User Panel
|
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
|
|
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 |
|
F8U-3 Crusader III
In 1955 Vought started design of the XF8U-3 Crusader III, a very high performance all-weather interceptor/fighter. Although it carried an F8 designation, it was an entirely new aircraft that was larger and had a more powerful engine than the previous F8s. Vought decided not to call their entry the XF9U-1, which would have been a logical choice. Instead, the the aircraft was designated XF8U-3 Crusader III. The F8U-2 (F-8C) had been considered such a major upgrade that it was initially called Crusader II, so it was logical to call the XF8U-3 Crusader III. The fuselage was enlarged to accomodate a Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet, with a thrust almost 60 percent greater than the J57 of the F8U-1 and -2. The lower lip of the chin-mounted intake was raked forward in order to achieve Mach 2+ performance. The intake was of fixed geometry, with no mechanically-complex moving parts. Perhaps the most distinctive feature was the use of a pair of large ventral fins which were extended vertically downward when the aircraft was in flight. These fins were retracted to a horizontal position for landings and takeoffs. The F8U-3, powered by the Pratt & Whitney J75-P-6 afterburning engine was the fastest accelerating fighter in the world in acceleration from subsonic to supersonic speeds. From a speed of Mach .98 at 35,000 feet to Mach 2.2, it would take only 3 minutes and 54 seconds compared to a time of 9 minutes for a more conventional fighter of that era. The maximum altitude capability for this aircraft, was also impressive. From a sustained flight altitude of 65,000 feet the aircraft could zoom to an altitude approaching 90,000 feet. First flight of the XF8U-3 was June 2, 1958. During subsequent flights, the XF8U-3 achieved a speed of Mach 2.39 (approximately 1,601 mph) and was still accelerating at 0.1 Mach every 17 seconds. This was extraordinary even when compared to the performance of today’s aircraft. The reason for not flying faster was the heat limitations on the plexiglas windshield, which was approaching an external temperature of 325 degrees F. A design for a laminated glass windshield was under way during the flight test program. This would have allowed the aircraft to achieve its maximum speed potential. It was the opinion of all the test pilots, from the technical data available, that the aircraft could attain a speed close to Mach 2.9 at 35,000 feet (1,950 mph)and there is little doubt that this speed could have been attained. This would have easily made the F8U-3 the fastest jet-propelled fighter– interceptor in the world. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f8u-3.htm |
|
|
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? |
|
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 |
|
IIRC, the Crusader lacked the ability to take modern AA missiles. It lacked the wiring bus necessary. |
|
|
1/72 scale Vought XF8U-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
That things pointy end looks like a Great White with its mouth open.
|
|
|
|
|
Guess who has the only F-8's in flight worthy condition in the USA?
|
|
|
|
|
Nasa? |
|
|
Nope. Paul Allen. |
||
|
Last of the real gunfighters.
Although I can't imagine an F-8 with no cannons. |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|||
|
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 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… |
||||
|
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. |
|||
|
So when you said it was about the same as the Tornado ADV in the other thread, you were clearly mistaken |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Were talking NAVAL fighters here, you can't put a Tornado on a carrier… |
||
|
Bingo. Strip 'em both and the F-16 will still take the F/A-18. |
|||||
|
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. |
|||
|
Again, for a naval fighter. |
|
|
Um, sure. |
|
|
Nope. Name a better interceptor, anywhere, from the mid-70s to the mid-90s. Hell to 2000. |
||
|
BLASPHEMY! |
||
|
I thought the Mig-29 was a product of '80s tech that was operational by the late '80s?
|
|
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. |
|||
|
|
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. |
||||
|
I am. The '16 ought to take it in a dogfight. |
||
|
Care to link to some data to back that up? |
|||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.