Warbird Information Exchange

This is an article from the April 1955 issue of Naval Aviation News covers a transition school for pilots switching to higher performance fighter aircraft.

This issue is available here:

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/da ... /apr55.pdf

A45C6527-4C32-4003-A3A4-A13E66384EAF by tanker622001, on Flickr

459A9094-5906-46E8-AA6B-AEF13F568620 by tanker622001, on Flickr

FE1C9993-1F12-4042-AB3C-59FFA4431036 by tanker622001, on Flickr

E77E406D-750D-4831-A26E-22800C6FEE92 by tanker622001, on Flickr

D8F05B7D-61E2-432C-8935-12156EABD252 by tanker622001, on Flickr

A863AC0A-2082-4C8E-957A-6D1154AAE0FD by tanker622001, on Flickr

Holy S__T, y'all. This is the absolute best thread I've seen on this site in ages.

I've always loved the look of the Cutlass but never really knew much about it - this thread has become an absolute goldmine of info on the type thanks to Al. I don' t know you, sir, but I admire the he|| out of the depth of your passion, your historical knowledge, and your dedication to correct decades of slander and misunderstanding directed at this almighty beast.

In the spirit of contributing something useful to this amazing thread, I offer the following video taken of the launch and recovery of F7U-1 BuNo 124415 aboard the Midway on 23 July 1951.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/76358

There are other videos available through NARA which I've found as well; let me dig them up and I'll post the links in here.

My heartfelt thanks go to everyone who's contributed to this thread thus far - can't wait to see what other incredible Cutlass-related stuff turns up here!

Cheers,

Lynn

As promised:

Here's footage of VF-83 F7U-3s aboard the Intrepid, shot on 16 November 1954... a lovely sea blue FJ-2 shows up in here as well.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/76378

Al, I think I might make your whole year with this video... is that 129622 marked "3" coming aboard Hancock in this color video?

This is one of several taken aboard Hannah as part of "Project Steam", after her hydraulic cats were replaced with more powerful steam units. Video taken between 30 Sept - 1 Oct 1954.

Y'all might want to be sitting down for this one.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75920

Umm thanks a lot Lynn *spit coffee on keyboard*.

Al, Larry & Lynn thx for sharing your wealth. Great thread.

One more F7U page from Naval Aviation News. This one is from the September 1955 issue which is available here:

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/da ... /sep55.pdf

D30511D4-56E0-4FB8-9F19-0CFE6D8DDFE8 by tanker622001, on Flickr

To see all available back issues of Naval Aviation News go here:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/h ... ssues.html

Grampaw Pettibone is always worth reading. Great Horny Toads! Jumpin' Jehoshaphat!

For a collection of his columns go here:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/h ... ction.html

And from another thread back in 2015, the remains of BuNo 129679 taken in New Orleans in January 1974 by WIXer Woodsy Airfield (Leon Cleaver):

"Removal attempt - NAS New Orleans 1-25-74"


"Henry - NAS New Orleans 1-29-74"

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

I really enjoyed this discussion as I have been fascinated by the exotic Cutlass since I was young.
Some of the photos, particularly the magazine cover prototype one and the re-fuelling plan shot highlight what a design step it was (forward or sideways?) .
Watching the video of bum heavily down carrier landings and wave offs flags that the biggest safety improvement in a current flyer would be the land location where there is a lot less to go wrong and more space for it to happen without disaster.

The comments on the circularity of information (or misinformation) on the internet are valid. If I see something new to me I try to look it up and are constantly amazed by the number of web sites that have exactly the same information, in many cases even the same exact text.

_________________
Chris Mellor

For what it's worth, Wikipedia actually has a policy about this as well as a list of examples. So, yes, it's a very legitimate concern.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

One well-known aviation example being the claim that George Welch went supersonic in the XP-86 prior to Chuck Yeager's 14 October 1947 flight. It didn't exist prior to Al Blackburn's book (in which Al was unable to present any primary evidence) and still does the rounds, despite there being no evidence of the fact, and despite there being many elements along a timeline to supersonic XP-86 flight (in early 1948) which show that not only was it mechanically impossible in the early days, but also aerodynamically impossible. Moreover, the aircraft displayed a number of flight characteristics when it did go supersonic (none of which had been recorded or subsequently rectified prior to early 1948), which also add to the multiple reasons why it didn't happen. All of this can be traced via a defined developmental timeline and aircraft configuration changes in the NAA flight test reports, as primary-source data not only from the contractor but also independently corroborated by separate Air Force documents.

But it still won't stop the conspiracy theorists perpetuating the garbage, despite there being not one item of primary-source data to even hint at such an event. However I do at least know to call it 'citogenesis' rather than garbage now! (if I'm feeling polite)

Folks have got to fact check and critically think things over no matter what the source - And those of you who flippantly dismiss anything from Wikipedia as misinformation, conspiracy theories, revisionist garbage ect probably if anything take things to the other extreme.

I read something from Whitey Feightner [who had alot of time in the Cutlass] in the 70's when I was a kid, well before the internet, and it stuck with me.
When told he had been accepted to fly with the Blue Angels, he said: [And you guys can google these yourself to find a source to your liking, or buy their books]
I can say I got none of this from wiki, though some or all may or may not be there.

Feightner had just one question: What airplane would the team fly?
“He said the F7U-1 Cutlass,” recalls Feightner, at the time a Navy test pilot with the most flight time in that very aircraft. “I told him I just resigned.”

Wally Schirra, another guy with alot of Cutlass time and future astronaut, had this to say: "In our judgment the Cutlass was an accident looking for a place to happen, a widow maker.”

John Moore, another Cutlass pilot and author of the book "The Wrong Stuff" said: “The Cutlass could be made into a pretty good flying machine with a few modifications. Like a conventional tail, tripling the thrust, cutting the nosewheel strut in half, completely redoing the flight control system, and getting someone else to fly it.”

I could go on but there is a fair share of legit, confirmed negative viewpoints from men that sure as hell were in a much better position to judge than all of us combined, so lets not dismiss any criticisms of this incredible but highly flawed aircraft as old wives tales.
That said, sure there are alot of pilots on record who admired the aircrafts performance and had good things to say about it, of course its not a complete litany of failure, but for better or worse, failure and deadly accidents tends to be what sticks in peoples minds.

Xray: I think you should read the whole thread. At least some of the statements you make (repeated by Wiki) need to be taken in context and also are not necessarily reliable as purely anecdotal, after-the-fact impressions. This is what we are driving at when we talk about primary sources, which those aren't.

Without knowing what specifically you are talking about, I'll refrain from comment and also hold off on rereading the thread, thanks for the suggestion though.
[I might browse through it again though eventually just for the pics which, without a doubt, are highly impressive]

I hope you aren't suggesting that comments and impressions from highly experienced and even renowned pilots who actually flew it are not primary sources ?

Actually it's just their opinions which are subjective. Do all primary source pilots have the same opinion?

e.g. When a WWII Vet tells me he went supersonic in a dive with a P-51 or P-47 is it primary source data?

If I say, high wing Cessna and Citabria fly better than low wing Piper and Beechcraft is that primary source data? Is it accurate? It's just my opinion.

This highlights the issue: people themselves cannot be considered as primary source information, no matter what their knowledge, expertise or experience is.

Primary source information will always consist of material from official sources, often peer-reviewed and/or counter-signed by an approved signatory. So pilot 'x' or engineer 'y' can say what they like to you or I, but it won't be primary source information, no matter how many times they say it. But if they state that 'the handling qualities of airplane 'z' display a lack of lateral stability' in a peer-reviewed flight test report then yes, it could be considered as primary source information. Look at any flight test report and it will have at least two signatories: it's primary source data. An accident report will usually be counter-signed by three or four Board members: again, primary-source. Often official correspondence (e.g. HQ USAF to Commanding General, AMC) can be considered as primary source information, but care needs to be exercised: unsubstantiated opinions creep in at times even in 'official' documentation. It can be a minefield, but also shows why we can never be led into taking any anecdotal or recounted information as gospel: first-hand experience of an event does not necessarily guarantee reliable recollection thereof.

The issue was aptly described above, where a pilot involved first-hand in the Cutlass programme would render very different opinions of the aircraft, depending on who his audience was. Neither would be considered primary source data, though it's possible that one of those opinions was correct.

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.