ni When the Chance Vought Cutlass flew in prototype f September 29, 1948, it possessed a configuration that was among combat aircraft hout rely short career, it remaine ong front- carrier-based fighters. Lindsay Peacock recounts the story of what was popularly but inaccurately labelled the *Gutless Cutlass’ unique HEN it comes to an assessment of its products, the name of Chance Vought is surely synonymous with two classic naval fighters. The first of these was the F4UI Corsair, undoubtedly the finest currier-borne warplane of World War Two and one which demonstrated considerable ability in both air-to-air and ait-t0- ‘ground tasks. The second was the FEU Crusader, which perhaps enjoyed a less illustrious career than its forebear, but whieh did score 8 number of potable successes in South-East Asia when committed to combat during the Vietnam War Although the Crusader was present in one capacity of another for the duration of the latter conflict, it cannot be denied that the glory dlays came between June 1966 and September 1968 when fighter versions of Vought's elegant machine emerged victorious in some I8 encounters with the Neth Vietnamese, accounting for a total of [5 MiG-17s and three MiG-2[s in air-to-air combat. In addition, # also performed sterling work with the Navy in the reconnaissance role and with both Navy and Marine Corps nits in an air-to-ground capacity. Clearly, the F-8 was a fitting successor t the Corsair, In between these two undoubted successes, the Vought company was also responsible for conceiving 2 trio of rather more obscure machines that were rather less sucvessful, The first of these was the XFSU Skimmer or "Flying Pancake’, a propeller-driven, ciecular wing, single-seat design which was undergoing ground testing ‘when the project was cancelled in 1947. Next came the XFOU Pirate, a severely underpowered venture incorporating jet propulsion courtesy of a 3.000Ib thrust Westinghouse J34 axial-flow turbojet. asl Top: Principle Service version of the Chance Ve 3, this example displaying the design's unorthodox layout Below: V Fost 1a the underpowered F6Ui-] Pixate which the Navy bought ‘in small numbers and used for taining. (Photo via Peter Mersky), ueht’s This fared better than the Skimmer and was at least built in modest quantities, with three XFOU-I peoiotypes being followed by 30 F6U-1 production examples, although a further 35 were cancelled. As it transpired, while it served some purpose in helping the Navy to come toterms with the different operating requirements of the jet age, the Pirate never attained squadron service and most ‘of them ended their day’ as targets on gunnery and bombing ranges, where they were methodically blasted to almost total destruction: There can be little doubt that these two types were Failutes but the company kept its ead well above water with continued production of the Corsair in the immediate post-war era, At the same time, it ig for an opportunity to expand its product range and the next venture again relied upon the still relatively new and Jargely unproven jet engine. Like the eranked-wing Corsair, Chance Vought’s second jet also looked decidedly odd, since the design team opted for a tailless configuration when it conceived the PAGE 271Top: Protorype XFTU-1, 122472, was barged from Stratford, Conn, tothe ATC at Patusent River for is first flight on September 29. 1948, ard is seen herein the hands of est pilot Robert Baker. Above: The fourth F7U-1, 124419, with fn extensions and nose probe. Far ail the airframe changes undergone by the Cutlass, the airerafs was considered by some pilots to have exhibited yood handiing characteristics and had a remarkably high rate of roll. (Phots via John Taylor. Below: Lt Car Edward Feightner makes the fist catapultassisted take-off from the carrier USS Midway’ on July 25, 1951, off the Virsinia Capes These early carrer iials showed wp a number af defects In she design including an inadequate forward view over the nose. (Photo via Pitor Press XFTU-L. That was perhaps the most distinctive characteristic, but it ‘was by no means the only innovative feature or accomplishment credited to the Cutass Ie isn’t perhaps widely known that it was the First swepl-wing fighter to enter service with the Navy and it also broke new ground in being the First US jet fighter (o rely on the use of afterburner thrust augmentation from the outset. Later, despite being, fundamentally subsonic, it also demonstrated successful stores separation at a speed exceeding Mach One during dive-bombing ‘weapons release trials conducted by the Naval Air Test Centre from Patuxent River, Maryland. Perhaps most significant of all, in view of subsequent Navy weapons policy, was the fact that the FTU-3M version allowed the Cutlass to claim the distinetion of being the first missile-armed Navy fighter to deploy overseas. Even though the Cutlass secured for itself a place in history as an innovator, it had its darker side, which is perhaps most apparent ‘when one considers its poor safety record. Figures covering the petiod from July 1952 until August 1956 reveal that it suffered no less than 78 aceidenis, more than a quarter of which were fatal. By itself, that figure makes unsavoury reading, but when expressed as a ratio of accidents per flying hour, the stark uth is that the Cutlass was an inherently more dangerous beast than any of its contemporaries, On a fleet-wide basis, including all types of attack and fighteraireraft, the average number of accidents per 10,000 hours was 9.81 = however, if one looked at the Cutlass in isolation, that ratio rose to 17, which clearly reveals that its pilots were almost twice as likely to experience an unanticipated and unwanted ‘event’, Small ‘wonder that it soon earned the nickname “Widow Maker If the appearance of what eventually evolved into the F7U was radical, a least one of the other three design proposals conceived by the same company to meet the Navy requirement was arguably just as bizarre, Vought submissions centring around wo conventional and two tailless concepts, two of which envisaged the use of a three-engined layout. While it may have been the most imaginative, Vought was by no means the only contender, with the Curtiss. Wright, Douglas, Martin, McDonnell and North American companies between them offering a further eight designs and the eventual battle was fought out between Douglas and Vought with the Cutlass proposal having a decisive advantage in terms of anticipated performance Performance criteria was an influential factor in the outcome of| the contest and on June 25, 1947, Vought was rewarded with a contract covering the manufacture and testing of a tio of XFTU-1 prototypes (Bu Nos 122472-122474). Work on these was soon lunder Way at the Stratford, Connecticut factory, from where the initial machine was taken by barge to Patuxent River in the late summer of 1948 in anticipation of its maiden flight. That auspicious event occurred on September 29, 1948, at the hands of company test pilot Robert Baker but most subsequent Cutlasses were built at Dallas, Texas, to where Vought moved its operations during the course of 1948, The impetus of the early phase of Cutlass development was not destined to be sustained for t00 long and these can be litle doubt that the process of timing a fairly promising prototype into a fully fledged fleet fighter was a frustrating one for both manufacturer and customer. As it tumed out, that process needed no less thin five: and-a-half years before the first examples began to enter service with a front-line unit in the spring of 1954 and the Cutlass eventually became one of that rare breed of aizeraft whose gestation period actually spanned a longer interlude than its operational ‘That shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as @ failing of the Cutlass itself, for the decade of the 1950s was indeed most notable for the startling pace of aeronautical endeavour. Unfortunately tor Vought, those leaps and bounds meant that the Cutlass was overtaken by later developments, one of which, perhaps ironically, was the Crusader. That may not necessarily have been good news for the builder, but there can be litle doubt that the customer benefited Although five versions were eventually produced, only two of these made it as far as squadron service with units of the Fleet and the total number that was built only just surpassed the 300 mark, ‘These were spearheaded by the trio of XFTU-1 prototypes mentioned earlier, with these and a limited mumber of “production” F7U-Is only ever being employed on development tasks. Power for these two models was provided by a pair of Westinghouse J34 turbojets and there appears to be some doubt as to the extent of the FTU-1 production run, some sourees alluding to a total of 14 while Top: tn 1952, mo F7U-Es (124426 and -27) were painted in Blue Angel cofours to complement he team's FOES Cougars, With a gaod turn rate the Cutlass made an excellent display airerafy, bu its tectaeal unreliability ‘convinced the Navy that should suck with the Cougars and the F7Us veticed from the scene. Above: Two F7U-38 and two -3P photo-recon versions. Already a tall arcrafi on the ground, the nosewheel extended ever Further for eataput launching. (Photos, Arthur Schoen, others say 20. What is clear is that Bureau Numbers 124415 10 124434 were allocated, although it doesn't necessarily follow that all 20 were built Testing of the Cutlass was marred by a number of accidents, which claimed all three prototypes as well as at least two F7U-Is, tragically withthe loss of two company test pilots. At the same time italso pointed to a number of deficiencies in the design, not least of which was an uncomfortable tendency to sink in the immediate aftermath of a catapult launch. This was first noticed with the XF7U-1 which undertook initial carrier qualification trials on the USS Midivay’ in late July 1951 and resulted in the nose gear oleo. being modified to incorporate a hydraulie extension facility that inereased the angle of incidence from 9° to 14°, Even that was found to be insufficient and a longer, fixed oleo was adopted on the F7U-3, raising the angle to 20° and resulting in the characteristic nose-high ‘sit’ that was such a distinctive Cutlass feature. Armament of the initial model reflected its origins as a day fighter and was confined to a battery of four 20mm cannon in the nose section below the cockpit, aiming being achieved with the aid of an optical gun sight. No external stores stations were provided, with the result that the F7U-1 was somewhat limited in terms of capability, possessing a combat radius of just 300 miles as well as a service eciling of around 44,0008 (13,420m) and a rate of climb of Just over 11,000fUmin (55.9m/sec). These were all aspects that the Navy was keen to improve and Vought initially conceived the F7U- 2 which would also have had revised speed brakes, enhanced directional stability and a drooped nose. In concert with a raised seat for the pilot, the latter would have bestowed better visibility during the critical Landing phase. In the event, a contract for 88 F7U-25 was let but this was ultimately cancelled when it became PAGE 273