F8U-3 Crusader III speculations

[maxmwill]

I'm not sure if this has been covered before, if so, forgive the relative redundancy(bumper sticker seen on car recently:"Help stamp out and eliminate redundancy").

Very recently, I was going through a number of back issues of Air Enthusiast, the large soft cover volumes. In volume 31 is an article on the history of the XF8U-3. While I won't go into great detail about this, in spite of its overall superiority in ever category, it lost the competition, with the F4H-1 Phantom II being the chosen winner. Had it won, the Navy and the Marine Corps would have had the finest interceptor, comparable to the later F14 and F15, and would have entered the Viet Nam conflict with, what could have been, the best dogfighter of that time. In fact, in the article, 30 years after its development, surviving pilots still considered it to be the finest in the world, bar none(one of the mottos of the "Top Gun" fighter school in Alameda is, "The F8 was a tits machine", which said a lot about the type).

Anyway, while the actual history of the type is fascinating in and of itself(about the only speed limiting factor for the Crusader III was the fact that the windscreen thermal gradient limitation in that at Mach 2.2, the internal temp of the windscreen was 195F, the outside temp being 325F, which was too much for the Plexiglass to handle. Vought was working on a fix, and had calculated that a laminated glass windscreen would allow a minimum Mach 2.6, this being the far lower limit. Given that the SR71 was somewhat faster, this might be considered food for thought) is worthy of study, and I think that there has been a model of this marketed(not quite sure, though), there could be room for speculation, based upon other aircraft which were of limited domestic use, had become reasonably successful export craft, most notably the F4, the F16, and the F104, among others.

So, who might've found use for the Crusader III?

While this is an open-ended question that no one seems to have even considered, there is one other that has been speculated on, and was even outlined in the literary form of a novel, the  basic crux of the novel being that the author, Barret Tillman, shows how a small but effective air force could be built using the F20 in his 1992 novel, Warriors, in which the Saudi king invites Commander John Bennet to put together a force of young Saudi pilots, using American and British pilots to train the "Tiger Force". While this novel could be considered more a strategic exercize, I found it enjoyable when I first read it. And, Monogram has a 1/48 kit of the Tigershark. Here is a review of it, with an excerpt from Warriors as the introduction:
http://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/leef20.htm

So, on to the Crusader. For a straight forward whif, there already is an export consideration, because one country actually has F8s on its carrier, France, so, if you wanted, and were more of a lazy sod, then either modding an F8 kit, or the possible F8U-3 kit shouldn't be that big a deal. But, even as a land based fighter, who else? Obviously Israel, because the IAF  has almost always danced to its own beat when it came to fighters, ranging the very beginning when they were scrambling to acquire just about any surplus aircraft, regardless of origin or other necessary concerns(such as flyability, as they even flew the Avia Mule, the Czech version of the Me109), to the Kfir(which was a really fascinating mod due to the fact that the IAF had Mirage airframes, but ran out of engines, the Atar imports being blocked, so they resorted to shoehorning J79s, engines of far different dimensions that that for which the Mirage was designed(bigger and heavier), and ended up with a fighter that lived up to its name, Kfir, or Young Lion), so perhaps Israel would've been able to put this to good use during the Yom Kippur or Six Day wars.

And not just the IAF.

Consider the Falklands Campaign, if the Argentines had flyable Crusader IIIs, and could have put them to good use, especially if it could have carried more than one Exocet, had the range(especially down on the deck at supersonic speeds).

Or others.

[darthspud]

seem to recall a quote about F8's
" When you run out of F8's , you've lost the fight"
Believe it was something to do with the fact the F8 was the Navy's last gun equipped fighter

Glad we didn't face Crusaders in the Falklands, A4's were bad enough.

[PR19_Kit]

Would Crusader IIIs have been able to operate from the Veinticinco de Mayo? It was quite a small carrier and while the French Navy operated standard F-8s from their Clemenceau Class ships the III was quite a bit heavier.

[sandiego89]

We have had a few XF8U-3 discussions here, some quite recent.  The search block may help.  

For carrier operations, I'd say forget any small carrier.  I think the III would have have not been able to operate on anything much smaller than a Forrestal class or later supercarrier.  The next size down in the time frame would be the cancelled UK CVA-01, US Midway class and the French Clemenceau/Foch class.

A regular F-8 could operate off upgraded WWII (Essex and Midway class) and later US super carriers, but remember the F-8 needed some mods to operate off the smaller Foch class.  French F-8's got blown flaps and increased incidence, but were about maxed out for the Foch catapults and arresting gear.  Deck strength, elevator size and lifting capabilty, catapult stroke length and power, and arresting gear capability become issues.  As Kit says the III was even bigger.

So I say any III aboard an upgarded majestic/colusus is out of the question.  Foch size doutfull.  So for any alternate carrier users, you need to WHIF a carrier.  

For land based applications, it does indeed like it could have had some potential WHIF users  Who ordered and needed US designed interceptors?  Lots of folks.  Canada instead of/replacing the F-101.  Japan. Taiwan instead of the 101. Isreal as you metnion. Greece, Turkey, some other NATO forces.            

[pyro-manic]

Direct substitute for the Phantom, I would say. So US CV/Ns, maybe just about squeeze them on Ark Royal IV, and that's about it for carriers. Plenty of land-based air forces to choose from.

[KJ_Lesnick]

maxmwill

I'm not sure if this has been covered before, if so, forgive the relative redundancy

Yeah it has: I was usually the person who created the threads

Very recently, I was going through a number of back issues of Air Enthusiast, the large soft cover volumes. In volume 31 is an article on the history of the XF8U-3. While I won't go into great detail about this, in spite of its overall superiority in ever category, it lost the competition, with the F4H-1 Phantom II being the chosen winner.

Well, it wasn't superior in every category

• The workload in the cockpit was somewhat higher than the F4H-1 owing to a single crew-member
  
• The design depended on more automation to carry out an intercept than the F4H-1 did, which theoretically raises the risk of more things going wrong that could fowl up the intercept
  

.
Admittedly, the workload levels were deemed acceptable, and the early intended level of automation used by the normal fire-control system (sans datalink) were similar to the F-102A and F-106A, and we entrusted whole cities to them (not sure how smart that was, admittedly): Technically the proposed automation levels were actually lower than the F-102A and F-106A: The F-102A and F-106A used a system whereby the fire-control system would not only compute intercept-vectors, but actually fly the airplane into a position of intercept automatically (even if the datalink was not used), and launch missiles once a pre-determined release point was reached; the XF8U-3 had radar-data computed to determine intercept-vectors which were then displayed to the pilot (on a normal scope or a HUD, which is highly useful as the pilot could be watching the plane he's intercepting in day conditions as well as maneuvering the plane in), which the pilot merely flew and fired once in parameters.  This level of complexity was evaluated by test-pilots who felt it was adequate even for an new pilot.

The F8U-3 in production, would have had a larger radar dish (APQ-72 or the APQ-74) which were 32" (APQ-72), or 34" (APQ-74) in diameter (the antenna would be moved further back inside the nose) and a different fire-control system which may have included levels of automation similar to the F-106A (which I'm not sure was actually necessary), though the F-102A and F-106A's were capable of carrying out intercepts without automation, limited automation (use the radar to display intercept vectors; then use that).  Both proposals were to be fitted with the USC-2 data-link which allowed for varying levels of autoland-capability (including full autoland capability, the ability to adjust the throttles automatically while the pilot flew the approach), as well as the ability to carry out intercepts by remote-control (levels of automation varying from possibly displaying data to the pilot, with the pilot flying it until inside radar range; automatically taking control of the plane and maneuvering it into position, with the pilot taking over; automatically taking control of the plane, maneuvering it into position until within radar range, using the radar data from the F8U-3 to provide additional intercept data for the datalink to maneuver the rest of the way to target including automatic firing of missiles): The F4H-1 was fitted with it, though they didn't appear to use it very often for intercepts and for all I know the same might have applied for the F8U-3, though there is a possibility that it would have been used on the F8U-3 more often (possibly for no other reason than the perception that it would be needed)

Had it won, the Navy and the Marine Corps would have had the finest interceptor, comparable to the later F14 and F15, and would have entered the Viet Nam conflict with, what could have been, the best dogfighter of that time.

Well, it would have made a very good interceptor in terms of raw performance

• Initial projected overall endurance on internal fuel alone was as long as the F4H-1 with a 600-gallon center-tank or 2 x 370-gallon wing-tanks; initially projected interception radius was also equal to the F4H-1 with 2 x 370-gallon fuel-tanks
  
• In practice, the F8U-3 had gained a bit of weight, and some drag-producing additions due to the need to carry both 3 x AIM-7 and 4 x AIM-9 instead of an either/or arrangement, and also featured an IRST scanner; the fuel-load was reduced (though deemed acceptable) due the necessity to reposition electronics equipment in the fuselage (which would have been in the nose before); the engine consumed more fuel than expected: Interestingly, I'm not sure how the production version of the F4H-1/F-4B with 2 x 370 gallon tanks compared to the early projected performance (I'm honestly curious actually)
  
• Its maximum all-out speed of around Mach 2.9, about 1/10th a mach higher than the F-106A and equal to the F-106B, and both were faster than the F4H-1/F-4B
  
• The F8U-3, though possessing an inferior rate of climb when subsonic of the had significantly better rate of climb when supersonic over the F4H-1 (which was, far as I know was a balancing variable); I'm not sure how the acceleration rate of the F8U-3 compared to the F4H-1 at subsonic speed (it was inferior trans-sonic), though it was superior to supersonic (it also offset the advantages the F4H-1 had).
  
• The F8U-3 could also cruise at Mach 2 without using it's afterburners (The F-106A could cruise at around Mach 1.7 without afterburner, and the F4H-1/F-4B needed burners to hold supersonic speed AFAIK) and during testing and could cruise half the flight at Mach 2 (and at this point the F-104 they were flying with had to actually turn back to base because it was running low on fuel)
  

.
As a fighter, the F8U-3 was clearly the superior machine

• Its overall maneuverability was similar to the F8U-2 except at lower speeds; and equal at the very least at higher speeds, and possibly superior at certain weights (owing to a more clean airframe, and a thinner wing); It's corner-velocity was almost certainly lower than the F4H-1 which was fairly high: It could maneuver better at higher altitudes, and considering the corner-velocity and sustained turn-rates were said to be similar to the F-4, LTC Walter Bjorneby, who was a skilled F-104 pilot and tactician stated that they could wax most airplanes in the inventory except the F-8 (and probably the English Electric Lighting, which they never encountered) until they were refitted with the J79-GE19.
  
• The HUD was evidently a huge advantage
  
• Though, I'm not sure if the USN had any intention to capitalize on this: There was a proposal for a conformally fitting fuel-tank, a 2,000 pound nuclear bomb, or a gun-pack in an RAF proposal; the lower fuselage in that particular area seemed compatible so it would have allowed the ability to carry a gun if the desire existed
  

Anyway, while the actual history of the type is fascinating in and of itself(about the only speed limiting factor for the Crusader III was the fact that the windscreen thermal gradient limitation in that at Mach 2.2, the internal temp of the windscreen was 195F, the outside temp being 325F, which was too much for the Plexiglass to handle. Vought was working on a fix, and had calculated that a laminated glass windscreen would allow a minimum Mach 2.6, this being the far lower limit.

And the max I would guess was Mach 2.9?  That was around the airframe limit...

So, who might've found use for the Crusader III?

The Royal Navy's FAA seemed interested in it's performance...

While this is an open-ended question that no one seems to have even considered, there is one other that has been speculated on, and was even outlined in the literary form of a novel, the  basic crux of the novel being that the author, Barret Tillman, shows how a small but effective air force could be built using the F20 in his 1992 novel, Warriors, in which the Saudi king invites Commander John Bennet to put together a force of young Saudi pilots, using American and British pilots to train the "Tiger Force".

Sounds interesting...

While this novel could be considered more a strategic exercize, I found it enjoyable when I first read it. And, Monogram has a 1/48 kit of the Tigershark. Here is a review of it, with an excerpt from Warriors as the introduction:
http://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/leef20.htm

I doubt the Israeli would have been defeated that easily (if at all), even at the hands of the US Navy: Those guys had skills and were expert at operating on the fly

So, on to the Crusader. For a straight forward whif, there already is an export consideration, because one country actually has F8s on its carrier, France, so, if you wanted, and were more of a lazy sod, then either modding an F8 kit, or the possible F8U-3 kit shouldn't be that big a deal. But, even as a land based fighter, who else? Obviously Israel, because the IAF  has almost always danced to its own beat when it came to fighters, ranging the very beginning when they were scrambling to acquire just about any surplus aircraft, regardless of origin or other necessary concerns(such as flyability, as they even flew the Avia Mule, the Czech version of the Me109), to the Kfir(which was a really fascinating mod due to the fact that the IAF had Mirage airframes, but ran out of engines, the Atar imports being blocked, so they resorted to shoehorning J79s, engines of far different dimensions that that for which the Mirage was designed(bigger and heavier), and ended up with a fighter that lived up to its name, Kfir, or Young Lion), so perhaps Israel would've been able to put this to good use during the Yom Kippur or Six Day wars.

The IAF would not have procured the F8U-3 unless it was adapted to carry a gun (that provision did exist admittedly).  They didn't by the normal F-8's though...


sandiego89

We have had a few XF8U-3 discussions here, some quite recent.

Yeah, as I said before -- I was the one who created a bunch of them...  

For carrier operations, I'd say forget any small carrier.  I think the III would have have not been able to operate on anything much smaller than a Forrestal class or later supercarrier.

F-4's operated off the Midway, and Essex Classes right?

The next size down in the time frame would be the cancelled UK CVA-01

Never saw anything on that -- you got information?

remember the F-8 needed some mods to operate off the smaller Foch class.  French F-8's got blown flaps and increased incidence, but were about maxed out for the Foch catapults and arresting gear.

The F8U-3 had a lower incidence than the F8U-1/-2

For land based applications, it does indeed like it could have had some potential WHIF users  Who ordered and needed US designed interceptors?  Lots of folks.  Canada instead of/replacing the F-101.  Japan. Taiwan instead of the 101. Isreal as you metnion. Greece, Turkey, some other NATO forces.

Sounds better...          

[sandiego89]

For carrier operations, I'd say forget any small carrier.  I think the III would have have not been able to operate on anything much smaller than a Forrestal class or later supercarrier.

F-4's operated off the Midway, and Essex Classes right?

The next size down in the time frame would be the cancelled UK CVA-01

Never saw anything on that -- you got information?

remember the F-8 needed some mods to operate off the smaller Foch class.  French F-8's got blown flaps and increased incidence, but were about maxed out for the Foch catapults and arresting gear.

The F8U-3 had a lower incidence than the F8U-1/-2

F-4 Phantoms could and did operate from the 3 Midways after these ships got extensive refits @ the mid 1960's, so yeah the III could have operated from them, but I think the next foreign smaller carrier class, like the Foch, may have been a stretch for the III.  

Phantoms did not operate from the Essex class. Perhaps the III could have, but likely some mods to the carriers may have been required.  F-8 (regular variety) was the largest fighter to operate from the Essex class- they never saw F-4, F-14, F/A-18.    

I do not have more on the CVA-01.  Google CVA-01 and you will get pages and pages of websites.  

OK on the incidence.  I was pointing that the French crusaders needed a bit more help from the US version to operate of the Foch size carriers.

[PR19_Kit]

   
I do not have more on the CVA-01.  Google CVA-01 and you will get pages and pages of websites.  

Conversely search 'CVA-01' on here and you'll get LOADS of stuff on the ship, including an extremely good model of it built by our own Thorvic.

[KJ_Lesnick]

F-4 Phantoms could and did operate from the 3 Midways after these ships got extensive refits @ the mid 1960's, so yeah the III could have operated from them

Thought so...

I think the next foreign smaller carrier class, like the Foch, may have been a stretch for the III

I know little about the Foch-class

Phantoms did not operate from the Essex class

Really?  I'd have almost sworn they did

I do not have more on the CVA-01.  Google CVA-01 and you will get pages and pages of websites.

I found something