Vought two-seat F-8 for the UK

A

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
12,763
Reaction score
15,797
Hello!

According to Joe Baugher, it seems that Great Britain had interest in the Crusader before chosing the Phantom F-4K.
What I don't understand is why they were interested in the two seater variant ? ???
The plane was to be powered by a spey engine, as the F-4K.
Any 3-view of the project ? dimensions, performances ?
What radar for the plane... something similar to the Lightning (AI-23+ Red Top or its Blue Dolphin SARH variant ) or Phantom (american radar with Sparrow) ?

I plan to built a two seat multirole Crusader ;) . Such plane could have been interesting, too for the Aeronavale instead of standard Crusaders)

PS I already now that Short was to build the aircrafts under licence
 
Until axing the last fixed wing carrier, the RN used just three types of single
seater jets, IIRC, the Supermarine Attacker, the Scimitar and the Hawker
Seahawk, and these were mainly attack aircraft, not interceptors . Maybe
the Royal Navy had, earlier than others, realised, that modern radar systems
couldn't be handled single handed ?
 
I can see why this proposal was dropped.

The RN needed a fighter with more capable avionics than the baseline F-8E, hence the two-seater.

Unfortunately, the TF-8 amounted to little more than a conversion trainer, and the F-8 had very little space for a bigger radar set to begin with. Then, factor in the larger redesigned intake for the Spey turbofan - and I assume that the proposal remained single engined?

Did the AI.23 radar possess sufficient performance to warrant a second crew member? Probably not? Would the AI.23 have fit into a standard F-8 radome? Perhaps?

As things turned out, the UK invested in re-engining the Phantom instead, but kept the American radar. Why did they keep the radar but swap the engines? Maybe it was a matter of timescale, or budget?
 
I'm sceptic, too, about the two seater... why an operational two-seater Crusader ? (a part from training)

IHMO, I just see two reasons for having a crew of two.

- you need a crew of two because the weapon system is too complex for a lone pilot (Tomcat and Phantom worked like this...and the Sea Vixen, too!).
On the british side, the Lightning was single seater, the Sea Vixen two seater, both having the same weapon system ???

or

- you need a crew of two for ground attack (to avoid problems encountered on the Mirage IIIE and F-105, the pilot had too much work on A2G mssions).
 
I think, the weapons systems of the late fifties/ early sixties
could be handled by a single pilot, although probably often at
the expense of the situational awareness.
But to my opinion, decisions in the military world are often
influenced by traditions and Carrier based RN fighters were
for many years two seaters. Exceptions from this rule were
foreign designs, procured to fill an urgent need (F4F Wildcat,
F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair) or stop gap measures like the Sea
Hurricane and Seafire. The Fulmar and the Firefly, later the
Sea Vixen .. all two seaters, and even the dedicated interceptor
variant of the Scimitar, the Type 556 was designed as a two
seater.
 
Why did (UK) keep (F-4C) radar but swap the engines?
1959, RN Chief of Defence Staff, intending to put survivable kit on his 3 Strike carriers (Ark, Eagle, Victorious: Scimitar/Sea Vixen FAW.1, and Buccaneer S.1 with Red Beard B nuke), then replace them with (to be) CVA-01/02/03. He extracted funds for Vixen FAW.2, and Bucc.S.2 (and started the process that ultimately became WE177A(N) nuke). That put (dry)Spey centre-stage. RR set about trying to get reheated Spey funded. Much scheming of Brit-kit F-8, A-6, F-4. All, as is, could have been shoe-horned onto CVA-01, so the case became the bolter. FAA concluded J79, missing the wire on Ark Small, could not stagger aloft. 1/2 sec slam reheat would permit F-4 operation, so that was the selection factor for Spey 201/F-4K, 1963. FAA wanted nothing else made in Britain, because FAA was fed up with waiting. USN-standard would do nicely, thank you.
2 engines/2 bodies because the ocean is big and FAA's Brit equipment was historically unreliable.
 
Archibald said:
On the british side, the Lightning was single seater, the Sea Vixen two seater, both having the same weapon system ???
Click to expand...

I would certainly hope that the Sea Vixen, with its enormous radome, had superior radar range and performance in comparision to the Lightning, with its tiny center-intake radome?
 
While the RN was looking at the F-8 Crusader, did they ever consider the Crusader III, or was that to far dead to be considered a viable project option?

Also, I thought the F-8's Variable-incidence wing's limit the placement of hard points to the fuselage, limiting its war load. The crusader doesn't seem to have much multi-role Potential.
 
The Crusader has died in 1959 after the USN chose the Phantom... Phantom selection (after the P.1154 fiasco) was in 1964.

Thanks for the explanations!!
 
hs1216 said:
While the RN was looking at the F-8 Crusader, did they ever consider the Crusader III, or was that to far dead to be considered a viable project option?

Also, I thought the F-8's Variable-incidence wing's limit the placement of hard points to the fuselage, limiting its war load. The crusader doesn't seem to have much multi-role Potential.
Click to expand...

They did manage to put pylons and hard points on that wing, at least with the F-8J, capable of carrying a good load of bombs. Not along the size of the F-4 or A-7, but a pretty good punch, none the less.
Speaking of which, I wonder if the A-7 was ever offered to Britian... :-\
 
...which would have been quite logical, considering that the TF-41 was no other than an US licence-build spey. Be sure that british Corsair II would have been powered by an unreheated F-4K engine... ;)

Royal Navy A-7s build by short, and spey powered... :-*
 
A-7D/E also had Elliott Head Up Display. Was paper assessed in MoD 1966; DoD had set TF41/HUD against their offset commitment under the F-111K/&tc package, and would have extended its credit terms to any A-7(UK). MoD saw no requirement above Harrier, below F-4M; Feb.66 cancellation of CVA-01 left RN with Ark/Eagle (for a while)/Victorious, Bucc 2/F-4K, no need for anything else.
 
There is a short article complete with a rough drawing of a two seater Crusader in Air Pictorial's news pages in either 1962 or 63. I have got it somewhere in a huge pile of old cuttings, but anyone with a bound set of APs should be able to find it easily near to the front of the issue.

As has already been mentioned that RN wanted to be able to operate the Phantom so that it could continue to cross deck and interoperate with the USN with a state of the art aircraft. When the USN moved to the F111B and then the F14 the RN would have found it practically impossible to follow. However, USN and US Marine Phantoms did operate from carriers through the 70s.

France operated the F8 successfully for years on its two carriers. I think if the RN had been less ambitious and settled for F8s it could have kept a three carrier fleet into the 80s, though it would still have had difficulty getting the money and men for new build ships. Equally, one can argue that Ark Royal and her Phantoms did such a good job in the 70s that this was probably the best the RN could get away with without losing the new Invincibles as replacements.

UK 75
 
Just out of curiosity, was there ever any proposal to produce a naval version of Sydney Camm’s Hawker P.1121 before it was canceled? ???
 
hs1216 said:
Just out of curiosity, was there ever any proposal to produce a naval version of Sydney Camm’s Hawker P.1121 before it was canceled? ???
Click to expand...

Yeap. Recall that there were two seaters in both side by side and tandem seat formats.
 
uk 75 said:
There is a short article complete with a rough drawing of a two seater Crusader in Air Pictorial's news pages in either 1962 or 63. I have got it somewhere in a huge pile of old cuttings, but anyone with a bound set of APs should be able to find it easily near to the front of the issue.

UK 75
Click to expand...

This the one Ralph ?



Cheers

Geoff
 

Attachments

  • Crusader.jpg
    Crusader.jpg
    414.4 KB · Views: 2,323
  • Short Crusader copy.jpg
    Short Crusader copy.jpg
    628.5 KB · Views: 2,228
Thorvic said:
Cheers

Geoff
Click to expand...

Wow!

What are the 2 paired tubes on the fuselage sides?

They look like the encapsulated launchers for the far later SRAAM missile?
 
TinWing said:
Thorvic said:
Cheers

Geoff
Click to expand...

Wow!

What are the 2 paired tubes on the fuselage sides?

They look like the encapsulated launchers for the far later SRAAM missile?
Click to expand...
Those are two round launchers for the Zuni air-to-ground rocket. Used primarily by USMC Crusaders in Vietnam.
 
Merci! Merci! Merci! Merci! Merci! Merci! Merci! Merci!

Have you noticed the modified nose ?
 
UK Crusader

(Project stillborn by June 1964)

Built by Short Bros in Harland
RB.168-25R Spey turbofan, 12,000lb dry, 20,000lb reheat
Based on two seat TF-8, but equipped for pilot & navigator
Front fuselage development and production by Short, with rest of fuselage imported from Vought in the US, for assembly in Belfast.
With Spey, 50% British
Unit cost only slightly above French purchase price (£500,000)
French system of double leading and trailing edge droops, together with (BLC) blown ailerons and flaps
Could be made compatible with Firestreak and Red Top

Source:

Flying Review International June 1964
 
Yeah... I think LTV were trying to interest the USN in a conversion trainer but they didn't bite, she ended up on test duties until being sold back to LTV for use as a trainer. She crashed in 1978 I think whilts training Pilots for the Philippine Air Force...

This is the original shot of the bird from Wings of Fame... looks much better in RN colours imho... but then most things do!

Zeb
 

Attachments

  • tf8_small.jpg
    tf8_small.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 1,614
Geoff

Good to see the old Air Pictorial picture and article (I still have not found the one I cut out years ago!). The photo image of the two seater RN Crusader is brilliant and I think there are some more on the Whatifmodelers site.

I think the reasons that the RN did not want the Crusader were pretty sensible:

They wanted the latest USN plane for cross decking and to meet the same demanding requirement to defend a Task Force. Hence the design of the CVA 01 super carrier.

If they had decided to settle on the existing ships only, then the Sea Vixen FAW 2 had the same timeline as the Crusader. However, had the decision been taken to procure US Essex class carriers as an interim solution, Crusaders might have entered UK service though probably in the standard single seater version.

Like you I am a fan of the BAC 583 solution (despite its complexity) to provide aircraft for the Hermes.

UK 75
 
Uncertainty about the suitability of the P.1154 for the Royal Navy resulted last week in Short Bros & Harland Ltd offering instead British-equipped, and largely British built, Crusaders to the Royal Navy. Developed in conjunction with Chance Vought, Short's version of the Crusader would be powered by a reheat Rolls-Royce RB.168 Spey turbofan, and carry British electronics, air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. The aircraft, state Short Bros, could be available in two years' time, provided about 50 are ordered.
The Crusader first flew in March 1955, and is widely used by the US Navy and has been adopted by France. Short's proposed version would meet the Royal Navy's insistence on a two-man crew; Chance Vought have been flying a two-seat Crusader since February 1962. Short's agreement with Chance Vought follows about a year of discussions, and it would permit the Belfast firm to sell the Anglicized aircraft in many countries abroad.

Apart from the political attractions of placing an order in Belfast, where unemployment is a problem, the Government may be impressed by what seems a remarkably low price. Mr H. G. Conway, Short Bros joint managing director, estimates the figure at $1m (£357,000) each—about half the cost of the McDonnell Phantom II now favoured by the Admiralty. Mr Conway also suggests that the Phantom would be too heavy for British carriers.
Click to expand...

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1963/1963%20-%202107.html
 
G'day gents.
Just found on the web the following cimment

"....there was an alternative 'smaller' Crusader using a licensed UK engine. USN wasn't that interested."

Do you think this was this the Short/Vought RR Spey-powered Twosader proposed to the Royal Navy?
Or is this 'alternative smaller Crusader' a completely different proposal?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Pioneer, I would think that references the original "small" Crusader (V-384) wrapped around the Wright J-65 engine, a license built Sapphire. This was offered at the same time the J-57 powered F8U (V-383) was offered and in the end, selected.

Good reference here - http://retromechanix.com/vought-v-383-v-384-day-fighter-original-f8u-crusader-proposal/

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Thank's Mark!

So can you clarify that the V-384 was of smaller dimensions? If so is there any drawing that compares/depicts the size difference between the V-384 and V-383?

Regards
Pioneer
 
From Mark's link to Jared's site:
 

Attachments

  • vought_v-383_v-384_04.jpg
    vought_v-383_v-384_04.jpg
    334.6 KB · Views: 1,430
  • vought_v-383_v-384_05.jpg
    vought_v-383_v-384_05.jpg
    303 KB · Views: 1,392
Wow, that was great service!!
Thank's Paul ;)

My enquiry is in relation to whether the "smaller Crusader" -the V-384 design could have operated from the likes of the Majestic class?

Mark, in your envious access to Vought Archive's, have you ever come across any mention of the commonality aspect ratio of the V-384 and the actual manufactured V-383 (F-8)?

Thank's once again for everyone's assistance!!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Hi Pioneer -

Not able to answer that based on drawings but surmise that some commonality would be expected but not much. I have hard time accepting that both designs are distinct and separate from each other with no airframe commonality whatsoever.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
The V-384 was a smaller airplane than the eventual winning V-383

V-384 Length: 48' Span: 34.2' Takeoff weight: 17,950 lbs Straight forward deck spotting on 200' of deck 27 airplanes Manually folded wings
V-383 Length: 54' Span: 35.6' Takeoff weight: 22,600 lb Straight forward deck spotting on 200' of deck 25 airplanes Power folded wings

The power-plants differed of course as the V-384 was using the J-65, the lowest output engine considered for the day fighter competition vs.
the J-57 which was considered at the highest output engine for possible use.
 
Thank's for your reply and feedback Mark and Bill!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Geoff_B said:
uk 75 said:
There is a short article complete with a rough drawing of a two seater Crusader in Air Pictorial's news pages in either 1962 or 63. I have got it somewhere in a huge pile of old cuttings, but anyone with a bound set of APs should be able to find it easily near to the front of the issue.

UK 75
Click to expand...

This the one Ralph ?



Cheers

Geoff
Click to expand...
Geoff, do you know what year this article is from?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Was wondering if any drawing survived for the Vought V-466 two seat, Spey engined F8 development for the Royal Navy, it would be interesting to see the differences from the base airframe

cheers, Joe
 
I am with Joe, the Crusader served the French Air Force well and I am still of the view that if the RN had ordered it, they could have hung on to their
Carrier Force
 
TsrJoe said:
Was wondering if any drawing survived for the Vought V-466 two seat, Spey engined F8 development for the Royal Navy, it would be interesting to see the differences from the base airframe

cheers, Joe
Click to expand...

The link to the index for the Vought Archive shows a Brochure and file for the V-466 Crusader for Great Britain so that might be available to those with access or the contacts.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom