Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/31/2006 10:56:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 10:56:54 AM EDT by Bostonterrier97]
* The most interesting Crusader offshoot was the "XF8U-3 Crusader III", which was really an entirely new aircraft with no more than a conceptual relationship to the original Crusader design. While the F8U-3 had a clear resemblance to its ancestor, it was a much more rakish machine, with a barracuda-like nose and large ventral fins that folded horizontally for takeoff and landing. It was also bigger and more muscular in appearance than the Crusader.

The XF8U-3 was conceived in 1955 as a high-performance interceptor, and was designed in competition with the McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom. The first example was flown in June 1958 with John Konrad at the controls, and was powered by a Pratt & Whitney J75-P-5A turbojet with 73.4 kN (7,480 kgp / 16,500 lbf) dry thrust and 131.2 kN (13,380 kgp / 29,500 lbf) afterburning thrust. Performance and handling were judged as excellent. The test pilots also appreciated the aircraft's advanced avionics, including an experimental "head up display", and its very roomy cockpit.



Initially, the XF8U-3 was to be armed only with three Sparrow III missiles, though an alternate armament of four Sidewinders was contemplated later. No cannon armament was ever considered. The wing was fitted with a drooping leading edge, along with long-extension flaps, and a BLC system was incorporated to improve landing characteristics.

CHANCE-VOUGHT XF8U-3 CRUSADER III:
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 12.16 meters 39 feet 11 inches
wing area 41.80 sq_meters 450 sq_feet
length 17.88 meters 58 feet 8 inches
height 4.98 meters 16 feet 4 inches

empty weight 9,920 kilograms 21,860 pounds
loaded weight 17,590 kilograms 38,770 pounds

max speed at altitude 2,350 KPH 1,460 MPH / 1,270 KT
range 3,290 kilometers 2,050 MI / 1,780 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________


Vought received an initial contract for two XF8U-3s in May 1957, followed by a second contract for 16 evaluation aircraft, but only three Crusader IIIs were completed. The Navy selected the Phantom and cancelled the contract with Vought in December 1958. The Crusader III had potential, but the Navy preferred the two-seat, twin-engine configuration of the Phantom.



Test flights were terminated after the aircraft had demonstrated a speed of Mach 2.3. Vought believed the aircraft was capable of Mach 2.9, but the windscreen material wasn't up to that kind of punishment, and the program was killed before Vought could make the necessary changes. Two XF8U-3s were passed on to NASA for high-altitude and sonic boom flight tests, while the third was sent to Edwards Air Force Base for flight testing. They were all scrapped after a year or two.

There are stories that NASA pilots flying out of the agency's center at Langley, Virginia, liked to go up to the Navy air test center at Patuxent River, Maryland, with their Crusader IIIs and bounce Phantoms. Navy test pilots complained and the NASA pilots were told to knock it off.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:00:13 AM EDT
tag for home so I can look at the pretty pictures.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:01:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 11:07:01 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:01:59 AM EDT
Tell that Chineese model-maker Trumpeter,to make one,they already made an F-107,BTW,there's more that can be told,read the Lou Drendel book, F-8 Cruesader in Action,has a nice piece on the III
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:05:38 AM EDT
THAT is uglier than sin!

The engineers need to understand... Fighters are supposed to look GOOD!

This is like the Boeing version of the JSF - sure it may have been a bit better, but how are you going to convince a pilot to fly something that looks like a pregnant guppy?!?

I'm sure it was a beast, it's just ugly.
Matt
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:10:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:10:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:13:54 AM EDT


Max speed was never determined, as
the canopy would overheat and begin turning opaque at
about 2.6 mach; test pilots felt that mach 3.0 was easily
attainable, based on the acceleration still evident at 2.6.

The Super Crusader lost out in a flyoff with the
F-4, which had 2 engines and a crew of 2. Pilots
who flew both thought the F-8U-3 was a delight to
fly, while the F-4B was "trucky".
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:15:07 AM EDT
The nose is UGLY but I'm a fan of the old F-8! Wish I'd gotten to see one flying.

Why was the Crusader phased out so quickly? Was it a bear to maintain or something?
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:22:53 AM EDT
They flew missions in VN so I think that is a pretty long life. I grew up living in the flight pattern of Lockheed[Marietta GA]/Dobbins/Naval Air Station Atlanta so I got to see all sorts of neat AC flying around as a kid.

rj
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:23:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
The nose is UGLY but I'm a fan of the old F-8! Wish I'd gotten to see one flying.

Why was the Crusader phased out so quickly? Was it a bear to maintain or something?



IIRC, the Crusader lacked the ability to take modern AA missiles. It lacked the wiring bus necessary.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:32:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MattyMattel:
Tell that Chineese model-maker Trumpeter,to make one,they already made an F-107,BTW,there's more that can be told,read the Lou Drendel book, F-8 Cruesader in Action,has a nice piece on the III



1/72 scale Vought XF8U-3
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:33:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:
THAT is uglier than sin!

The engineers need to understand... Fighters are supposed to look GOOD!

This is like the Boeing version of the JSF - sure it may have been a bit better, but how are you going to convince a pilot to fly something that looks like a pregnant guppy?!?

I'm sure it was a beast, it's just ugly.
Matt

The Phantom II ain't no beauty queen,either!
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:36:50 AM EDT
Next to the F 104 Thats a pretty cool plane
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:38:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:49:55 AM EDT
That things pointy end looks like a Great White with its mouth open.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 11:50:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rocklock:
Next to the F 104 Thats a pretty cool plane

And there was a Super F-104 too,the F-104S.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 12:07:29 PM EDT
Guess who has the only F-8's in flight worthy condition in the USA?

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 12:11:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Guess who has the only F-8's in flight worthy condition in the USA?


WHO!!! Tell us!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 12:20:59 PM EDT
Why aren't the French ones painted yellow?
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 12:21:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Guess who has the only F-8's in flight worthy condition in the USA?




Nasa?
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 12:32:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Guess who has the only F-8's in flight worthy condition in the USA?




Nasa?



Nope.

Paul Allen.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 12:35:44 PM EDT
Last of the real gunfighters.

Although I can't imagine an F-8 with no cannons.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 12:46:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:
Last of the real gunfighters.

Although I can't imagine an F-8 with no cannons.




Link Posted: 3/31/2006 1:11:56 PM EDT
I know a guy who had a flameout on takeoff at NAS Atsugi when he was only at about 3,000 AGL. He pulled the face shield down, broke his back and his Crusader crashed in town. Very sad...it still bothers him...but there was absolutely nothing he could do. Full of gas, slow, climb power and AoA and suddenly no power at all.


He flew F-4s in Viet Nam and liked both jets but he acknowledged that F-8s were real fighters.

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 1:14:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 1:17:34 PM EDT by Bostonterrier97]


Somewhere over DaNang

Crusader Ejection Sequence

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 1:16:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 1:19:30 PM EDT by Bostonterrier97]



Link Posted: 3/31/2006 1:40:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 1:43:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
aviation-worldwide.com/images/3133.gif

The F-8 was the last of the Gunfighters…

The F-14 was the last of the fighters…

There are no true fighters at sea in the West anymore…


The Hornet can turn and burn with the best of them.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:01:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
aviation-worldwide.com/images/3133.gif

The F-8 was the last of the Gunfighters…

The F-14 was the last of the fighters…

There are no true fighters at sea in the West anymore…


The Hornet can turn and burn with the best of them.



Well, maybe all the other POS naval aircraft, anyway.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:11:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
aviation-worldwide.com/images/3133.gif

The F-8 was the last of the Gunfighters…

The F-14 was the last of the fighters…

There are no true fighters at sea in the West anymore…


The Hornet can turn and burn with the best of them.



Well, maybe all the other POS naval aircraft, anyway.


Keeps up with the F-16 and the Mig-29 quite well.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:28:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:31:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 2:31:58 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:34:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
aviation-worldwide.com/images/3133.gif

The F-8 was the last of the Gunfighters…

The F-14 was the last of the fighters…

There are no true fighters at sea in the West anymore…


The Hornet can turn and burn with the best of them.



Hornet is a jack of all trades and master of none…

F-8 was a superb purpose built dogfighter, probably the best of it's generation…

F-14 was a superb purpose built interceptor fighter… far and away the best of it's generation…


The original F/A-18A was very manueverable. As the designed progressed through its lifetime it has become more of a pig.

Was the F-18 the best? No. It was indistinguishable from other very agile aircraft of the day, such as the F-16A and the Mig-29. To me that generation of aircraft are like comparing a Mig-15 to a F-86.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:35:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Hornet is a jack of all trades and master of none…

F-8 was a superb purpose built dogfighter, probably the best of it's generation…

F-14 was a superb purpose built interceptor fighter… far and away the best of it's generation…



So when you said it was about the same as the Tornado ADV in the other thread, you were clearly mistaken
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:37:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
The ability to keep ut 'quite well' with 70's generation fighters…

I thought the idea was to make the other guys try and keep up with you…


Let's be honest here. The Mig-29 and Su-27 were developed to counter the teen series of fighters. For the most part, our fighters entered service prior to the Russian designs. Only now, some 20+ years later are we down on the teen series, in some cases 30+ years later, with the introduction of new aircraft such as the EF-2000, then new Suhkois, etc.

That's a damn good track record.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:44:24 PM EDT
Still sexy:


Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:47:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:47:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
aviation-worldwide.com/images/3133.gif

The F-8 was the last of the Gunfighters…

The F-14 was the last of the fighters…

There are no true fighters at sea in the West anymore…


The Hornet can turn and burn with the best of them.



Well, maybe all the other POS naval aircraft, anyway.


Keeps up with the F-16 and the Mig-29 quite well.



The ability to keep ut 'quite well' with 70's generation fighters…

I thought the idea was to make the other guys try and keep up with you…



Bingo.
Strip 'em both and the F-16 will still take the F/A-18.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:48:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Hornet is a jack of all trades and master of none…

F-8 was a superb purpose built dogfighter, probably the best of it's generation…

F-14 was a superb purpose built interceptor fighter… far and away the best of it's generation…



So when you said it was about the same as the Tornado ADV in the other thread, you were clearly mistaken



Were talking NAVAL fighters here, you can't put a Tornado on a carrier…


Sure you can. I've seen A-12s, the SR-71 predecessor not the mythical strike fighter, on a carrier once. All you need is a crane.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:48:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
F-14 was a superb purpose built interceptor fighter… far and away the best of it's generation…



Again, for a naval fighter.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:48:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Bingo.
Strip 'em both and the F-16 will still take the F/A-18.


Um, sure.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:49:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By vito113:
F-14 was a superb purpose built interceptor fighter… far and away the best of it's generation…



Again, for a naval fighter.


Nope. Name a better interceptor, anywhere, from the mid-70s to the mid-90s. Hell to 2000.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:52:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MattyMattel:

Originally Posted By valheru21:
THAT is uglier than sin!

The engineers need to understand... Fighters are supposed to look GOOD!

I'm sure it was a beast, it's just ugly.


The Phantom II ain't no beauty queen,either!


BLASPHEMY!

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:57:06 PM EDT
I thought the Mig-29 was a product of '80s tech that was operational by the late '80s?
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:57:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 2:58:06 PM EDT by SJSAMPLE]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By vito113:
F-14 was a superb purpose built interceptor fighter… far and away the best of it's generation…



Again, for a naval fighter.


Nope. Name a better interceptor, anywhere, from the mid-70s to the mid-90s. Hell to 2000.



I should have deferred to the "interceptor" part.

However, the F-14 based its value largely upon the Phoenix, which was only good at intercepting large, slow moving threats. And I'll qualify because it never actually did that in combat.

It splashed four MiGs in the early 1980s, but I'll defer to the F-15 when it comes to splashing high-performance combat aircraft in quantity.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:58:18 PM EDT


Performance aside, you have to admit that is a DAMN FRIGHTENING fighter..
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 2:59:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 3:01:34 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By vito113:
F-14 was a superb purpose built interceptor fighter… far and away the best of it's generation…



Again, for a naval fighter.


Nope. Name a better interceptor, anywhere, from the mid-70s to the mid-90s. Hell to 2000.



I should have deferred to the "interceptor" part.

However, the F-14 based its value largely upon the Phoenix, which was only good at intercepting large, slow moving threats. And I'll qualify because it never actually did that in combat.

It splashed four MiGs in the earlhy 1980s, but I'll defer to the F-15 when it comes to splashing high-performance combat aircraft.


You place too much importance on the weapon and not enough on the sensor. The F-14 consistantly had a better radar and threat ID systems.

ETA: If you look at the F-15s kills they are mostly against the same type of aircraft the F-14 engaged or Migs running away to Iran, or fully loaded out Mirage's out on anti-shipping missions.

We haven't had any of our fighters really tangle with the best out there.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:00:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 3:01:48 PM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Bingo.
Strip 'em both and the F-16 will still take the F/A-18.


Um, sure.


I am. The '16 ought to take it in a dogfight.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:02:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Bingo.
Strip 'em both and the F-16 will still take the F/A-18.


Um, sure.


I am. The '16 ought to take it in a dogfight.


Care to link to some data to back that up?
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:02:43 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top