XF8U-3 Crusader III/Super-Crusader

[skysurfer808]

Better than being hands off, but HOTAS or a twin-man crew sounds more practical to me

True but you are dealing with 1950s cutting edge technology.  The 2 man crew is better in many ways...besides it is always more fun to fly with someone else...not to mention usually safer.

That was a hunch based on the F4D (which launched it's rockets automatically within a certain range), the F-102 and F-106 which launch missiles in salvoes automatically once the plane reaches a certain distance.

There's a guy who used to fly Fords back in the 50s who has a glasair at our practice field.  He's a great fellow and he told me that one night his squadron lost a half dozen guys due to a long series of fiascos.  He got out after that cruise and became one of the pioneers of laser technology thereafter.

I don't know where I'd find that honestly

Nor do I, I did bid on an original F8U-3 manual but lost in the very final seconds.  I do have quite a few other original manuals I enjoy perusing from time to time, and I justify them as research material for future writing projects.

I didn't know that

Regarding BVR...Pentagon Paradox, the story of the F/A-18.  Talked about billions spent on SARH missiles and Radar with only 3 true BVR kills, others had to be Verified visually during Vietnam....how's that for alliteration.

If a visual cuing system was decently good enough (including arrows to give directional cues) would the automation have been necessary?

A good working autopilot is a great thing to have when multi-tasking and flying in either night or instrument conditions...especially if you are moving at the speed of heat.

The 4 sidewinders seem to be based on the F8U-2 set up...

That was my assumption, but the Topping model has them on 4 distinct pylons...not at all like the arrangement on the earlier Crusader.  Not sure what to believe, as I have never seen a photo of an F8U-3 with winders.

Augmented flight control system seems to most likely suggest SAS.

I would believe so too, but not 100 percent sure based on the writing on Tommy Thomason's F8U-3 book.  I would love to talk to a NASA test pilot or maintenance guy from Moffett during that era.

I was always under the impression that if you could fly between Mach 2 and 3, you'd probably be able to slip through the sound barrier a small amount with dry power alone.  Especially when you consider how streamlined that plane was (The F-104 could slip through the sound barrier even at low altitude with just 100% power.  Sounds nuts, but it's true.  No idea how far they could accelerate up to at altitude, but there seemed to be an implication that the burner was needed to accelerate it up to about Mach 2 for a supersonic cruise)

The Thomason F8U-3 book quotes one test pilot as saying the takeoff acceleration was so slow he could eat a sandwich during the takeoff roll.  She was a bit of a dog getting transonic too, but got a lot better once she got faster.  Still the performance chart curves were pretty clear in showing speed in full military power below Mach 1...and if anything manufacturers data is a bit optimistic.

Skysurfer808

[KJ_Lesnick]

Did the US, or any country in the world at the time, have the ability to develop a HOTAS system that could allow a 1 man crew to handle the workload of an intercept without automation?

[rallymodeller]

Short answer: no. The computers of the time were far too primitive, and even with a two-crew aircraft the workload was high in a difficult intercept. It's not so much about the HOTAS, it's having to compute the intercept vectors, and that was a full-time job. It was for such reasons that SAGE in NORAD and STRIL 60 in Sweden were developed: the tough part was handled on the ground and all the pilot had to do was point the plane at the target. The Soviet version even went so far as to have automatic ground-controlled weapons release at the optimal firing points; I believe SAGE has the capability of doing the same.

Even so, the control stick in the F-102/F-106 was unique. Take a look:



The left-hand image shows what it looked like to the pilot. The right stick was the actual flying, the left side moved independently and controlled the radar, steering the scanner and so forth. During the final intercept phase, the pilot would put the fighter into autopilot, essentially locking the controls, he would then focus on the large radar display that was front-and-center, lock the control column using the center switch, and steer the radar scanner with the left-side grip. Not easy, or efficient. The Arrow, in its final iteration after the Astra radar system was cancelled, was to use the same AI radar as the F-106 but would have had two crew. Until the point at which much of this could be automated, having a Radar Intercept Officer (or navigator, or whatever) was essential. Even the Tornado F.3 had a backseater. 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rally Modeler

Short answer: no. The computers of the time were far too primitive, and even with a two-crew aircraft the workload was high in a difficult intercept. It's not so much about the HOTAS, it's having to compute the intercept vectors, and that was a full-time job.

What made computing the intercept vectors so difficult (if it's not classified)?

[rallymodeller]

Well, short answer is that targets don't usually fly in a neat, straight line -- once you illuminate them with your radar they know you're there -- and missiles of the time were less than reliable. It was really important to get into the right position for launch and make sure that missile was going to hit the first time, because setting up for a second shot is always even more difficult. Add in the possibility of bad weather and so forth and a good "scope wizard" could set up the intercept faster than a computer of the time. It has always been thus, and it's why the Navy still prefers to have a second set of eyes.

[rickshaw]

Rally Modeler

Short answer: no. The computers of the time were far too primitive, and even with a two-crew aircraft the workload was high in a difficult intercept. It's not so much about the HOTAS, it's having to compute the intercept vectors, and that was a full-time job.

What made computing the intercept vectors so difficult (if it's not classified)?

They kept changing?   You're assuming that both the target and the interceptor flew in straight lines and at the one altitude.  In reality they were both constantly changing.  Further, while a stern intercept was relatively easy to compute, it wasn't the best way to destroy a target which might potentially be carrying a nuclear weapon towards a city that belongs to your nation.