|
|
The prototype of the Demon naval fighter proved to have poor stability,
poor forward visibility and a low roll rate. These faults were corrected
on the initial production model, but the poor reliability and performance of
the J40 engine meant that most of the 58 built never flew. Many were barged directly from the factory to shore bases for use as ground trainers. The J40 was replaced by the J71, which still gave limited power. A modified afterburner system gave power in the range needed to make safe carrier landings, although the accident rate was horrendous by modern standards.
The later versions weren't too bad, apart from persistent hydraulic leaks,
but by the time they were in service the Demon had gained a reputation that was hard to shake off.
Jim Winchester "The World's Worst Aircraft", 2005
| MODEL | F3H-2 "Demon" |
| CREW | 1 |
| ENGINE | 1 x Allison J71-A-2E turbo-jet, 62.23kN with afterburner |
| WEIGHTS |
| Take-off weight | 15377 kg | 33901 lb |
| Empty weight | 10039 kg | 22132 lb |
| DIMENSIONS |
| Wingspan | 10.77 m | 35 ft 4 in |
| Length | 17.96 m | 58 ft 11 in |
| Height | 4.44 m | 14 ft 7 in |
| Wing area | 48.22 m2 | 519.04 sq ft |
| PERFORMANCE |
| Ceiling | 13000 m | 42650 ft |
| Range w/max.fuel | 2205 km | 1370 miles |
| ARMAMENT | 4 x 20mm cannons, 2722kg of weapons |
 | A three-view drawing (1680 x 1120) |
| Graeme Choat, gandpchoat(@)xtra.co.nz, 02.09.2008 Was the F3H the first US naval aircraft to have an after-burning engine?? | | Tom Wimberly, twimbo(@)aol.com, 26.05.2008 I was a squadron mate of Dick Hallahan and Jim Matheny. By the time I got into the machine (about April 1962), I was told that the compressor blade tips had been trimmed and that chance of engine seizure in rain was remote. Trimming of course reduced compressor efficiency, hence reduced thrust available. Remarks about the J-40 are somewhat irrelevant; Navy recognized the J-40 would not do and because they wanted to get the Sparrow operational as soon as possible, they developed the J-71 w/afterburner to make the Demon work. The aircraft had sufficient power to make a safe carrier approach; I had never heard it damned for a high bolter rate. It was easy to fly; honest, no bad tendencies, but not a lot of excess thrust. Aboard Shang in 1963-64, the ship would use us for the air intercept compexes in preference to the Crusader, because of our head-on capability with the Sparrow. Of course, it was a little humiliating if you tried to keep up with a Crusader or a Vigilante. | | Frank Bahman, fbachman(@)hotmail.com, 25.05.2008 As a shaky 1st tour pilot, the Demon was what I needed. It was stable on the glide slope, easy to land on the ship. The one A/B landing I made due to a nozzle failure was an OK 3 wire. Most of all, the confidence I gained around the ship made the transition to the Crusader a piece of cake. | | MANNY SOUSA, mannysfl(@)aol.com, 24.05.2008 I flew Demons from 4/59 to 6/62, '61 VF-53 Ticonderoga WESTPAC cruise and VF-121 instructor/LSO. Ignored in all the damning comments is the fact that Demon was the only allweather interceptor with a head-on (Sparrow) capability and acceptable radar. Forward visibility and roll rate were excellent. It was the J71 (not J40) which tended to compressor stall in visible moisture - never resolved because engine and airframe mfgs were in denial, pointing their fingers at each other. (I had one quit at 35Kft, restarted at 28Kft - "ground checks OK" writeoff! Also, the J-71 occassionally shifted two feet aft on cat shots with broken mounts (didn't produce enough thrust to keep up?)with ditching results. The night carrier landing rate bolter rate was 25%. With engine at 98% rpm on approach and high fuel consumption, the afterburner's "turkey feathers" provided thrust changes. All in all, I enjoyed flying the Demon - but was OVERJOYED to move up to Phantoms. | | Dick Hallahan, RHallahan(@)compuserve.com, 14.05.2008 I flew the Demon for over three years, and was a VF-13 squadron mate of Jim Matheny. The quote that a "modified afterburner system gave power in the range needed to make safe carrier landings" is misleading. The system was designed in case the tail nozzle failed open, causing a radical loss of normal thrust. I never used it. | | Jim Matheny, jmatheny(@)rtmc.net, 28.04.2008 I flew this aircraft on its last operational deployment in VF-13 on board the USS Shagri-La in 1963. We lost two aircraft and one pilot on that deployment. The aircraft also had high fuel consumption and a relatively short reserve at landing weights. |
|
Do you have any comments about this aircraft ?
|
|  COMPANY PROFILE
FACTS AND FIGURES© The fuselage of the Demon was not
large enough to accept bigger and
better engines such as the Pratt &
Whitney J57. Some other makers,
notably Douglas, made provision for
a 'growth engine' in their designs. © The early Demon's J40 engines
were known to cut out when flying
through rain. They gave so little
power that it was easy to get into a
position in slow-speed flight that it
was impossible to recover from. © Later versions had more powerful
and reliable engines, but were
more of an all-purpose aircraft
than a pure interceptor and the
addition of extra equipment
further hampered performance.
| |
|
|