Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It had a "separation charge" that was supposed to eject the entire "stores package" (weapon and aux fuel tanks) out the aft end of the bomb bay. It didn't have enough oomph to reliably clear the slipstream, which was more powerful than had been calculated. On more than one occasion this charge was triggered by the jolt of a catapult launch, ejecting the "package" onto the flight deck. A more powerful charge was deemed unsafe, and by that time submarine launched ballistic missiles were beginning to take over the Vigilante's mission.
Today's BUFFs are "electronic battleships", or 21st century kamikazes, if you will, whose sole purpose, after launching their standoff missiles, will be to provide a few minutes of powerful jamming until the new generation ultra long range smart AAMs take them out. They haven't a snowball's chance in Riyadh of penetrating enemy airspace, nevermind surviving there.BUFFs on Social Security.
Today's BUFFs are "electronic battleships", or 21st century kamikazes, if you will, whose sole purpose, after launching their standoff missiles, will be to provide a few minutes of powerful jamming until the new generation ultra long range smart AAMs take them out. They haven't a snowball's chance in Riyadh of penetrating enemy airspace, never-mind surviving there.
The idea strikes me as fundamentally flawed -- after all, even if it cleared the back, you'd have this huge void in the back, and that would be like flying with a suction cup behind you -- it'd be nothing but a constant source of base-drag.It had a "separation charge" that was supposed to eject the entire "stores package" (weapon and aux fuel tanks) out the aft end of the bomb bay. It didn't have enough oomph to reliably clear the slipstream, which was more powerful than had been calculated. On more than one occasion this charge was triggered by the jolt of a catapult launch, ejecting the "package" onto the flight deck. A more powerful charge was deemed unsafe, and by that time submarine launched ballistic missiles were beginning to take over the Vigilante's mission.
I don't know. I never saw an A5A. They were all RA5Cs in my time. The ones I saw had a seam right down the middle of the tail cone as if they could split and open up like a clamshell door. Presumably they could then close back up. The RA5C had no need to eject anything in flight, so opening the tailcone would be strictly a maintenance procedure.The idea strikes me as fundamentally flawed -- after all, even if it cleared the back, you'd have this huge void in the back, and that would be like flying with a suction cup behind you -- it'd be nothing but a constant source of base-drag.
Even if the afteburner plume was made to expand a bit more as a result, I'm not sure if it'd cover the base-drag.
The clamshell idea made the most sense, but that doesn't appear to be the design concept: These diagrams at least seem to indicate what I initially assumed.I don't know. I never saw an A5A. They were all RA5Cs in my time. The ones I saw had a seam right down the middle of the tail cone as if they could split and open up like a clamshell door. Presumably they could then close back up. The RA5C had no need to eject anything in flight, so opening the tailcone would be strictly a maintenance procedure.
Looking carefully at the photo (Intrepid museum in NYC) you can see a vertical seam right down the middle of the tailcone, which looks taped over on this static display. On an average workaday active aircraft, it's much more visible, with grime streaks and wear marks that make it look like it has been opened. I confess I never saw one actually open. The plane had single point pressure fueling with the aux tanks plumbed in, so no need to access the bay for anything but maintenance. My tractor trailer fueling rig could only do two Vigilantes, then back to the tankfarm for a refill.The clamshell idea made the most sense, but that doesn't appear to be the design concept: These diagrams at least seem to indicate what I initially assumed.
View attachment 595676
View attachment 595677
I don't know, but I've heard that USAF and USN resisted the idea of twin tails as long as they could until the aerodynamic and stability penalties of single tails became overwhelming.I remember seeing some models that depicted the aircraft with two fins, why didn't they keep that? It seems like it would have resulted in a lower clearance.
I don't know, but I've heard that USAF and USN resisted the idea of twin tails as long as they could until the aerodynamic and stability penalties of single tails became overwhelming.
The F7U had twin tails probably for a couple of reasons (and not necessarily in order): They acted like airflow dividers (like a stall-fence); the underside also made room for the landing gears without encroaching on fuel volume too much; they shortened the height of the airplane to some extent, and; (possibly) the airflow over the tail wouldn't run the risk of being blanked by the fuselage.In general, the faster you go, the more vertical surface you need for stability. . . On naval aircraft the tall tail, as on the Vigilante, became a storage issue on aircraft carriers. The F7U Cutlass had twin tails.
I was told with twin-tails it actually helped reduced the drag (some kind of pumping effect).The disadvantages to twin tails are added structure weight and more complex aerodynamics.
The F7U had twin tails probably for a couple of reasons (and not necessarily in order): They acted like airflow dividers (like a stall-fence); the underside also made room for the landing gears without encroaching on fuel volume too much; they shortened the height of the airplane to some extent, and; (possibly) the airflow over the tail wouldn't run the risk of being blanked by the fuselage.
I was told with twin-tails it actually helped reduced the drag (some kind of pumping effect).
Surely in jest, as it would have required massive main mounts to get the necessary AoA that wing platform needed for launch. Where you gonna stow those "shotputter's legs" when you're airborne?This is kind of said in jest, but a lot of the problems with the F7U-1 would have been rectified if it was simply built as a tail-dragger: The British did it with the Attacker
How about a pair of afterburning J57s? I don't think J79s would have worked with those intakes and ducting. But a decade later, if you weren't supersonic, you weren't relevant.The F7U was seriously underpowered. Given the engine(s) of a decade later it may have been viable.
Well, it's obviously in jest, but the main landing-gear legs wouldn't have to be made all that much longer. The primary variable that would change the MLG length would be the fact that the removal of the nose-gear would the CG further aft, and would require the wings to move forward to keep the CG & CL relationship within tolerances.Surely in jest, as it would have required massive main mounts to get the necessary AoA that wing platform needed for launch.
This is kind of said in jest, but a lot of the problems with the F7U-1 would have been rectified if it was simply built as a tail-dragger: The British did it with the Attacker
Better give that another think, Zipper. Removing the nose gear to convert to a tail dagger would require the mains to move forward of the CG, else it would want to sit on it's nose like a VariEze. This would likely more than compensate for loss of the nose gear CG wise, and the further forward the mains go, the taller and heavier they'd have to be to get launch AoA. You could install "squatting" gear that extend for launch, but now you're talking even more weight and complexity. Another can of worms gets pried open.Well, it's obviously in jest, but the main landing-gear legs wouldn't have to be made all that much longer. The primary variable that would change the MLG length would be the fact that the removal of the nose-gear would the CG further aft, and would require the wings to move forward to keep the CG & CL relationship within tolerances.