# Best non-Skyhawk replacement for HMCS Bonaventure’s Banshees?



## Admiral Beez (Sep 13, 2020)

In 1962 HMCS Bonaventure retired her McDonnell F2H Banshee fighters, retaining only her fixed wing and rotary ASW aircraft. A good, albeit silent vid of RCN Banshee ops below.




Had Canada opted to keep a fighter for Bonaventure in 1962 until at least 1970, what were the best options? I’d like to exclude the obvious SkyHawk option, if only to keep things interesting. There’s still the need for ASW, so a few Trackers will need to be kept.

I didn’t see any reason for the ASW-focused RCN to be operating Banshees, but whatever justified those will carry on for the Banshee’s replacement. Maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis, occurring the same year the Banshee was retired spurs the RCN to consider the need for fleet air defence or ground strikes, in case the Soviets base bombers in Latin America or the Caribbean? 

But whatever the reason, the Banshee needs a replacement, so what are the options? I assume recent or soon to be retired USN fighters would be top of mind, especially any that can carry on Canada’s AIM-9 Sidewinder capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

F9F Cougar (swept wing version) only recently out of production, plenty of low time airframes around, air to air and air to ground capable. Subsonic, but how important is that? Much cheaper than F8U, which is moderately supersonic, somewhat fragile on deck landings, and has limited air to ground capability. F11F ridiculously short legged.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Sep 13, 2020)

I think the French were expecting you to ring them in '62.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2020)

What will be the primary mission of this aircraft? Will it be just a fighter or will it also drop bombs?


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 13, 2020)

I agree with XBe02Drvr as to the F9F Couger, unless the RCN was looking for a serious upgrade in air-air capability. If they looked to the US for a replacement, I would suggest the F3H-2N/M Demon. The Demon got a bad rap due to poor reliability in its early career, but by the late '50s it was a fairly dependable(?) and good performer, though still underpowered. It was equipped for day/night/all weather air-air, plus air-ground, and it also used a version of the same radar as that in the Banshee (APG-51). The last of them were retired from USN service in 1964.

Armament was 4x 20mm, and a mix of 4x AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-7 Sparrow, plus 2x DT for air-air, or upto 4,000* lbs of ordnance for air-ground. It was also equipped for IFR.

Toward the end of its career there was a study done around replacing the J71 with a J79 for improved reliability and power, plus a few other detail improvements (including the hydraulic system). It was found to be feasible but never made it off the drawing board.

*edited from 6,000 to 4,000. Apparently the 6,000 lbs was only carried on a few specially modified aircraft (for testing?). 4,000 lbs was the maximum allowed for a standard F3H-2 airframe.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 13, 2020)

Cougar looks good. What about the Grumman F11 Tiger? It’s small, yet supersonic. The deck to land on is awfully short, small and slow WOD.







FLYBOYJ said:


> What will be the primary mission of this aircraft? Will it be just a fighter or will it also drop bombs?


I’d think fighter and bomb-capable, though primarily fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 14, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Cougar looks good. What about the Grumman F11 Tiger? It’s small, yet supersonic. The deck to land on is awfully short, small and slow WOD.
> 
> View attachment 594846
> 
> I’d think fighter and bomb-capable, though primarily fighter.


 F11F awfully short legged. Limited combat radius.
All carrier decks look awfully short from "in close" to over the fantail.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 14, 2020)

Graeme said:


> I think the French were expecting you to ring them in '62.
> 
> View attachment 594845


IIRC we in NATO were having a little spat with "Le Generale" about that time. Something about Les Francais jumping ship in pursuit of an independent "Force de Frappe".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> IIRC we in NATO were having a little spat with "Le Generale" about that time. Something about Les Francais jumping ship in pursuit of an independent "Force de Frappe".


Yes, I think a return to British carrier fighters would be more likely, and not likely at all. 

When I look at the angled deck below it looks like something the RN could have put on their carriers in the late 1930s or early 40s (when CAGs were increasing in size and aircraft were getting faster and larger). What’s with the green colour?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 14, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> What’s with the green colour?


That's almost exactly the shade of green they sometimes paint the interiors of small boat cabins, as it's supposed to calm seasickness. I bought a used 24 foot sailboat once whose cabin was "puke green". It got refinished.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's almost exactly the shade of green they sometimes paint the interiors of small boat cabins, as it's supposed to calm seasickness. I bought a used 24 foot sailboat once whose cabin was "puke green". It got refinished.


It was still used for the Iroquois class destroyers. I wonder why the RCN likes green for light decks, perhaps there's good contrast in bad weather?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 14, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> perhaps there's good contrast in bad weather?


Good point!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> F11F awfully short legged. Limited combat radius.


True. I like the idea of the Grumman F-9 Cougar, it drop bombs and missiles, and is significantly faster than the Banshee. And the Cougar is a sweet looking bird.






Wikipedia says it was operated by Argentina's navy, but this site says the catapult on their carrier (Canada's former HMCS Warrior) was not powerful enough for the Cougar. IIRC, HMCS Bonaventure updated her catapult, so perhaps the RCN can use the Cougar where the Argies could not.

I'm surprised Canada didn't already have an aircraft called the Cougar, but the name is free to use in 1960's RCN/RCAF. Interestingly, AIUI, today all aircraft used on RCN vessels are operated by the RCAF. The Banshee's were operated by the RCN's Naval Air Squadrons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 16, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> an independent "Force de Frappe".



Sounds like something you order at "Le Starbucks" (yes, I know it's the French nuclear deterrent)



Admiral Beez said:


> I’d like to exclude the obvious Skyhawk option, if only to keep things interesting.



Supermarine Scimitar perhaps? 

In terms of cost, utilisation and upgradeability, the A-4 is the best answer for smaller navies though. The Royal Australian Navy operated A-4s off the Melbourne but found it required its catapults to be upgraded. The Aussies lost a few A-4s in catapult accidents. Its predecessor was the Sea Venom. When the Melbourne was retired the surplus RAN A-4s went to the RNZAF and were overhauled and upgraded with advanced avionics and weaponry.

RAN TA-4G N13-154911, formerly RNZAF A-4K NZ6255, formerly TA-4G N13-154911, on display at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Nowra, NSW.




Skyhawk 

Ex RAN A-4G N13-154904 with the RNZAF as A-4K NZ6212 taken yonks ago.




NZ6212

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 16, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Supermarine Scimitar perhaps?


God no, total rubbish.


nuuumannn said:


> In terms of cost, utilisation and upgradeability, the A-4 is the best answer for smaller navies though.


Yes, agreed, but that makes for a short discussion. For arguments sake, the A-4 is out. Had we bought A-4s, I expect when Bonnie was retired in the early 1970s that the Skyhawks would be transferred to the RCAF, likely still in service into the 1980s, perhaps precluding the F-5 buy.

In 1962 when the Banshee was retired from HMCS Bonaventure, the Canadian government ordered three new Oberon subs from Britain and six new frigates, so money is tight. We need a AIM-9 capable fighter that’s faster than the Banshee, but still cheap.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 16, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Sounds like something you order at "Le Starbucks" (yes, I know it's the French nuclear deterrent)


Back in my high school days (Berlin wall, Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy Assassination and drive-in burger stands) "Force de Frappe" was the name for an ice cream milkshake with just enough raw ginger in it to give you a "kick in the mouth". YUM!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 16, 2020)

The Grumman TF-9J two-seat trainer would have been good for training Bonaventure's pilots. Could the twin-seater serve in a combat role as well as the single seater? It looks potently armed below. Did the trainer have less fuel or weaponry? The single seater has 4 × 20 mm cannons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 16, 2020)

What about the Vought F-8 Crusader? Too fast and too big for Canada's small carrier?

Here's a USN Phantom, albeit lightened on the similarly sized HMS Hermes. Perhaps the Crusader would work on Bonnie? Though lift dims and catapult limits may force us back to the Cougar, and cost.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 16, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> The Grumman TF-9J two-seat trainer would have been good for training Bonaventure's pilots. Could the twin-seater serve in a combat role as well as the single seater? It looks potently armed below. Did the trainer have less fuel or weaponry? The single seater has 4 × 20 mm cannons.
> 
> View attachment 595233


The TF9Js that visited us from time to time had a single 20MM. Since their nuggets were mostly headed for fighters, which at that time meant Phantoms, gunnery was somewhat de-emphasized.


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 16, 2020)

The USMC operated a small number of the two-seat TF-9J(F9F-8T) in the FAC role during the early part of the Viet Nam war. The standard TF-9J retained the capabilities of the standard single-seat F-9J(F9F-8) in terms of external ordnance (bombs, rockets, AIM-9 Sidewinders, DTs, etc), but they only carried 2x 20mm cannon in the nose instead of 4. Electronics were similar, except maybe no APG-30 ranging radar? Fuel load was identical.

The USMC FAC variants sometimes used 2.75" FFAR smoke rounds for target marking. I do not know how they were equipped in terms of electronics.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 16, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The TF9Js that visited us from time to time had a single 20MM. Since their nuggets were mostly headed for fighters, which at that time meant Phantoms, gunnery was somewhat de-emphasized.


Why did jet fighters into the early 1960s have quad 20 mm cannons? Modern fighters have a single 20 mm cannon. I suppose the 6,000 rpm M61 Vulcan Gatling gun isn’t the same as the Cougar’s 600–700 rpm Hispano-Suiza HS.404.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 16, 2020)

I might be an aeronautical nitwit but I would much prefer one Vulcan canon to 4 Hispano-Suiza HS.404. That thing be AWESOME!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 16, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I might be an aeronautical nitwit but I would much prefer one Vulcan canon to 4 Hispano-Suiza HS.404. That thing be AWESOME!


How about four Vulcans? Now that’s a braking system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 16, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> How about four Vulcans? Now that’s a braking system.


Now we’re talking.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 16, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> The USMC operated a small number of the two-seat TF-9J(F9F-8T) in the FAC role during the early part of the Viet Nam war. The standard TF-9J retained the capabilities of the standard single-seat F-9J(F9F-8) in terms of external ordnance (bombs, rockets, AIM-9 Sidewinders, DTs, etc), but they only carried 2x 20mm cannon in the nose instead of 4. Electronics were similar, except maybe no APG-30 ranging radar? Fuel load was identical.
> 
> The USMC FAC variants sometimes used 2.75" FFAR smoke rounds for target marking. I do not know how they were equipped in terms of electronics.


Would two 20 mm cannons be considered adequate?


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 16, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Would two 20 mm cannons be considered adequate?



What are they shooting at? For tanks and AFV, likely not. For MiGs? If they can get into a place where they can get a shot off, they're likely enough. Of course, switching to two 30 mm Adens may be practical, as the Israelis regunned Skyhawks with the comparable DEFA.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 16, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why did jet fighters into the early 1960s have quad 20 mm cannons? Modern fighters have a single 20 mm cannon.


Until the Vulcan was perfected and working reliably (long process), the Hispano and the M39 were the only games in town, and neither was ideal for rate of fire or reliability reasons. The Vulcan fixed (overfixed?) the RoF issue, but had its share of teething problems, and I guess, could be a temperamental bastard in the climate of SE Asia. I used to see guns come back to the factory from the test range that had literally self-destructed due to a simple jam or link failure. With the breech and barrel assemblies rotating at 1,000 RPM and the ammo coming out of the drum and down the feedpath at 100 rounds a second, doesn't take much for a sprocket to punch a hole in a cartridge case and spill explosive propellant all over hot moving parts. Not under my cockpit floorboards, thank you!


Admiral Beez said:


> How about four Vulcans? Now that’s a braking system.


Ever noticed that those rotary guns are always mounted near aircraft centerline? Do you suppose there's a reason for that? Imagine you've got a Vulcan hanging on each of your outboard pylons, you're diving on a target centered in your gunsight, you squeeze the trigger, and only one gun fires. What happens to your carefully lined up shot, not to mention aircraft control? Get the picture?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 16, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Until the Vulcan was perfected and working reliably (long process), the Hispano and the M39 were the only games in town, and neither was ideal for rate of fire or reliability reasons. The Vulcan fixed (overfixed?) the RoF issue, but had its share of teething problems, and I guess, could be a temperamental bastard in the climate of SE Asia. I used to see guns come back to the factory from the test range that had literally self-destructed due to a simple jam or link failure. With the breech and barrel assemblies rotating at 1,000 RPM and the ammo coming out of the drum and down the feedpath at 1,000 rounds a second, doesn't take much for a sprocket to punch a hole in a cartridge case and spill explosive propellant all over hot moving parts. Not under my cockpit floorboards, thank you!
> 
> Ever noticed that those rotary guns are always mounted near aircraft centerline? Do you suppose there's a reason for that? Imagine you've got a Vulcan hanging on each of your outboard pylons, you're diving on a target centered in your gunsight, you squeeze the trigger, and only one gun fires. What happens to your carefully lined up shot, not to mention aircraft control? Get the picture?


Since the F14/15/16/18/22/35 have the gun mounted in a wing root, I wonder if the aircraft's flight control trimmed the rudder to compensate when the trigger was pressed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 16, 2020)

The more I look at the Cougar the more I like it for Bonaventure. Did it have similar takeoff, landing and stall speed to the RCN’s Banshee? That’s the sort of info missing from Wikipedia. What possible concerns should the RCN have when considering the Cougar? How many air frames are available, perhaps spare parts are a concern?


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 16, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> God no, total rubbish.





How about these!





Bruntingthorpe 20



Admiral Beez said:


> Yes, agreed, but that makes for a short discussion. For arguments sake, the A-4 is out.



Aww, no fun [shuffling feet and staring at the ground...] The A-4 is really the only sensible answer tho, realistically speaking. The F9F might be a plauseable option in the early 60s but by the early 70s its showing its age. You're gonna wanna replace it soon-ish. In the mid 70s buy Harriers or A-7s. Both single-seat strikers with modern nav-attack systems, head-up displays and able to be upgraded. You could sling Winders on them with a little modification.

Argentine CANA (naval air arm) bought F9F-2 Panthers and F9F-8 Cougars for its carrier ARA Independencia in 1959, but could not operate them from the carrier owing to the catapult not being powerful enough, so stuck with aging F4Us as its carrier fighter throughout the 60s, until 1969 when ARA 25 de Mayo came on line. The navy also had Trackers aboard the carrier, but the F9Fs all remained land based. The Brits tried to sell the Argentines Harriers for its new carrier, but they bought A-4s instead, which replaced the F9Fs in 1969 after ten years of service, owing to spares shortages and low serviceability. CANA F9Fs saw combat during the various military coups undertaken by the navy against the government and one was shot down.

An F9F-2 on display at the Museo Naval, Tigre, with its replacement in CANA service, an A-4Q behind.




F9F-2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Sep 17, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> RAN TA-4G N13-154911, formerly RNZAF A-4K NZ6255, formerly TA-4G N13-154911, on display at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Nowra, NSW.



Hi Grant. I saw the same machine earlier this year at Nowra. I always regarded it as a diminutive jet but was amazed how high the nose was from the ground. Standing erect with the camera above my head I took this shot...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 17, 2020)

Some stats for comparison.
_______________TOGW______WL______Vstall______Vmax_______ROC________SC______Guns______Ordnance
F2H-3 Banshee_ 21000______71.5_____132/114____515 35k____1900 35k_____47k_____4x20mm____3200 lbs
(all weather)____(25200)__________________________570 SL_____5150 SL______________2xAIM-9 (easy to modify to carry 4 or more?)

F3H-2 Demon__ 32000______61.6_____127/109____ 621 35k____4500 35k_____39/47k__4x20mm____4000 lbs
(all weather)____(33100)__________________________750 SL____13000 SL______________4xAIM-7, or 4xAIM-9, or 2xAIM-7 + 2xAIM-9

F9F-8 Cougar__ 20100______59.7_____132/109____ 581 35k____1830 35k_____42k_____4x20mm____3200 lbs
(day only)______(24760)__________________________646 SL_____4800 SL______________4xAIM-9

F11F-1 Tiger___ 21000______84.1_____144/122____ 727 35k____6200 35k_____42/48k__4x20mm____2260 lbs
(day only)______(23460)__________________________752 SL____11200 SL______________4xAIM-9

TOGW is for clean with full internal fuel and ammo, and max weight for catapult launch in ( ).
WL is for the clean TOGW listed.
The Vstall speeds are for no flaps power-off at the clean TOGW listed, and flaps down power-off for landing with 18%-19% fuel remaining.
ROC is with Military power for the F2H and F9F, and Afterburner for the F3H and F11F, all at the clean TOGW.
SC is with Military power for the F2H and F9F, and with Military/Afterburner for the F3H and F11f.

I believe that the Canadians required the all-weather capability of the F2H. If that were still a requirement for the follow-on aircraft the F11F would not do. I do not think the F9F was considered all-weather capable either as it had no search/fire control radar, only a simple ranging radar like the F11F.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 17, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Since the F14/15/16/18/22/35 have the gun mounted in a wing root, I wonder if the aircraft's flight control trimmed the rudder to compensate when the trigger was pressed.


Well, you're at least 50% correct in that blanket statement about M61 mounts in contemporary fighters. F14, F16, and F18 have fuselage mounted Vulcans, Tomcat and Viper carrying them offset to the port side, but within 2-3 feet of centerline. Hornet has it mounted top dead center with the firing port between the cockpit and the radome, a bad idea in my book as it seems sure to subject the pilot to flash blindness.
As for the wing root mounted F15 Vulcan, I bet Biff could tell us about rudder compensation, if it's not sensitive information. F22 and 35 are still gee-whiz territory, I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 17, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Some stats for comparison.


I guess that takes the shine off the Cougar. Not much improvement over the Banshee. I thought they were faster than that. Looks like the Demon is the only logical choice...unless... maybe, somehow, the mighty Buccaneer could be made to work. 
Now there's some* serious *badass! Probably too much airplane for the catapults and arresting gear, but it can go like scat down in the weeds and can take care of itself air-to-air. (Embarrased our Topgun trained Phantom jocks in a big furball the Bucs weren't even supposed to be participating in!)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 17, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> How about these!
> 
> View attachment 595290
> Bruntingthorpe 20
> ...


That would have been interesting. Harrier vs Harrier.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 17, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The F9F might be a plauseable option in the early 60s but by the early 70s its showing its age. You're gonna wanna replace it soon-ish. In the mid 70s buy Harriers or A-7s.


As much as it pains me, there’s zero chance HMCS Bonaventure will continue in RCN service into the mid 70s. We’re looking for a replacement for the Banshee when it’s retired in 1962 until Bonaventure retires in July 1970.

The only way this carrier is operating by this time is under an Indian flag... so goes the rumour.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 17, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> In terms of cost, utilisation and upgradeability, the A-4 is the best answer for smaller navies though.


True, and Bonaventure was conducting Skyhawk trials, though Canada cried poor. That’s why I think a cheaper non-Skyhawk option needs to be considered.

HMCS Bonaventure - Wikipedia

_“Bonaventure then returned to Canada before sailing to Norfolk, Virginia, for trials with the A-4 Skyhawk, a possible replacement for the Banshee. However, due to financial considerations, the Skyhawk was not purchased.“_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 17, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Would two 20 mm cannons be considered adequate?


Depends on the guns, The Cougar, for some reason (less redesign from the Panther?) , used M3 Hispanos that fired at 700-750rpm.

The Banshee and Tiger used MK 12s that fired a different cartridge (fatter) at 1000-1200rpm. 

At 4000-4800rpm from four guns the M61 Vulcan wasn't that huge a jump a in fire power.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 17, 2020)

Since they need all-weather, air-air capability _and_ the ability to operate of a very small carrier, the Demon would seem to be their best bet. Re-engining with the J57 could be practical (the engines are about the same length, weight, and diameter) or possibly the Avon (which is lighter, with a smaller diameter), as in the EE Lightning. I'd be fairly sure that McDonnell had some plans for a J57-powered F3H. 

So Canada buys up the surplus F3H's as they're retired from the USN, zero-times the airframes, and installs the J57, which increases thrust significantly. Figuring out how to install (and produce) the Orenda could make the F3H pretty spritely, but is likely far into the realm of fantasy.

A rather farther out possibility would be the F8U Crusader. The F-8E(FN) wasn't too far out of the time frame, and operated off France's rather small carriers. Of course, it wasn't exactly an easy aircraft to operate....

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 18, 2020)

Well, don't write off the Cougar so quickly.

First, the speed - note that the RN had the subsonic Sea Vixen as its primary carrier fighter until the late 1960s.
Also note that the Cougar IS 70 knots faster than the Banshee... both at 35K and SL altitudes.

Second, Grumman had proposals that would both make the Cougar a night fighter AND increase engine reliability and power*, almost certainly increasing its speed somewhat (although still firmly subsonic), and improve its range:



> A radar-equipped night fighter version of the F9F-8T was proposed by Grumman in 1955. It was to have carried an AN/APQ-50 radar and was to have been equipped with an all-missile armament. However, the performance was considered insufficient to warrant production.
> 
> In 1961, Grumman proposed a modernized version of the F9F-8T with updated systems and a Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet in place of the J48. However, the Navy selected the Douglas TA-4F instead, and the updated two-seat Cougar project was abandoned.



So, when the RCN wants to replace its Banshees in 1962, a radar-equipped 2-seat J52-powered Cougar IS POSSIBLE *using historic Grumman proposals!*


J48 in both the F9F-8 and TF-9F-8 produced 7,250 lb thrust dry, and 8,500lb thrust with water injection for take-off. Fuel consumption was 1.16 lb fuel per lb thrust per hour.

J52-6 in the A-4E in 1962 (certified in 1960) produced 8,500 lb thrust, and the J52-8 available from 1963 (interchangeable with little or no modification) produced 9,300 lb thrust. Fuel consumption was .82-.86 lb fuel per lb thrust per hour.
Since we are not looking for something to last into the 1970s & 80s, we won't consider the 11,200 lb thrust J52-408 available in 1968 (used for the A-4M and re-engining of A-4Fs).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 18, 2020)

Give them all the retired Navy Douglas F-6 or North American F-1 fighters.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 24, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Hi Grant. I saw the same machine earlier this year at Nowra. I always regarded it as a diminutive jet but was amazed how high the nose was from the ground. Standing erect with the camera above my head I took this shot...



The A-4 is really small. The office is tiny. The Kiwi ones had their avionics equipment shoehorned in all over the place and the radar unit was modified specifically to enable it to be able to fit. The benefit is that it can nearly carry its own weight in stores, and they were affordable for small air arms...





A-4K panel 



Admiral Beez said:


> "However, due to financial considerations, the Skyhawk was not purchased.“



...Which leads us to this statement, which doesn't necessarily point to the fact that A-4s were expensive, but that the Canadians might not have been able to afford the offer being made to them, taking into account the continuing costs of operating a carrier and its associated air wing. Douglas offered the RNZAF its A-4s at an extremely low price - its competitors were the F-5 and F-4, neither of which the RNZAF could realistically afford.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thos9 (Sep 24, 2020)

The J52 axial being a lot slimmer than the J48 centrifugal would make a lot of Cougar fuselage volume available around the cg for fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 24, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The A-4 is really small. The office is tiny.


If you're over six feet tall, it borders on "cruel and unusual punishment". My pilot said: "If you were a Naval Aviator, you would never fly one of these tinker toys. If you had to eject from the front seat of this thing, you'd leave your kneecaps on the windscreen bow. How tall are you, anyway?"
"Six five"
"Ouch! Good luck back there. They did brief you that this one's a rebuilt single seater with no command ejection, right? If you're not gone by my third 'EJECT' call, you're pilot in command!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 24, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The benefit is that it can nearly carry its own weight in stores, and they were affordable for small air arms......Which leads us to this statement, which doesn't necessarily point to the fact that A-4s were expensive, but that the Canadians might not have been able to afford the offer being made to them,


I figured the offer to Canada was for brand new A-4s, which in 1962 were advanced aircraft and must have been expensive compared to USN-surplus Cougars or other types being retired.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 24, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The A-4 is really small. The office is tiny. The Kiwi ones had their avionics equipment shoehorned in all over the place and the radar unit was modified specifically to enable it to be able to fit. The benefit is that it can nearly carry its own weight in stores, and they were affordable for small air arms...
> 
> View attachment 595868
> A-4K panel
> ...


It looks really cramped. How bad is the forward view obstructed?


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 24, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If you're over six feet tall, it borders on "cruel and unusual punishment".



Yup, I'm 6'2 and I couldn't close the canopy properly without my head hitting the top if I had a bone dome on. Your anecdote reminded me of something similar I heard with the RAF; the reason why the RAF introduced the Meteor T.7 to its training syllabus is because the Vampire T.11s were too small for taller pilots and they were likely to lose their knees ejecting!



SaparotRob said:


> It looks really cramped. How bad is the forward view obstructed?



It isn't great without the HUD, the front windscreen is tiny, but the canopy provides good visibility. On the ground - I never got to fly in one - the view is not great and non existent forward with its nose high attitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, I'm 6'2 and I couldn't close the canopy properly without my head hitting the top if I had a bone dome on. Your anecdote reminded me of something similar I heard with the RAF; the reason why the RAF introduced the Meteor T.7 to its training syllabus is because the Vampire T.11s were too small for taller pilots and they were likely to lose their knees ejecting!
> .



This is more common than most people realise. A number of pilots were unable to fly Lightnings due to restrictions on the pilots height

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 25, 2020)

Glider said:


> A number of pilots were unable to fly Lightnings due to restrictions on the pilots height



Yup, although wider, the Lightning cockpit is about the same size as the A-4's, which is odd considering the size of the thing. There's an whole lot more aeroplane around you when seated in a Lightning. That heavily framed canopy makes visibility bad as well, but better over the nose. I got to sit in a lightning years ago and you are a fair way off the ground. These were taken of the Tangmere aviation museum's Lightning, which I didn't sit in, but illustrate the size of the thing.




Lightning cockpit




Lightning ejection seat




Lightning hood




Lightning

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 25, 2020)

Glider said:


> This is more common than most people realise. A number of pilots were unable to fly Lightnings due to restrictions on the pilots height



A friend from college is 6 ft 3 in (191 cm) tall. When in AFROTC, he told me they gave him a ride in a T-33. The first thing the pilot told him was don't bother try to eject; the control panel would take off his legs were he to do so.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 7, 2020)

While I was somewhat randomly surfing yesterday, I came across a reference to Exercise Pipe Down in 1957. It was a joint exercise, part of which involved the USN and RN operating their aircraft off of the other nation's carrier. There are some interesting photos of the exercise, including the following from the IWM:














This is the Ark Royal. I do not know which Mark of catapult she was fitted with at this time, or what Mark the Bonaventure had during the period we are talking about. But I suspect the Bonaventure could have easily been upgraded if necessary?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## H_K (Oct 8, 2020)

Admiral Beez, you should look at the Etendard IVB.

It’s the highest performing option, on par with the F11F (IVB climb rate: 19,000 fpm, Mach 1.01-1.08 at 30-40K ft, time to 40K ft 4m20s,). And the only option that was specifically designed to operate off British light carriers with their short 103ft catapults. Was offered to Australia and India... so I’m sure the Canadians would have been welcome.

It had a British Avon engine, a low approach speed thanks to blown flaps (113kts), good legs (2,000nm ferry and 4hr10m endurance. Most of all it was flying in prototype form in 1959/60... here’s pic from the land-based carrier trials at RAF Bedford in the UK:

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 16, 2020)

H_K said:


> Admiral Beez, you should look at the Etendard IVB.
> 
> It’s the highest performing option, on par with the F11F (IVB climb rate: 19,000 fpm, Mach 1.01-1.08 at 30-40K ft, time to 40K ft 4m20s,). And the only option that was specifically designed to operate off British light carriers with their short 103ft catapults. Was offered to Australia and India... so I’m sure the Canadians would have been welcome.
> 
> ...


Nice. IIRC, the Argentines had to pull their Super Etenards from their carrier due to incompatibility with their carrier’s catapult. Would the Canadians have more luck?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 16, 2020)

The Aussies had problems with their catapults failing as well.

| The Australian War Memorial

Interesting video showing trials with HMAS Melbourne's catapult with a wheeled device nicknamed Chloe being hurled off the ship's deck...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

