Downed Jet in West Milford

In 1967, a jet plane crashed in the woods of West Milford. The pilot safely ejected and was rescued. The Air Force removed the engine, but left the fuselage behind. It has remained a hidden secret in the woods for nearly 4 decades. This was written up in Weird NJ in issue 14. I was given the approximate location by WillyD, so I drove up to West Milford one weekend, parked on a small cul-de-sac and headed into the woods.

The land belongs to the Newark Watershed Commission. ATV riding is illegal, but hiking and horseback riding are allowed with a permit. I headed down a large trail and within 15 minutes found the jet. The nose cone has been dragged about 100 feet away from the fuselage, which is in surprisingly good shape after 40 years in the woods.









40 responses to this post.

  1. OK a I tried to read the above notes and answers but they would just confuse any sane person. My name is Harry McComsey I was an ADJ2 stationed at NASNY (Floyd Bennett Field. A normal weekend flight by two reserve pilots in one of our two TV2-1 aircraft today T1A. It is the smae as a T33 but with a dorsel fin intakes away from the fuselage and single point refueling. The crash was caused by fuel starvation (empty tanks) pilots were sight seeing. They tried to eject could not open the canopy. Landed it in the swampy area where it still lies. One wing was partially sheared off. We went by helicopter HSS2 (SH3A) to the sight. We opened the canopy normally with hand crank. (oops) we removed engine and other salvagable parts. If you look at the wing you will see a few holes in the top skin, I ddi that with a crash axe.


  2. […] This is the main original post, notable for the heated debate over what kind of plane it was. A fan and fellow geocacher named Ian helped ID the plane after finding markings under the wing. This settled the debate.. I am friernds with local bergen record reporter Bill Ervolino and he wanted a weird neat local story, so I took him to the jet which he wrote an article about. I later discovered that someone had cut a piece of the jet out presumably for scrap metal. What a dick! […]


  3. […] out to see the famous West Milford plane wreckage ever since I read about it on the awesome blog Lost In NJ, who in turn had read about it in the pages of the equally awesome Weird […]


  4. […] have covered the jet in the woods several times here on my blog. It generated quite a debate over what kind of plane it was until a local geocacher […]


  5. Posted by Randy Rydjeski on August 27, 2009 at 2:54 PM

    The postulation that this aircraft is anything but a T-33/TV2 is a little far fetched. The F-101A/C postulation won’t work. The C, or photo-recon version is out because it was only active in Vietnam at the time, with a former training facility at Shaw AFB, quite a long distance from NJ. The A variant, was no longer in service by 1967, and has a much bigger airframe, as does the F-89 Scorpion, whose closest base of operations would have been Presque Isle Main. The ANG unit at that location had already transistioned to the F-102 by the time this particular aircraft went down. This T2V was painted in the naval air training aircraft colors of white overall, with red, or int. orange, and black. Hope this helps.


  6. Posted by Tracy on August 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM

    several jets have gone down in West Milford over the years; what are the coordinates for this specific one, please?


    • Posted by lostinjersey on October 18, 2009 at 6:29 PM

      i wont give that info out for security reasons. I’m afraid of people doing damage or spraying graffiti.


  7. Posted by al on June 4, 2009 at 6:01 PM

    What are the GPS coordinates for this?

    I tried to find it on foot and no luck.

    Please help!



  8. Posted by Musket 104 on May 23, 2009 at 5:42 AM

    The airplane is a T2V-1 or T-1A (later designation) Seastar. It is a development of the classic T-33 “T-Bird” optimized for Navy use. The Marines may have also used a number of them.

    The one-piece windshield and intake configuration are unique to this airplane. There is a recent “Naval Fighters” book detailing the T2V-1 / T-1A.




    • Posted by lostinjersey on June 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM

      check out the news about the jet on thi blog. it’s going to be the subject of a tv pilot and I was the historian who talked about it.


  9. Posted by Alison on May 15, 2009 at 9:52 AM

    My family and I tried to find the site last weekend. We were on the wooded path and entered the swamp where there is an abandoned black pick up. No plane, but alot of mud…. Any tips on directions?


    • Posted by lostinjersey on May 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM

      black pick up?? hmmm…. could that be the legendary black pick up truck from clinton road? lol.

      email me and we’ll talk. lost at lostinjersey dot com


  10. Posted by Woody on March 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM

    I agree with eric,it isn’t a F-101, or an F-89…its too small…..I think its definitly a variant of the f-80, perhaps the f-94c model(because of the seperated non contoured intakes),I don’t believe its the navy variant(although roughly the same),alot of guard units in this neck of the woods flew these!


  11. Posted by Randall on March 18, 2009 at 9:17 AM

    I would Like to visit the P-80 jet crash in the woods in west milford. could you please e-mail me the directions or coordinates for getting there?


  12. Posted by Tom on March 18, 2009 at 9:15 AM

    Judging by the intakes, it appears to be an F80, or T33. The air intakes are the only feature I can use, as the aircraft is badly deteriorated.


  13. Posted by Mike on March 18, 2009 at 8:58 AM

    Nice site, hard to bwlieve what 36 years has done to that plane but I am just as guilty as the rest in fact I cut the hole in the top of the right wing to see if the landing gear was still under it, thanks for the trip down memory lane


  14. Posted by Mark on March 18, 2009 at 8:51 AM

    From what I saw, it was an F-89, which was still in service in Air National Guard units in the late 1960s. Less likely are a T2V, or T-33 (TV-2) which are Navy and Air Force (or Reserve, or National Guard). Try hitting this site:


    If it is an F-89J (or H), then I would suspect the folks at the NJANG might know where to start looking:

    You might stir some interest with these folks:

    Bear in mind that it might not be a NJANG aircraft, it could be from any ANG unit operating F-89J (or H) aircraft at the time.

    Because of the period and aircraft type, I would suspect that the best place to look would be local newspaper archives in local libraries.

    Have you checked for any dataplates giving type and serial number? What about inspector stamps on interior parts?

    It looks as if the airplane was belly landed, which is odd, as usually folks would punch out rather than ride a jet down, though some times after folks punch out the plane can land rather intact (I know of a Marine RF-4B which had the crew punch out on final, and then the plane landed and rolled to a stop – it was flying in a matter of weeks.)


    • Posted by Randy Costantino on February 7, 2019 at 2:04 PM

      I witnessed the crash sight about 25 minutes after the jet crashed. It just missed a house and clipped the tree tops next to the house. It then pancaked to the ground. It was is one piece although crumpled underneath. There were about 70 to a hundred people milling about. A generator or alternator had been thrown forward of the air craft and was embedded in a chain link fence about 100 feet or so ahead of the downed craft. We arrived before any officials and were able to go right up to the plane.


  15. Posted by Carl on March 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM

    I still believe that the Jet is a Lockheed T-1B ( navalized adaptation of the T-33, also called a T2V-1 before the designation changes of 1962). You may wish to contact the National Museum of Naval Aviation at Pensacola, FL – they might be able to point you to the Safety (crash) archive information if it still exists. Unless the aircraft was based at Lakehurst (unlikely) I’m not surprised that they have no recvord. Likewise since Military files are purged of material every so often, and the accident happened so long ago, there may be no file remaining except in some dedicated historical archive. Have you tried the local area newspaper Archives ( or “Morgue”) for 1967 ( a lot of reading to be sure, but there may be at least a name in some article)

    Wish I could be of more help


  16. Posted by Brian on March 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM

    The answer is DEFINATELY out there, just waiting for someone to bust it open. Welcome to the fascinating world of wreckchasing. Remember, if it was easy, everyone would do it! Oh, I’m assuming you’ve already looked at the local library’s newspaper microfiche file. If you haven’t, its a great place to start. Good luck and let me know what you find!

    Remember, most of these early 50’s and 60’s crashes were a “dime-a-dozen” so to speak. That is to say that crashes of military aircraft back then were considered “routine” with the old equipment available at the time. In fact, there is a true story of a T-33 pilot on a routine mission who ejected after some engine trouble somewhere over the high mountains of
    California/Nevada, who walked back home after 4 months in the wilderness. People thought that he had delivered the plane to the Commies until a group of Boy Scouts came across the canopy some months later. The jet, however has never been found. (along with a couple of hundred other planes lost between the 30’s and 80’s.)


  17. Posted by Brian on March 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM

    The wreck is DEFINATELY, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, ABSOLUTLY, POSITIVELY, a Lockheed T-33 jet. I also consulted with my brother-in-law who is a retired USAF Major. He concurs. They were used as base hacks at the time of the crash, having been withdrawn from trainer service during the early sixties. Base hacks were used for transporting officers around from base to base, (they were a two-place version of the F-80) or just for qualified pilots to use to get from point A to point B faster than a MAC aircraft. Try to find a video of the movie, “The Crowded Sky” to see one.

    You might try the USAF’s crash database or contacting the USAF Museum for some help. Either way, you’re in for one helluva interesting journey, as USAF crash databases don’t usually go back that far.


  18. Posted by Conrad on March 18, 2009 at 8:49 AM

    While looking at the jet in the woods, I noticed there was some controversey over what type of aircraft it was. While people may doubt me, I believe theat the aircraft in question is indeed a Lockheed T2V or T-1A Seastar, and not an F-101 or an F-89. To rule out the F-101: the jet in the woods is straight wing, and not swept, which very quickly rules out the F-101, as stated in previous e-mails. The F-89 is also twin engined. Also, the intakes on the F-89 are located below the
    wings, while the intakes on the jet in the woods are located at about the same height of the wings (see for a good picture of an F-89). This now nails it down to the Lockheed T-33/P-80/T2V/TV-1 family. A P-80 is a single seater, so that can be ruled out immediately. The T-33 can be ruled out for two reasons: #1 The T-33 has faired in intakes, but the T2V/TV-1 has intakes separated from the fuselage. Now, all these points have been stated, before, but ther is another point for ruling out the T-33 that I dont think has been noticed yet
    (or I just missed it): #2, the windshield. The T-33 uses a 3-piece windshield, whereas the T2V/TV-2 uses a one pice windshield (T-33 Picture: ,
    TV-1 Picture:

    The curvature of the windscreen base on the jet in the woods does not have the kinks like on the T-33, rather it is one continuous curve. Personally, I believe that this is enough evidence to prove that the jet in the woods is a TV-1, however the only definitive proof would be to find the pilot or to get a copy of the crash record from the Navy.


  19. Posted by Graeme on March 18, 2009 at 8:48 AM

    I recently Found out about your site and the jet crash REALLY caught my eye. Being obsessed with aviation I could’nt believe that there was a P-80 crash an hour from where I live. my dad and i would LOVE to visit the crash. also, I have info on a lot of abandoned stuff in and around my town. i have been to the summit nike missle base with my dad before-not much left of it now only a foundation and a bunch of concrete bunkers remnents. there is the ruins of a paper factory nearby also.


  20. Posted by Jonathon on March 18, 2009 at 8:48 AM

    I was looking for information regarding the F101 Voodoo and your sight came up on the list. I must admit that I am very impressed with the information and pictures presented, it is not every day you find pictures of crashed military jets on the net. I was doing some thinking regarding the F89 Scorpion scenario and if memory serves me correctly the F89 had been retired by 1967, leaving the T33 / T1A series the only tandem seat semi straight wing aircraft in the USAF / USN / USMC. The F89 also had a radar in the nose, this aircraft does not appear to have had provision for this.

    The only other twin seat aircraft being operated in the U.S. during the late 60’s were the F100F, F101B/F, TF102A, F104D, F105F/G, F106B, F4, F111, TF9J Cougar, TA4, A6 / EA6, A7 and A37 / T37. All of these excepting the A37 / T37 range were swept wing of some description, the A37/T37 being side by side seated and a twin as well. As far as I know the T2V1 / T1A Seastar was only operated by the USN // USMC but I have seen references to them being operated by the USAF, I must check this up. I would suggest getting in touch with the USN to get their records dealing with aircraft crashes in that area in that time period, this should be available through their records department.

    I am attaching a couple of pictures I pulled down from the net regarding the T1A Seastar, hope this helps as well.(I hope I have not infringed on copy rights, they only to show you the intake arrangement which is the dead give away. The front on picture shows the intake separation and the step below the front wind shield which is not found on the T33) I have been interested in aircraft as long as I can remember and have amassed a library on aviation unfortunately I do not have a scanner and live +/- 12000 miles away.

    website about the plane


  21. Posted by Jonathon on March 18, 2009 at 8:47 AM

    With regards to your article dealing with the aircraft crash in the woods, I must disagree with the statement that the aircraft was an F89 Scorpion. I am also of the opinion that the Aircraft lying there is a T-1A / T2V Seastar / Naval T33 Version. A clear indication that the aircraft in question is not a F101 nor F89 is that the article mentions that the Airforce removed the engine (indicating that the aircraft in question is a single engine aircraft) although the media do make mistakes, I am confused as to why the Airforce would remove the engine when is all liklihood she was a navy bird. The airframe is also to small to have been either F89 or F101 (and the F101 has swept wings and not straight wings).


  22. Posted by Chris on March 18, 2009 at 8:47 AM

    So much debate about the Jet in the Woods. None of these guys has ever been there. Hell, i used to play ‘war’ in that thing when I was a kid. Unfortunately, it appears as though looters have taken their toll.

    To clarify……it wasn’t a US Navy aircraft. It WAS a Air National Guard F-89 Scorpion. I mistakenly wrote F-101 in an earlier e-mail. (My bad…) Part of the tail was intact when we first went up there in the late 70’s. I was 9 or 10 then. And the nose and tail section looked a lot like the following photo:


  23. Posted by Boosh on March 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM

    Well, here’s why I can easily state it’s a T-33.

    The choices we have are the F-101, F-89, F-84, F-80, T-33 or T-1A.

    We can rule out the F-101. It has swept back wings, the wrecked plane does
    not. For this reason the F-101 is an impossibility

    The F-89 is too slender and small in its rear fuselage and the jet intakes are much too angular to be those of this wreck. Also, in the F-89 the crew positions are much too high to be that of this plane, as well as the fact that the wing area is much too large to be that of the wreck.

    The F-84 can be ruled out completely even more easily since it’s jet intake was the nose of the aircraft, and no special side slits had to be made to accomodate the intake.

    The F-80 is the closest fighter version we have to the wrecked Jet, however, several factors keep the wreck from identifying itself as it, including the fact that the wreck had 2 seats (very easily identifiable because of the two ejection seat rails) The nose itself is also too long to be that of an F-80, and this reason, again, is to accomodate the twopilots.

    Now, the T-1A is actually much easier to rule out than you think it is. That is a photograph of a T-1A

    this is a photo of the T-33:

    In the T-1A, which is not the case with the T-33 or the wreck, the pilots are positioned very high in the cockpit. The tail elevators are very high on the vertical stabilizer itself. The cockpit glass also curves upward toward the end and the rear edges of the plane come up to meet it, if you can see it. The T-33 has elevators much closer to the fuselage, the glass canopy extends all the way around the cockpit, and does not stop behind the rear pilot’s seat. The tail is smaller in the T-33 than in that of the T-1A. The tail section is about 50 yards away from the fuselage, and visible through the brush. You can see that the rudder hinges still basically work, actually, the elevator hinges are locked in place. The tail itself is much too short to belong to that of a T-1A. As a side note, the T-1A’s nose is a bit more slender than a T-33’s. The argument that the
    letters spelling “Pensacola” on the aircraft prove nothing. Both T-1A’s and T-33’s were based at Pensacola, and it could also mean many things. Just because a Trainer aircraft is based in Florida doesn’t mean it stays around that area. The aircraft are always on the constant move. For all we know this wreck could have been based out of McGuire AFB during its crash.

    The parts I have cannot confirm what the plane is, HOWEVER, there is something that may be able to prove exactly. I believe 99.999% that this plane is a T-33 trainer jet. But when I visited I noticed that the original rubber was still attached to the rudder pedals. If we were really that into it, the pedal could be taken off of the aircraft, checked for its part number, and then see which planes this part number goes to. From that list we’d have other parts that could be inspected, such as the
    flight stick handle in the front cockpit of the wreck.For all I know, I bet that it’s a T-33. My proof is above.

    While I was at the “The Downed Jet”, it was engulfed in mud about 3 – 5 feet deep. I thought I would see if there was anything in the mud, so I reached down deep, covering almost up to my shoulder in mud, when my hand hit two objects. I pulled them both up slowly. One turned out to be plexiglass from the cockpit, the other turned out to be a portion of either the trailing edge of the wing. These were fairly small pieces, and since themud covered them by at least 3 feet, they would not have been seen during any season. Therefore, with this reasoning, I placed these two small pieces of the plane under my care and tried to restore them as best I could. I had no idea it would take this long, but the restoration is just about as complete as I can get it with my tools of sandpaper and a powerwasher (which do very well, actually) Much of the metal is brittle due to its rusty condition, and even the power washer could not lift all the rust off.


  24. Posted by Eric on March 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM

    Here’s my evidence:

    – Windscreen frame is wide
    – No supporting central bar or loop (and no evidence of one being cut away or broken off.)
    – Second instrument panel coaming seen in back, so it’s a two seat jet with tandem seating
    – Intake seperated from fuselage (not just filleted in.) then quickly blends in
    – Intake front reasonably in line with windscreen
    – Nose appears to head somewhat straight out from windscreen, not sloped
    – Roughly circular or oval section behind the cockpit
    – And an “unofficial” measurement, the intakes are about as far down below the edge of the cockpit as the windscreen is high.

    And the mentioned aircraft: F-80, T-33, T-1A/T2V (it is noticably different from the T-33, you couldn’t mistake them if you saw the two.), F-101, F-89

    Comparing their shapes and characteristics (+ for similar, – for different) :


    -Central windscreen frame
    -Intake not seperated from the fuselage
    -Single seat

    It’s not an F-80.

    T-33 – for front view, to help illustrate

    – Intake not seperated from the fuselage, but filleted into it.
    – Central windscreen support

    Not a T-33.

    T2V / T-1a – picture here

    + Clear front windscreen (no central supporting “loop”) – different design
    from the T-33 or F-80
    + Intake seperated from fuselage – again, new design, not shared with the T-33
    + Intake in line with windscreen
    + Twin seat
    + Intakes about right distance from edge of cockpit (from bottom of windscreen.)

    Very strong possibility of being a T2V


    – Intake in wrong location
    + There were some two seat models
    – Strongly sloped nose from front of windscreen
    – F-101 fuselage has the wrong shape for this aircraft, and is too deep.

    Not an F-101, even a twin seater.

    F-89: (front view)

    + Twin seat
    – Central supporting frames on windscreen
    – Twin engine, beneath and somewhat behind cockpit (see it here) (No reason for the shape seen in the rear view, as the engines were lower.) The F-89’s cross section is deeper, and more closely resembles an infinity symbol or flattened, sideways figure 8 than a circle or oval.
    – Intakes are *very* low – lower than in the a/c in the woods.

    Not an F-89.

    The only one of the aircraft that matches what you see in the woods is the T2V / T-1a Seastar.


  25. Posted by Eric on March 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM

    Have to say, that’s definately *not* an F-101. The intake location is completely wrong (the F-101 was farther back.) The wing doesn’t look swept either, but that’s hard to say with the placement.I’d say you’re looking at either some early interceptor / ADF, or a trainer. (Intake’s wrong for an F-80, T-33, or F-94, though.) Wider angle pictures (with more of the layout) would help in ID’ing it – as well as pics of the cockpit (looks somewhat dual-place.)

    This line… “it was … the first jet aircraft that did not directly incorporate the jet intake along with the nose ” is complete and utter bull. The first test aircraft from Gloster and Heinkel had nose intakes. Most first and second generation jets either had
    pods, or side intakes. (See: ME-262, Gloster Meteor, de Havilland Vampire, Airacomet, F-80, T-33.) Yes, I’m nitpicking, but it’s just WRONG.

    If you compare what you have there to this and this you’ll see what I mean.


  26. Posted by Brian on March 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM

    The “jet in the woods” cannot be ANYTHING but a T-33 “TEE BIRD” jet trainer. An F-89’s intakes are way far forward of the cockpit and the nose was distinctly more rounded. Anybody who refers this aircraft to be an F-89 or F-101 simply does not know what he is talking about. Check the USAF’s on-line aircraft description base. If it was a “Sea-Star”, it would not be a USAF aircraft, although it was basically the same aircraft. The T-33’s were used as base “hacks” at the time of the crash and were definately not front-line aircraft.


  27. Posted by Mark on March 18, 2009 at 8:39 AM

    I can give you clear evidence of why I think it was a F-89 rather than a F-101. The F-101 had swept wings with the intakes in the junction between the wings (root) and the fuselage.The F-89 had straight wings and the intakes forward of, and below, the wing roots. The only other US interceptor with such a configuration was the F-94 which this could not be because the F-94 had it’s intakes directly forward of the wing roots.

    Compared to the condition of this wreck, most I have seen were WRECKS. I remember how as a New Jersey Wing CAP cadet in 1964 my squadron went out to mark the wreckage of a T2V (the Navy T-33) with yellow Xs so that folks searching for down airplanes would know it was not the one they were searching for. The P-80 (later F-80 was the common ancestor of the T-33, T2V, and the F-94 Starfire, and I am well aware of the configuration of airplanes, both intact and wrecked.

    It has been over 40 years since I set foot in NJ. I am living in Texas now. Sorry I can’t help you as to the location of any airplane wrecks or other ruins in NJ. The T2V was in Sussex County (that’s why my squadron got the job of marking it). It wasn’t too far from a housing development, and I bet it has been replaced by housing in the intervening 40 some years.

    I just wanted to clear up the identification of the wreck featured on your website. There were F-101Bs based at McGuire AFB in the 60s, all F-101B/Fs were transferred to the ANG in 1969 following the retirement of the F-89J/Hs. I can understand how someone who was only casually acquainted with those cold war interceptors could after a glance mistake one for the other as they both had two seats, two engines, and a tail boom above the exhausts. The most outstanding differences for ID purposes are that the F-101 had swept wings and tail, and a much different intake location.

    The wreck shown is clearly a F-89. The intakes are on the “cheeks” of the nose and rounded rather than Y shaped and on the wingroot jutting from the leading edge. The T-33 and T2V both had air intakes directly forward of the wing leading edge. The F-89s were below and forward of the wing leading edge. The F-89 in your photos was probably a J or H version with a rounded nose on the tip tanks. I included the F-89A photo because it showed the location of the intakes better than the D photo did. After the F-89C, all had the fuselage sides flattened in front of the air intakes as on the F-89D photo. The angle of the flattened section is more pronounced than on the similar areas of the T-33 or T2V-1.

    The T2V-1 had the instructor’s seat higher than the student’s seat, whereas the T-33 and F-89 had them at the same level. Of course they seats won’t be in the airplane so. . . so much for that! The engines of the T-33 & T2V were normally removed by removing the aft portion of the fuselage (roughly where the lines are on both fuselages in the picture). The F-89 and F-101 had engines below the wing and as a result they were normally removed by lowering them from the engine bays. It was common for both the USAF and USN to salvage engines from wrecks when possible, but as the wrecks were usually on their bellies when salvage was possible, the normal technique was to simply chop a hole in the fuselage above the engines and lift them out. This was how the engine had been removed from the T-2V-1 wreck I helped mark in 1963. Thus having a large hole in the fuselage where the engines were proves nothing in particular except that they were removed. For the obvious reason it is not common to have engines which are normally removed by lifting them out (the Harrier is an exception).


  28. Posted by Carl on March 18, 2009 at 8:38 AM

    The keys to identifying this machine are several . (1) it is a single engine aircraft. (2)The large opening aft of the wings shows that the engine bay is above the wings. (3) the wings are straight, with a small kink fillet at the root. (4)The Intakes are bifurcated along the fuselage, just under the forward cockpit. (5) The “Nose Cone” has a characteristic shape (6) the aircraft is partially white, partially orange. (7) Some earlier pictures ( by someone) of visible print on the wreckage noted the word “Pensacola” .

    Now – the F-101 ( all versions) has a small , swept wing well aft of the cockpit , not the straight wing of the wreckage . The F-89 (all Versions) had a straight wing , but no kinked fillet, and two engines placed at the bottom of the fuselage, not above the wing .Neither the F-89 nor F-101 ever served in a Navy traing capacity, and the wreckage is painted in white and orange – which are indicative of 1960’s USN training scheme. Both the F-101 and the F-89 had distinctive rounded noses, not the oblong shape in the “nose cone” picture.

    So , that leaves the T-33 , or versions therof as a contender. The Breakpoint on the ID is the Air intake. The Production F-80 and the T-33 had “D-shaped” ( as one writer put it) intakes. The problem of turbulence of the boundary layer of the air in the intakes ( which had caused the collapse of the XF-80 intakes, leading to the D- shaped redesign , starting with the YF-80) was solved by a separate separate vent next to the fuselag, the boudary air thus collected being vented above the intake system through some “gills” . It was aerodynamically satisfactory, but not pretty.

    In the T2V redesign, the Intakes were separated from the fuselage by a spike system , which passed the boundary layer air away from the intake mouth entirely . That redesign eliminated the need for the “Gills” above the intake. Note that area above the the intake area of the wreckage has no gills.

    My conclusion ( again): The aircraft is a Lockheed T2V-1 (T-1A) , operated by Naval Air Training Command ( Orange& White paint) , out of Pensacola.

    I got a chuckle from the individual saying that he had gone to the AZ desert to find a WWII Jet. I was based in Tucson , AZ for 5 years back in the late 60’s, and – while I found a lot of junked / scrapped aircraft at old airports , never did find a “WWII Jet” ( maybe ‘cuz the only two that the U.S. had prior to September,1945 ( i.e. V-J Day) were the Lockheed P-80 and the Bell P-59.

    I did once find one half of an abandoned/junked F-84F, but that is another story…………….. hope this info helps put this ID problem to rest.


  29. Posted by Woody on March 18, 2009 at 8:38 AM

    that doesn’t look like a F101 Voodoo, it looks to me like an F89 Scorpion, the inlets and canopy are not that of a voodoo!


  30. Posted by Brian on March 18, 2009 at 8:37 AM

    Great site! I’ve been looking for more info on the “jet in the woods” and you have some great pics. I have to correct the gentleman from the USS CARL VINSON as to the aircraft type. If you research the F-101 Voodoo you will see that the jet cannot possibly be that type as the Voodoo’s intakes are way aft of the cockpit and sharply v-shaped. The jet in the woods is a Lockheed T-33 trainer; a two seat version of the F-80 Shooting Star. Thanks, and keep up the good work!


  31. Posted by Mark on March 18, 2009 at 8:37 AM

    The airplane is a F-89J and not a F-101 or F-80. Notice the yellow X on that plane? That is to let searchers know it is an old wreck. I have personally painted Xs on wrecks in Sussex County over 40 years ago.


  32. Posted by Carl on March 18, 2009 at 8:36 AM

    The mystery aircraft is not a “McDonnell F-101C Super Voodoo ” The fuselage of the 101 is much larger and rounder than the fuselage sitting in the woods,wings are swept,and the intakes are further back. What you have in the wood is the remains of a Lockheed T-1A “Sea Star ” – an advanced trainer ( the navalized version of the Lockheed T-33A)that entered service with the Navy in late 1957 and served into the early 70 ‘s.


  33. Posted by Jon on March 18, 2009 at 8:36 AM

    Nice page on the jet-in-the-woods:It is too small to be an F-101, and the wing shape and fuselage shape are all wrong to be a VooDoo. Here’s a link to a VooDoo site, then a link to a F/P-80 site. The VooDoo’s intakes are huge triangular type and are further aft of the canopy, plus the VooDoo has swept wings, not straight. The P/F-80 intakes are “D” shaped and are right under the canopy. The wings are also non-swept on the P/F-80 like the one in the woods.The jet is definitely an F-80/P-80 Shooting star variety.


  34. Posted by Joseph on March 18, 2009 at 8:35 AM

    Just wanted to let you know that the aircraft in question that you stumbled upon in the woods is definitely an f-101c super voodoo. It was built by mc donnel aircraft between 1956 and 1961, it was one of the first supersonic fighters, and was the first jet aircraft that did not directly incorporate the jet intake along with the nose. Pretty cool find, would be better if it was a little more preserved, though I plan to make a trip there anyway.

    p.s. great site, keep up the good work.

    Joseph J, USS Carl Vinson


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: