If the Vought F7U Cutlass could be rebuilt today

I have always found the F7U a cool airplane. Cool as it was, it was also a POS. I wonder if the same plane was built today, with better understanding of aerodynamics and of course better engines and more strength in the airframe. I think its stats might be up there with at least early F-18A/C class fighters.

a reply to: Fools

I looked at it not knowing what it was. Why was it a pos.

a reply to: Fools

I'd say it does carry some of the same design features still in use for the pre stealth fighters and probably did contribute but bringing something from 1950's up to modern standards would probably require so much effort it wouldn't be able to look the same.

There probably comes a point where unless its a 100-1 dogfight that the plane would probably not be able to be anywhere of a use.

Building some for airshows and whatever sure but i'd of doubted it would last seconds in todays combat arena.

a reply to: Milehigh

The prototypes flew in 1948, with it entering service in 1951. By the time they retired it in 1959, 4 test pilots and 21 Navy pilots had been killed in accidents, and 1/4th of the airframes built had been destroyed.

It was majorly underpowered, with an engine that was known to flame out in the rain. The pilots used to joke that it put out less heat than a toaster. It was prone to nose hear collapses due to the long strut on the nose gear. They suffered from multiple systems failures that led to them spending a good portion of their time in ship not flying.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The concept was good, the execution of said concept was borderline criminal.

Here's a short video for those who may not be familiar with the Cutlass...

It would come nowhere near an F/A-18. The Hornet is twice as fast, just for starters. It was designed in the forties, but it was deployed only a few years. In other words, it wasn't even a good airplane for its time. There were only somewhat over 300 ever produced and they were in service a little over five years. Compare that to the Hornet which has been flying since 1983 and is still the Navy's main fighter more that 30 years later with something like 2,000 produced (including Super Hornet.) Even if you stuck new engines on them, swapped out all the controls, all the avionics, and all the weapons systems (which pretty well means a different airplane) you'd still be stuck with an airframe that couldn't handle the stress. The wing loading actor on the F7U is about half that of the Hornet.

Sometimes it's best to let things go. That airplane wasn't good when it was active and surely wouldn't be good today.

a reply to: Maxatoria

Possibly sell the new version to Iran???

I kid.

Yeah, it would more than likely have to have drastic changes. But I do see that many people have either bought or built mini Me-262's, so making one for an airshow could be a possible project of someone with more money than any of us have.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for supplying the POS details. I need to be a better OP.

a reply to: schuyler

I was talking about a ground up redesign (it is also a smaller aircraft, maybe it would have to get bigger.)

It just looks so modern compared to when it was built. You have to admit that for its day, it was really cool looking. Except for the weird metal half shell behind the cockpit.

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: schuyler

I was talking about a ground up redesign (it is also a smaller aircraft, maybe it would have to get bigger.).

In which case you have a new and different aircraft. It's not even particularly inspiring. Compare its ungainly looks, for example, with an F-102, which is roughly the same vintage. Which looks cooler? And never mind its looks, look at the specs. The F-102 wins. The Vought looks like an airplane designed by a committee.

a reply to: Fools

I just want to know where it became official company policy at Vought to only developed a given design if it was hideously ungainly looking.

One look at their 50s and 60s output should be enough to indicate that designing beautiful aircraft was clearly in violation of some company policy.

a reply to: Barnalby

If you took that design and started to adapt it with modern engines, fbw, avionics, etcetera you would end up with something like a Rafale or a Mirage 2000.. anyway it would still cost money. Form follows function.

a reply to: bra1nwash

I also think the A-7 is just about as close as you'll ever get to the perfect all-around aircraft for the kinds of wars that we've been fighting for the past 15 years. Killer endurance, fast enough, decent payload, dirt cheap operating/maintenance costs. The perfect "strike truck" that can more than hold its own against 3rd world air forces.

a reply to: Barnalby

The F-8 was no slouch either. At least in the area of dog fighting.

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Barnalby

The F-8 was no slouch either. At least in the area of dog fighting.

Ah, the F-8. A Naval Aviator about to exit the service was doing a fly-by at NAS Oceana in the 60's in an F-8. As he approached the base in a shallow dive for a low pass, he 'accidentally' went supersonic and broke many windows, but his real sin was rolling the admiral and his staff on the runway. [May have been a change of command ceremony or a ribbon cutting.] When he landed his plane, the SP jeep went out to meet him. His excuse was said to have been "it was only a little bit super."

a reply to: schuyler

In that time period there were few planes that were in service for more than a few years.

a reply to: Flipper35

But most of them didn't kill 25 people and lose a quarter of their airframes in those few years.

True, but all I was saying is you can't judge an aircraft of that generation by its short service life as most were obsolete as the first one came off the production line.

To me, it has hints of Tomcat at certain angles in regards to the canopy and twin vertical stabs.

Not saying it was a great aircraft, we had lots of duds back then.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's a "safety" record that the DeHavilland Swallow would have been proud of.

Moral of the story: Going tailless was damn near suicidal before the advent of fly-by-wire.