McDonnell F3H Demon
1951
Back to the Virtual Aircraft Museum
  CARRIER-BORNE FIGHTER-BOMBERVirtual Aircraft Museum / USA / McDonnell Douglas  

McDonnell F3H Demon

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

McDonnell F3H Demon


Specification 
 MODELF3H-2 "Demon"
 CREW1
 ENGINE1 x Allison J71-A-2E turbo-jet, 62.23kN with afterburner
 WEIGHTS
    Take-off weight15377 kg33901 lb
    Empty weight10039 kg22132 lb
 DIMENSIONS
    Wingspan10.77 m35 ft 4 in
    Length17.96 m58 ft 11 in
    Height4.44 m14 ft 7 in
    Wing area48.22 m2519.04 sq ft
 PERFORMANCE
    Ceiling13000 m42650 ft
    Range w/max.fuel2205 km1370 miles
 ARMAMENT4 x 20mm cannons, 2722kg of weapons

3-View 
McDonnell F3H DemonA three-view drawing (1680 x 1120)

Comments 
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 ?

Name    E-mail


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.



All rhe World's Rotorcraft AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com