modeling-notes.html. I'm pretty sure that there was no difference in 1/72 scale between the -3 and -4 cockpit. Also note that the nose landing gear in the kit is incorrect for the -3/4 (click on the link at the top of the post). The jury is still out on whether the -4 had uprated engines.
  13. Thanks - I just tried to download the B-66 manual and got hit by a virus-warning scam that forced me to delete my Firefox app; reloading it meant that I lost all my tabs. But I had previously found a B-66 brochure on Ron’s site that has much of what I need so I’m working on a comparison of the B-66 and A3D configuration.
  14. Jari, Thanks very much - that may be what I need...
  15. Thanks for the suggestions: Ryan Crierie (who created the “alternate wars” web site) did not bother getting the B-66 SAC when he was at the USAF Museum. What I’m interested in is the specifics, data and illustrations, usually provided in the SAC that aren’t provided by the second link. I’m not that invested in the project to buy the flight manual (I have the B-66 Aerofax Minigraph which suffices from that standpoint).
  • Create New...