Design and Development
The Lewis & Vought Corporation was formed just months after the U.S. entered World War I, with the intention of servicing war needs. The company's trainer was patterned after successful European designs; for instance, the engine was a Wright Hispano Suiza of the type used by the French Spads. In practice, the VE-7's performance was much better than usual for a trainer, and comparable to the best fighters, and the Army ordered 1,000 of an improved design called the VE-8. However, the contract was cancelled due to the end of the war.
However, the Navy was very interested in the VE-7, and received a first machine in May 1920. Production orders soon followed, in fact beyond what the fledgling Vought organization could handle, and the Naval Aircraft Factory was pressed into service. In all, 128 VE-7s were built.
The fighter version of the VE-7 was designated VE-7S. It was a single-seater, the front cockpit being faired over and a .30 in (7.62 mm) Vickers machine gun mounted over it, on the left side and synchronized to fire through the propeller. Some planes, designated VE-7SF, had floatation gear consisting of inflatable bags stowed away, available to help keep the plane afloat when ditching at sea.
The Bluebird won the 1918 Army competition for advanced training machines.
The VE-8 variant completed in July 1919 had a 340hp Wright-Hispano H engine, reduced overall dimensions, increased wing area, a shorter faired cabane, and two Vickers guns. Two were completed. Flight test results were disappointing, the aircraft was overweight, with heavy controls, inadequate stability and sluggish performance.
The VE-9 variant, first delivered to the Navy on 24 June 1922, was essentially an improved VE-7, with most of the improvements in the fuel system area. Four of the 21 ordered by the U.S. Navy were unarmed observation float seaplanes for battleship catapult use.
Read more about this topic: Vought VE-7
Famous quotes containing the words design and/or development:
“With wonderful art he grinds into paint for his picture all his moods and experiences, so that all his forces may be brought to the encounter. Apparently writing without a particular design or responsibility, setting down his soliloquies from time to time, taking advantage of all his humors, when at length the hour comes to declare himself, he puts down in plain English, without quotation marks, what he, Thomas Carlyle, is ready to defend in the face of the world.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Dissonance between family and school, therefore, is not only inevitable in a changing society; it also helps to make children more malleable and responsive to a changing world. By the same token, one could say that absolute homogeneity between family and school would reflect a static, authoritarian society and discourage creative, adaptive development in children.”
—Sara Lawrence Lightfoot (20th century)