Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

A ME R ICA N A ERO SPAC E A RC H I V E 2

NORTH AMERICAN FJ-5 FIGHTER


A Navalized Derivative of the F-107A

Jared A. Zichek
T
he July 6, 1955 proposal for the ABOVE: Insert caption here.
North American Aviation (NAA)
"Improved FJ-4," also designated COVER: Photo of the North
the FJ-5 (by the company, not by the American FJ-5 wind tunnel model.
Navy), was essentially a navalized ver-
sion of the Air Force F-107A. The latter
originated from an in-house study for
a successor to the F-100A Super Sabre,
dating from March 4, 1952. Designat-
ed by the company as the F-100B, this
aircraft would evolve into the F-100BI
interceptor, which featured a variable-
area air intake under a sharply pointed
nose radome. Further refinement of
the design led to the inlet being moved
directly above and immediately behind
the cockpit. As an interceptor, the pro-
posal failed to impress the Air Force,
and the aircraft was subsequently rede-
signed into a fighter-bomber, receiving
the F-107A designation on July 8, 1954.
Ordered as a back-up to the Republic
F-105 Thunderchief, the F-107A's ca-
reer was cut short by the unreliability of
its variable-geometry inlet and lack of
funding. Only three aircraft were built,
ending their days in aerodynamic test-
ing at NACA.1
The FJ-5 appears to have been an
attempt by NAA to leverage the work
it had done on the original interceptor
variant of the F-107A, repurposing it to
meet Navy requirements. It was pitched
to the Navy as an evolution of the FJ-4
Fury, a capable but unspectacular fight-
er that was largely relegated to Marine
Corps units. In fact, the production FJ-5
would have been virtually a new design
that shared little in common with its
predecessor. Only the prototype shared
the wing and main landing gear of the
FJ-4, as will be discussed in the follow-
ing sections.

Design Information

The proposed airplane design com-


bined the FJ Series airplane with a Gen-
eral Electric J79 afterburning engine, to
provide a carrier-suitable, supersonic,
extremely high altitude, air superiority
day fighter with interceptor capabilities.2 Above: General arrangement drawing of the basic North American FJ-5 fighter.
Performance estimates for the produc- Cover: Photo of the FJ-5 one-tenth scale wind tunnel model.

The American Aerospace Archive is published periodically by Jared A. Zichek (6021 La Jolla Hermosa Ave, La Jolla, California 92037) and is printed and distributed by MagCloud
(www.jaredzichek.magcloud.com). American Aerospace Archive Number 2.01 (ISSN 1943-9636) is copyright 2008 by Jared A. Zichek. All rights reserved. All featured text and
images are copyright 2008 their respective copyright holders. Reproduction of any material in part or in whole without its creator's permission is strictly forbidden. The Ameri-
can Aerospace Archive accepts no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts, photos, art or other materials. Submissions are considered on an invitational basis only. Email
your comments and suggestions to editor@aeroarchivepress.com and visit our website at www.aeroarchivepress.com.

2
Simplified inboard profile of the basic North American FJ-5;
more detailed inboard profiles of the prototype and basic
version can be found on pages 6-7 and 10-11, respectively.

tion airplane were based on J79-GE-2 gine augmentation. As showing in the a static test airplane. The engine pro-
engine performance circa March 15, drawings on pages 32-35, the proposed totype airplane would have been fabri-
1953. However, GE test data for the J79- production design was readily adaptable cated from a fuselage and empennage
GE-2, with increased airflow rates, indi- to these alternate configurations with a designed for the production version of
cated that the 1957-58 production engine minimum of changes. the new airplane, and a Model FJ-4 wing
would have improved performance. The To initiate the program and also and main landing gear.
production airplane, as revised, reflected provide production lead time, North
increased performance as per the table American proposed to fabricate an en-
below right. gine test stand, one engine prototype,
The Model FJ-4 airplane wing was one production prototype airplane and
redesigned to a new "thinness" ratio of
five percent with an increase in area to Engine J79-GE-2 (March 15, 1953) J79-GE-2 (1957-58 Modified)
400 sq ft. A new "four percent" empen- Max Speed, 10,000 ft 663/1.04 698/1.095
nage and a high fineness ratio, low drag (Kts/Mach)
fuselage were also incorporated. Other Max Speed, 35,000 ft 828/1.44 909/1.58
design features included provisions for Max Power (Kts/Mach)
carrying 2 or 4 folded fin "Sidewinder" Combat Ceiling 58,500 60,000
missiles; 2 internal rocket packages ac- Max Power (ft)
commodating 68 unguided "Gimlet" Rate of Climb, 10,000 ft 27,900 32,500
rockets; or four 30 mm MK 4 cannons (ft per minute)
with 104 rounds of ammunition per gun;
Combat Radius 450/2.1
installation of search and range radar (5 mins A/B and 15 mins
(NASSAR) with provisions for the al- military power at combat
ternate installation of a government fur- weight and 40,000 ft ceiling)
nished Magnavox radar; and an internal Extended Combat Radius 584/2.62
fuel capacity of 1,040 gallons. Strength (20 mins military power at
was provided for a load factor of 6.0 g's combat weight and 40,000 ft
at a design gross weight of 18,844 lbs. ceiling)
The proposal also included prelimi- Turning Performance Hold- 1.6 1.67
nary drawings depicting alternate con- ing 50,000 Altitude (g)
figurations of the airplane designed for:
Max Thrust 14,350 15,750
1) supersonic photo reconnaissance mis-
sions and 2) super performance fighter Mil Thrust 9,292 10,200
and interceptor missions with rocket en- Normal Thrust 8,890 9,760

3
Three-view drawing of the North American FJ-5 engine prototype, which featured the
wing and main gear of the FJ-4 Fury. Externally, the type bore a strong resemblance to
the Air Force F-107A, though there were some important differences. With an empty
weight of 14,998 lbs, the FJ-5 was 7,698 lbs lighter than an empty F-107A. The inlet was
less steeply raked and of an oval cross section, unlike the sharply swept, square section
intake of its Air Force counterpart. The FJ-5's wide track main gear attached to the wing
and folded inwards towards the fuselage, while the F-107A's narrow track main gear
attached and folded directly into the fuselage. Other obvious differences include the
wing folding, arresting hook, and the higher nose-up attitude of the FJ-5, all of which
optimized the type for carrier operations.

All images are scanned from documents held by the National Archives at College Park,
Maryland, RG 72.

Detail Specification Mk 7 arresting gear and was also oper- ers, or two Gimlet rocket packages, or 4
able with the Mk 5 (155 ft runout rating) MK 4 30 mm guns.
North American submitted an 83 arresting gear with increased wind-over- d) An equipment bay located in the
page Detail Specification document with deck required. forward fuselage, between the armament
their FJ-5 proposal; too large and tech- Interior Arrangement The inte- bays, to house the hydraulic equipment.
nical to reproduce here, the key sections rior arrangement consisted of the fol- e) An equipment bay located aft of
are summarized in the following para- lowing: the cockpit to house the electronic, heat-
graphs.3 a) A pressurized enclosed cockpit ing and ventilation equipment.
for the pilot. The cockpit was provi-
Introduction sioned with the controls and instruments General
required for operation of the airplane.
Operation The FJ-5 was designed b) A radar compartment located Cockpit Interior The interior of
for operation from land fields and from in the nose of the fuselage to house the the cockpit, including bulkheads, floors,
CVA-34, CVA-19, and CVA-59 and su- NASARR equipment. Space provisions instrument panels, etc., would have been
perior class carriers equipped with the were made for the alternate installation finished in dark gray Color No. 3615, ex-
C11 catapult, the Mk 7 arresting gear, of Magnavox radar equipment. cept areas as follows which would have
and barricade equipment. At the ba- c) Two armament bays were locat- been non-specular black, Color No.
sic catapulting design gross weight, the ed in the underside of the fuselage, aft 3725:
airplane was capable of takeoff from the of the cockpit and forward of the wing, 1) Canopy and windshield
deck of a carrier also equipped with C7 for carrying Sidewinder missiles. Space framing (above rails) which
or F8 catapults. The airplane was opera- provisions were made for the alternate tended to cause sun or light
ble within the 220 ft runout rating of the installation of 2-4 folded fin Sidewind- glare conditions in the cock-

4
pit (other framing would remained painted as individ- would have been coated with a rain ero-
have been gray). ually specified. sion resistant finish consisting of MIL-
2) Horizontal surfaces above the Exterior Surfaces (Except Lead- C-8514 pretreatment coating plus MIL-
top of the instrument panel ing Edges) Exterior aluminum sur- P-8585(Aer) zinc chromate primer plus
and other horizontal surfaces faces would have been anodized, treated, .005" of Minnesota Mining Company
above the canopy rails, which and painted as follows: One coat Spec. aluminized Corogard EC-843 Special or
could have been sun-glare or MIL-C-8514 pretreatment coating plus equivalent. The leading edges of plastic
light glare areas to the pilot. one coat of Spec. MIL-P-6889 or MIL- parts would have been coated with a rain
3) All plastic lighting plates. P-8585 zinc chromate primer plus two erosion resistant coating consisting of
4) Instrument knobs. coats of No. 1755 White gloss lacquer MIL-C-8618(Aer), Finish II material.
5) "Post Light" type instrument on surfaces viewed from below, and two Insignia and Markings Insignia
lighting fixtures. coats of No. 3635 gray camouflage lac- would have been affixed with a complete
6) Rims of instrument cover quer on vertical surfaces and surfaces finish scheme and the SR-2h markings
glasses. viewed from above. applied in a contrasting black color.
7) Instrument placards. Leading Edges Clad or 61S alumi-
8) Areas containing lettered num leading edges of wings, horizontal
information. These were to and vertical stabilizers and fuselage nose
have been boxed in a black- would have been unpainted and anod-
painted background. The ized. Unclad aluminum leading edges
border of the box extended at would have been anodized or received
least 1/4" beyond the letters. MIL-C-5541 treatment; regardless of the
9) Control knobs and handles surface treatment used, these surfaces

5
Detailed inboard profile of the North
American FJ-5 engine prototype. Note-
worthy features included the retractable
fueling probe, extendable ram air turbine
(shown immediately below), and the pi-
lot's full pressure suit and helmet. The
peculiar inlet location dictated the odd
method of opening the canopy, which
slid upwards on rails like the F-107A.

Wing Group pins by means of a drive tool. Fuselage


Slot-Deflector Ailerons Twelve
The wing group consisted essential- mechanically controlled hydraulically The fuselage was of semi-mono-
ly of two removable inboard wing panels powered control surfaces, three each coque metal construction and consisted
containing trailing edge flaps and slot- located on the upper and lower surface of two main sections. The forward sec-
deflector ailerons, two removable fold- of each inboard wing panel between the tion contained the engine air inlet duct,
ing outer panels and two removable wing main rear spar and the flap hinge line, pressurized cockpit, fuel tanks, the main
tips. The wing panels were attached at were provided for lateral control of the and nose wheels, the speed brake and
the fuselage center line. The wing lead- airplane. the forward section of the engine. The
ing edge was movable for use as a high High Lift and Drag Increasing De- fuselage aft section housed the aft sec-
lift device. A barricade strap retaining vices Wing trailing edge flaps, droop- tion of the engine, the entire afterburner,
device was provided on the leading edge able wing leading edges, and a supercir- and the arresting hook. The two fuselage
of each wing panel. An electrically actu- culation system were provided. All high sections were attached through the use
ated trimmer was provided on the trail- lift devices operated in conjunction with of quick-disconnect tension-type fittings
ing edge of the right wing, outboard of the wing flaps, except that a separate which afforded easy access for engine re-
the flap, for lateral trimming of the air- control was provided for the supercircu- moval.
plane. lation system. Cabin Enclosure The cockpit was
Wing Folding It would have been enclosed and pressurized. Canopy seals
possible to fold or spread the wings in Tail Group were pressurized when the canopy was
20 seconds or less in winds up to 60 kts latched and the engine was operating.
from +/- 45º ahead. The outer wing pan- The tail group consisted of a con- The movable section of the canopy was
els folded by means of hydraulic power trollable horizontal stabilizer, a control- capable of being electrically-operated
controlled from the cockpit. Provision lable rudder and a fixed vertical fin. for normal ingress and egress. Provision
was also made for wing folding from an Stabilizer The stabilizer pivoted was made to prevent inadvertent open-
external source of power. Access to the on an axis perpendicular to the airplane ing of the canopy when the engine was
wing fold area was provided to permit center line and controlled the longitudi- operating. The canopy was jettisonable
manual unlocking of the wing fold lock nal flight of the airplane. throughout the speed range of the air-

6
plane for emergency egress of the pilot. 26" x 6.6", Type VII, EHP, 14-ply rating Surface Control System
The canopy had provisions for positive (tubeless) and the nose wheel tire was
emergency jettisoning should the main 20" x 5.5", Type VII, EHP, 12-ply rating Complete surface controls were
power fail. The movable section was of (tubeless). provided for the pilot. The cockpit con-
plastic. Provision was made to maintain Gear Retraction The alighting trols were of the conventional stick and
the watertightness of the canopy while gear was hydraulically operated and rudder pedal design. Two half hinge
the airplane was parked during heavy electrically sequenced. Indicators were moment surface control power systems
storms by using an external air pressure provided to indicate the position of the were provided and operated simultane-
source to pressurize the canopy seal. wheels. In addition, a light was incor- ously to furnish full power for actuation
Windshield The center panel was porated in the landing gear control han- of the slot-deflector ailerons and stabi-
made of bullet resistant glass, while lam- dle to indicate when any wheel was not lizers. These were operated by irrevers-
inated plate glass was used in the wind- locked in the same position as indicated ible hydraulic actuator assemblies. Each
shield side panels. A hot air removal sys- by the handle. The alighting gear was ca- assembly consisted of two separate and
tem was provided for the left and center pable of being extended or retracted in independent valve and cylinder combi-
windshield panels. not more than 10 seconds at air speeds nations, with the cylinders mounted in
Speed Retarding Devices A re- up to 200 kts. Provision was made for tandem and driving a common piston
tractable speed brake was provided on emergency lowering of the retractable rod. An electro-hydraulic valve was
the underside of the fuselage. Provision alighting gear in case of power failure. mounted on the stabilizer actuator as-
was made for emergency dumping of Where practicable, gravitational emer- sembly to provide normal electrical con-
speed brake hydraulic pressure. gency extension would have been em- trol of the stabilizer actuator from the
ployed. pilot's flight controls. An alternate con-
Alighting Gear Tail Skid The underside of the aft- trol consisting of a mechanical linkage
most portion of the rear fuselage was of cables, push-rods, and levers were au-
The alighting gear consisted of two suitably reinforced to prevent structural tomatically engaged to the stabilizer ac-
main landing gear assemblies and a nose damage during arrested landings. tuator should the actuator fail to follow
wheel assembly. the control stick within pre-determined
Tires The main wheel tires were tolerances. A mechanical control system

Вам также может понравиться