Tailspin Turtle

For what it's worth: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/09/grumman-6a-vs-6e-intruder.html

It was clearly postwar but not because you mistook it for an F4U-5, which it isn't (the designation above the unreadable BuNo is F4U-4) but because of the faded red stripe in the insignia. I included it as a comment on actual paint and markings at any given time versus dates of directives.

For what it's worth: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/06/sea-blue-vs-insignia-blue.html

http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2019/09/grumman-f6f-hellcat-belly-tank.html

What kind of info? Size, location, when open/closed?

The data to do a scratch conversion to any of the first 47 Phantom IIs is all here: http://www.ginterbooks.com/NAVAL/NF108.htm

The F9F-8B was an F9F-8 (single seat) modified to carry a nuke. In the great redesignation of Navy aircraft, it became the AF-9J. The TF-9J was the two seater, formerly designated the F9F-8T. The fact that an F9F-8 has a intake splitter plate (not "slat") or not does not make it a -8B or not. Early F9F-8s did not have the splitter plate; later ones did. I don't know when the splitter plate was incorporated in production. I do know that blue F9F-8s and early gray/white F9F-8s didn't have them. I had assumed that they were a standard retrofit since they provided a thrust benefit but the early -8s that went to the training command to replace Panthers didn't have them. The highest F9F-8 Bureau Number I've seen without the splitter plate in a quick review is 141157. The lowest with a splitter plate was 141143. This suggests that it was a retrofit. For what it's worth, those BuNos are in the production block of 141030-141229, which also indicates that 141143 was a retrofit, based on the suitability of that particular Cougar for another tour. The first set of Blue Angel F9F-8s did not have splitter plates. In this video, #2 does have a splitter as well as an inflight refueling probe that the other three do not. Again, that doesn't make it an F9F-8B although it could have been. Also see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2014/12/f9f-8-variations.html

Actually, he wasn't. There are doors leading to passageways under the flight deck that the sailors could use to get out of the catwalk and danger. Bjorn (see his build-article link) is one of the few who got it right. Here's another one: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-gutless-cutlass.html

Not cheesy - afterburning: see https://www.pinterest.com/pin/449585975284805264/

Correct - the oil to the rear bearing of the engine was not returned to the reservoir but simply vented overboard at a rate of about two quarts per hour.

"For night-fighter gunnery training purposes the F4U-5N had three retro-reflector devices (trihedral prisms): one on the upper surfaces of each wing tip and a third located on the tail cone. The prisms were used in conjunction with a light projector and the gun camera of the pursuing aircraft."

The forward "raked" pylon was introduced with the AD-5 and carried over to the AD-6/7. My understanding is that the new pylon was required for ground clearance of a store that was introduced concurrently with the AD-5. As far as I know, it was never back fitted to the AD-4 perhaps because it was nearing retirement from front-line usage.

You don't see a center pylon on the AD-4 because as shown in Finn's post above, it didn't have one. The rack was located within the fuselage. Also see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2015/07/douglas-ad-1-skyraider-pylons.html

For what it's worth: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/01/f-4-phantom-outboard-pylon-and-mer.html

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/03/f4u-4-modelers-notes.html

http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/06/f4u-2-antennas-and-other-stuff.html http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/06/f4u-2-color-scheme.html

Although a resin conversion set might have been canceled due to the HKM project announcement, a prospective provider of one that I was providing support to was daunted by the amount of fuselage that had to be replaced, basically from the engine inlets aft to blast area aft the afterburners. The inlet ramps were also different. Note that the 1/48th conversion cited above does not appear to include the fuselage changes around and aft of the Spey afterburners, which are notably larger. That said, conversions from F-4Js like the example included above are doable. If you're impatient, details on most of the changes required are provided here: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/spey-powered-phantom-changes.html

A summary of A4D/A-4 noses: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/11/airfix-172-a4d-2-overall-size-and-shape.html An index of my Scooter posts (it may not be up to date): http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/03/a4d-4-skyhawk-collector.html

True, although the details vary with accounts. See http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Tiger138260

Ya gonna believe me or your lying eyes? The Spey inlet opening was increased in width (by about three inches) but not depth. (The nacelle itself was increased in depth after the opening, possibly to angle the duct at the engine face to match the slightly higher incidence of the installed Spey.) However, the width is not easy to measure and compare. The variable ramp is a bit different (the fixed ramp is slightly wider longitudinally but its forward edge is in the same location), the variable ramp may not be fully closed on both airplanes being measured, the inlet opening on the Spey Phantoms was moved slightly aft (it has to do with the location of the shock off the forward end of the fixed ramp, which is also why the fixed ramp is longer to properly position the shock coming off the front edge of the variable ramp), and the guy holding the tape measure might not measure the inlet lip at exactly the same point horizontally on both aircraft. New measurements are being taken. Incidentally, I've checked a set of J79 and Spey ramp measurements that has been posted and a couple of dimensions are almost certainly incorrect. All the pertinent meaurements will be redone in the near future. n.b. I've updated the Spey Phantom post recently: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/spey-powered-phantom-changes.html

http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/spey-powered-phantom-changes.html

It looks like you're correct, at least for the F-4K. According to a McAir drawing, its nose landing gear was raked aft by three degrees. I've added an illustration of the difference here using fuselage station information: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/spey-powered-phantom-changes.html

But wait, there's more. According to a CAD-generated measurement of an F-4 Weapon Installation Drawing, which are usually pretty precise, the F-4J/B/N main landing gear is angled forward by about three degrees (vice five as carefully measured on a McAir F-4K dimensioned drawing, but which is probably not as accurate) and inward by about one degree, verifying Tony's perception by eye.

Challenge accepted. If the main landing gear rake of the F-4K is representative of the others, then the main landing gear strut is angled forward by about five degrees. I can't say whether there is any cant laterally.

You're correct, I had rotated the YF-4K image slightly counter-clockwise from my original comparison on the blog in order to get the split line between the fixed and variable ramps parallel between the two pictures to see if that told me something but because the two pictures weren't taken from the same distance and angle with the same lense, it just threw the canopy line off. My apologies for wasting your time by posting something. It won't happen again.