Tailspin Turtle

Strictly speaking, the F4U was actually the U.S. Navy's (and Vought's for that matter) second Corsair, not the first; in any event the Roman number won't survive: The F4H/F-4 was the Phantom II. That distinction was abandoned early on, as I'm sure the Lightning II will be, if not forgotten entirely like many corporate-marketing inspired/DoD-approved aircraft names, e.g. Thunderbolt II (Warthog), Fighting Falcon (Viper). The Air Force has tried with some success to nickname it Panther; according to some, it's referred in the Navy as the Penguin (as with call signs, you get the nickname deemed appropriate, usually for having done something "colorful", not one you might desire).

That's a 1970's picture of some of the Corsairs used in the TV series, Bah Bah Black Sheep.

Thanks to Skyraider subject-matter expert, I'm pretty sure of the following: The AD-3W had unacceptable stall characteristics in a power-on approach. The fixed slats and the added tail fins fixed that. It seems likely that what was unacceptable was a severe wing drop, which was also a concern with swept-wing jets that was solved with slats: see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/04/bell-l-39-wing-sweep-evaluation.html The AD-5 had a bigger (and as importantly at high angles of attack) taller vertical fin and rudder so its stall characteristics were probably acceptable without the slats.

I don't remember why the fixed slats were required on the AD-3/4W but in the meantime, here's a list of all the other unique features: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2018/06/ad-4w-skyraider.html

They were unique to the AEW variant.

Murph, They are located side by side roughly centered in the bomb bay longitudinally ( the shackles are centered in the bomb bay but the cg of the torpedoes is forward so their aft end is closer to the back of the bomb bay). The outboard torpedo is mounted near the top of the bomb bay; the inboard one is lower but its top is higher than the bottom of the outboard one. I'll post front and side view illustrations on one of my blogs and add the link here: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2023/07/grumman-s2f-bomb-bay.html

I managed to get enough weight, just barely, ahead of the main wheels including a teeny bit of lead in the spinner to have it sit level.

The simplest way to get a B horizontal stabilizer is to remove the slat. It was simply scabbed on to the leading edge. Also see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/11/f-4-stabilator.html and http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/09/f-4-flapstabilizer-change.html

Well, that was easier than I thought. Click here for a response to your question about the F2H Banshee canopy actuation: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2023/06/mcdonnell-f2h-banshee-canopy-actuation.html

I'll have to find an illustration suitable for scanning and post it on my blog. However, in less than a thousand words, the canopy was actuated by a rack and pinion mechanism. The rack was mounted fore and aft on the canopy, attached at its aft end and underneath the cross brace a bit forward of that. The pinion was driven by an electric motor mounted on the deck under the canopy. The rack was angled slightly upward going aft so as the pinion turned, the aft end of the canopy moved upward as well as aft. The forward attach points of the canopy were in a track that caused the front end of the canopy to go up as well as aft also for clearance of the pilot's helmet. The -1/2 and -3/4 canopy actuators are very similar if not identical.

I think I always discover that there's an update when I log onto the site I get them from but I'll ask D&S.

The ebook pages are much smaller than A4. The benefit, however, is that they are easily updated to correct errors and add new information.

My tutorial on the F2H Banshee is a little dated (I need to add the 1/72 Sword kits and a link to a forthcoming post on the F2H-3/4 nuke configuration, etc.) but for what it's worth: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/12/f2h-banshee-modeling-notes.html

The most obvious indication of the "armor" is the step halfway up the side of the fuselage to the cockpit. If it's a kick-in door, it doesn't have the modification. If it is a "ledge", then it does.

Note that the tail code was changed from AF to AE before the deployment. For some notes on the early F-4B configuration, see: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2023/06/early-mcdonnell-f-4b-phantom.html

BuNo 123933 and subsequent; prior production could be subsequently modified by service change.

The same longitudinal reference system, just for different purposes. The load master used the "even" inside numbers to determine the airplane's center of gravity based on the weight of cargo/people at those locations. The "odd" numbers on the drawing establish the location of frames and other structural details of interest.

Interesting. Saab was one of the first airplane companies to develop ejection seats and incorporate them in the jet airplanes they produced. According to an article on line, Folland did license manufacture the Saab MK IIb seat. I'm pretty sure, however, that the Douglas A4D seat was a bespoke design that minimized its weight (no footrests for example). The Vought F8U seat was based on the A4D seat but had a different headrest.

Looking at my blog post (http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2020/03/lockheed-p2v-5-vs-7-neptune.html), the fuselage stations on one of the illustrations indicates that the front end of the nose wheel well moved forward by 25" (FS 114-FS 89)*; the aft end was moved forward by 51" and the nose landing gear changed to accommodate the shorter wheel well. I don't know why I didn't say suggest the observer noses on the -5 and -7 might be identical (attached at that bulkhead at the front end of the nose wheel well) but it seems likely that they were and I should have illustrated it that way instead of assuming that the forward end of the observer nose was at FS 0. I've changed the text in that post accordingly. This post provides some more information on the P2V-5 forward fuselage: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2020/04/lockheed-p2v-neptune-crew-entry-hatch.html *This post provides a little bit more on the interior arrangement of the P2V-3 versus the -5 and -7: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2016/02/early-p2vs.html. Note that I have fixed the error in the distance that the forward end of the nose wheel well was changed from 31" to 25" (when I was creating this post, I misread the P2V-5 fuselage station as 83", not 89". My apologies).

The 1/72nd Monogram fuselage was slightly but proportionally undersized but the wing was 1/72 scale. It was a fairly simple kit. There were various attempts at correcting the fuselage, e.g. https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/a1e.htm, https://ipmsusa.org/reviews/features/Skyraider_Conversion/Skyraider_Conversion.htm, and http://hsfeatures.com/ad5lb_1.htm. I fondled the Skale Wings plastic when it was first released but did not build it. The good news was that the fuselage appeared to be correctly sized. My other notes are here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/09/skale-wings-172-douglas-ad-5w-skyraider.html

According to the respective SACs, the AD-4 and AD-4N bolt-on armor were the same. The guys in the back of the AD-4N were protected by a flak curtain on the floor.

For what it's worth, this is my assessment of the wing dihedral once upon a time: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2017/01/c-130-dihedral.html

The location of the reference waterline (0, 100, 200) and fuselage station (0) was somewhat arbitrary (the butt line was invariably the center line of the airplane). In general, the desire was to avoid negative numbers with respect to aircraft structure, which is why the fuselage-station reference was ahead of the nose of the aircraft, at least originally. Also see https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/accurate-three-view-drawings.html

You can send him a message here on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=423044909970898&set=a.423044876637568