XF8U-3 with Guns

[KJ_Lesnick]

From what I remember, when the XF8U-3 was being drawn up, it was to carry 4 x 20mm cannon; the US Navy asked them to delete it: I'm curious if Chance Vought retained the provision to re-install them if the time came, as I've heard rumors they did.

[Weaver]

At last! She asked another XF8U-3 question! Now I can finally justify the money I spent on the Ginter book at Telford!

And the answer is............






........you need to buy Naval Fighters Number Eighty-Seven, Vought F8U-3 Crusader III, by Tommy H. Thomason, published by Steve Ginter, (ISBN-13) 978-0-9846114-0-9, (ISBN-10) 0-9856114-0-1  





Oh, all right then, I've just re-read the book for you and no, there never was a provision for 4 x 20mm guns in the XF8U-3: it was all-missiles right from the start. The initial armament was 3 x Sparrow IIIs or 4 x retractable (but fixed-fin) Sidewinders. A later (approved) proposal had 4 x Sidewinders on fixed fuselage side pylons in addition to the Sparrows. Other ideas included 2 x nuclear Sparrow Xs on the fuselage corners plus two folding-fin Sidewinders in a ventral box, or two Vought V-415A missiles (like mini-Phoenixes in appearance) plus the 4 x Sidewinders on the fuselage sides.

Another projected armament option was a recessed 2000lb store under the rear fuselage, originally developed for a proposal to the UK government. This was obviously mainly intended for a tac nuke, but other proposed loads included fuel, recce sensors or a ground-attack gun-pack (contents not defined). The latter is the ONLY mention of proposed guns in the whole book.

[rickshaw]

I would think that trying to use guns on this aircraft in air-to-air combat at tops speed would be make it a good candidate for the Darwin awards. 

[Dizzyfugu]

When the F8U-3 was designed, guns were considered to be "out of date" - a misconception, what the USN had to learn through the F8U-3's winning competitor, the F-4 Phantom II.

[PR19_Kit]

I would think that trying to use guns on this aircraft in air-to-air combat at tops speed would be make it a good candidate for the Darwin awards. 

Indeed so.

Didn't one of the F8U-3's predecessors shoot itself down when it caught up with its previosuly fired cannon shells in a dive?

[Dizzyfugu]

That was a USN Grumman Tiger, AFAIK, which hit its own 20mm shells.

[Weaver]

That was a USN Grumman Tiger, AFAIK, which hit its own 20mm shells.

True, although in all fairness,  he only managed it by test-firing his guns in level flight then going into a high-speed shallow dive.....

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

And the answer is............

........you need to buy Naval Fighters Number Eighty-Seven, Vought F8U-3 Crusader III, by Tommy H. Thomason, published by Steve Ginter, (ISBN-13) 978-0-9846114-0-9, (ISBN-10) 0-9856114-0-1

Which I have and have read.  While I think it's a great book and has some images and graphs I've never seen elsewhere, the fact is that Tommy Thomason, much as I like his work, sometimes makes noteworthy errors.

One example is his explanation of the XF8U-3 and F8U-1/-2 on carrier approach

• The F8U-1/2 was said to have too little drag on approach, similar to holding a greased pig: This is absolutely nonsense
  
• The F8U-1/2 was designed with a variable incidence wing to provide good low speed performance while keeping angle of pitch low; the wing's centerbody also came up so as to increase drag
  
• Many early jets responded hideously slow to engine power; later on that improved and the J57 was even better but it still took about 8 seconds to go from idle to full power; producing additional drag would require higher power settings to hold the glide-path and also allow rapid power application in the event of a wave-off
  
• The F8U-1/2 centerbody did a little too good of a job, particularly if you didn't watch the power you could slow up and then take on a sink rate and have a ramp-strike.
  
• The XF8U-3 had a thinner wing which was mostly for higher speed, but the centerbody was also thinner too and this was to produce less drag: Enough to require more power; not too much like the earlier Crusaders
  

.

Oh, all right then, I've just re-read the book for you and no, there never was a provision for 4 x 20mm guns in the XF8U-3: it was all-missiles right from the start.

As I said, errors were sometimes made in Thomason's books despite the fact that he has a lot of accurate information.

I have heard resources state that there were early plans for 4 x 20mm cannon, but the USN told them to remove it, though the provision remained for awhile.  I'm not really into "battle of the sources" but I'm interested in the actual facts.

The initial armament was 3 x Sparrow IIIs or 4 x retractable (but fixed-fin) Sidewinders. A later (approved) proposal had 4 x Sidewinders on fixed fuselage side pylons in addition to the Sparrows.

I'm aware of this... there were also proposals to carry 4 x AIM-7 and 2 x AIM-9 as an alternate if I recall correctly.

Another projected armament option was a recessed 2000lb store under the rear fuselage, originally developed for a proposal to the UK government. This was obviously mainly intended for a tac nuke, but other proposed loads included fuel, recce sensors or a ground-attack gun-pack (contents not defined).

If I recall, there were proposals of fitting the plane with a 6,000 pound bomb-load as well.  I'm not sure exactly as to how the load would be carried (under the plane, under pylons, etc)

As for this gun-pack, would you speculate as to how stable this would be in aerial combat?


Rickshaw

I would think that trying to use guns on this aircraft in air-to-air combat at tops speed would be make it a good candidate for the Darwin awards.

Guns aren't usually used at full speed, in fact if I recall only one supersonic gun-kill was scored on record in the United States at least: It was scored by USAF (then Major) Colonel Phil "Hands" Handley in an F-4E against a MiG-19.

Most aerial combat that would require the guns would be against fighters and since fighters maneuver best subsonic...


Dizzyfugu

When the F8U-3 was designed, guns were considered to be "out of date" - a misconception, what the USN had to learn through the F8U-3's winning competitor, the F-4 Phantom II.

Interestingly, I'm not sure if the USAF actually felt that way in 1958 regarding general fighters: I don't recall any fighter that first flew that year, though the USAF had the F-100, F-101A/C, F-104, and F-105 in the inventory; while the USAF didn't generally favor guns in their interceptors, the USAF tended to use interceptors in a specialist role whereas the USN tended to use them for both fighter and interceptor roles with examples being

• The F4D/F-6: It didn't seem to be used very often against fighters and was used almost always as an interceptor, it was however, highly maneuverable and a formidable opponent.  It also had 4 x 20mm guns in the nose though probably only about 3 seconds of firing time.
  
• The F3H/F-3: It was designed as a high performance all-weather fighter/interceptor and was later morphed into a multipurpose fighter.  Far as I know the night-fighter missions entailed attacks against either fighters or bombers and it did have provision for 4 x 20mm cannon in the nose (intercept missions involved no guns installed; air-to-ground missions included half of them installed)
  
• The XF8U-3 and F4H/F-4: Both were designed predominantly as fleet defense interceptors, it was as far as I know designed to engage fighters too
  

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw

I would think that trying to use guns on this aircraft in air-to-air combat at tops speed would be make it a good candidate for the Darwin awards.

Guns aren't usually used at full speed, in fact if I recall only one supersonic gun-kill was scored on record in the United States at least: It was scored by USAF (then Major) Colonel Phil "Hands" Handley in an F-4E against a MiG-19.

Most aerial combat that would require the guns would be against fighters and since fighters maneuver best subsonic...

I understand some people don't understand irony very well...