Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III

[blackkite]

Hi!
Source : WINGS OF FAME VOLUME 9

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
Source : AIR ENTHUSIAST 31, total 10 pages.

 

[blackkite]

At long last, my F8U-3 monograph has been published by Steve Ginter. It includes details that you probably haven't seen on the F8U-3 and the Grumman Design 118 (both twin and single-engine versions), as well as information on the competition between the F8U-3 and the F4H.

Hi! I already have this wonderful book. http://web.ipmsusa3.org/content/vought-f8u-3-crusader-iiisuper-crusader

I found some pages from google image search. For example,

http://web.ipmsusa3.org/sites/default/files/reviews/vought-f8u-3-crusader-iiisuper-crusader/scan0003.jpg

Some three side view drawing.

Aircraft Request...

Folks, I've been involved in the Community since 2002. I've made Suggestions on Aircraft before, Even asked for Objects to be done before. But in all of tha...

combatace.com

Picture.

Test & Research Pilots, Flight Test Engineers: John W. Konrad 1923-2006

thetartanterror.blogspot.jp

This airplane was a very wonderful airplane. I think the form of this airplane is Mach 3 class. Ventral fin is very large same as XF-103.
It's said that the form of this airplane also fits in with a supersonic area rule.

 

[sferrin]

Hi!
Source : WINGS OF FAME VOLUME 9

Wanted to cry when these guys went belly up. :'(

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

I have become the happy and grateful caretaker of a significant number of 4x5 negatives of models that were tested in the LTV/Vought Low Speed Wing Tunnel (LSWT) along with a number of the test reports. As I sort thru the whole lot (guessing 4,000+ negatives), there is plenty there to share as they get scanned and identified.

Here are a few XF8U-3 images - note the earlier inlet vs. the later as produced inlet. More to come as I get them scanned...

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Great photos.

 

[Trident]

Second that - much appreciated, Mark!

 

[sferrin]

I don't suppose you found any photos of a Pluto/SLAM mockup did you?

 

[TomcatViP]

Second that - much appreciated, Mark!

+1!

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Pluto/SLAM, maybe..... Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Mockup, no - these are windtunnel photos. Model, probably...

 

[allysonca]

From my collection and one that is on the fav list.

 

[alanqua]

Hello,
Here is a 3 view plan + a whatif I produced for Le Fana de L'Aviation (article published a few years ago).
(I have a full page of whatif on the Crusader III but it's not the right place to post, you can go to my thread in the User Artwork of the forum.if you want)
Regards
Alain

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The aircraft towards the end of the test phase seemed to be creeping up beyond a weight at which performance guarantees were in danger: They were told to keep the weight below 40,000 lbs.

1. Did Vought have any plans in place to actually keep the weight below 40,000 pounds?
2. Did the addition of the petal speed-brake add any weight that wasn't negated by the removal of the belly-brake?
3. It was stated that the lift produced by the AAM-N-7 pylons had a slightly beneficial effect on performance: Was that ever listed in any degree?

Also did aircraft 147085 get fitted with the petal-brakes?

 

[SSgtC]

I have a question about the proposed armament for the Super Crusader that I'm hoping someone can help me out on. I've read competing claims that yes, the production -3 would be gun armed, and I've read claims that no, it would not retain the guns from the earlier aircraft. My problem is, both answers make sense given the time period the aircraft was designed in. Does anyone have a firm answer on it?

 

[apparition13]

The aircraft towards the end of the test phase seemed to be creeping up beyond a weight at which performance guarantees were in danger: They were told to keep the weight below 40,000 lbs.

1. Did Vought have any plans in place to actually keep the weight below 40,000 pounds?
2. Did the addition of the petal speed-brake add any weight that wasn't negated by the removal of the belly-brake?
3. It was stated that the lift produced by the AAM-N-7 pylons had a slightly beneficial effect on performance: Was that ever listed in any degree?

Also did aircraft 147085 get fitted with the petal-brakes?

Empty weight was under 22k pounds. Where are you getting 40k?

I have a question about the proposed armament for the Super Crusader that I'm hoping someone can help me out on. I've read competing claims that yes, the production -3 would be gun armed, and I've read claims that no, it would not retain the guns from the earlier aircraft. My problem is, both answers make sense given the time period the aircraft was designed in. Does anyone have a firm answer on it?

The aircraft that flew did not have guns. I've not read anything about it. Wiki cites Joe Bauer, but he doesn't cite his source, so that's a deadish end.

 

[starviking]

I have a question about the proposed armament for the Super Crusader that I'm hoping someone can help me out on. I've read competing claims that yes, the production -3 would be gun armed, and I've read claims that no, it would not retain the guns from the earlier aircraft. My problem is, both answers make sense given the time period the aircraft was designed in. Does anyone have a firm answer on it?

The aircraft that flew did not have guns. I've not read anything about it. Wiki cites Joe Bauer, but he doesn't cite his source, so that's a deadish end.

Tommy Thomason has written a book on the Super Crusader, and is a member of SP - so maybe a PM to him might shed light on things.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It was absolutely designed without guns, to save weight, and there's no evidence I've seen to suggest the Navy ever considered a gun. It was cancelled way before guns came back in fashion. There were post-cancellation proposals to Canada and the US Air Force ADC, its possible one of those had a gun, but unlikely in my opinion.

 

[SSgtC]

It was absolutely designed without guns, to save weight, and there's no evidence I've seen to suggest the Navy ever considered a gun. It was cancelled way before guns came back in fashion. There were post-cancellation proposals to Canada and the US Air Force ADC, its possible one of those had a gun, but unlikely in my opinion.

That's why I was curious. Because it makes sense both ways. On the one hand, it was meant to be a missile armed interceptor. On the other hand, it has the "gunfighter" lineage.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Guns are useful in close support or for fighting other fighters, but the F8U-3 was designed squarely to intercept bombers. Guns were not required or useful - just dead weight.

Given Vought were struggling with weight on F8U-3 they would not have added guns to the airframe unless told to by the Navy.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Regarding the Joe Baugher site, this is just a guy with a reasonable library writing up articles based on his library of published books. His sources for the F8U-3 don't suggest anything authoritative was consulted.

 

[sferrin]

I have a question about the proposed armament for the Super Crusader that I'm hoping someone can help me out on. I've read competing claims that yes, the production -3 would be gun armed, and I've read claims that no, it would not retain the guns from the earlier aircraft. My problem is, both answers make sense given the time period the aircraft was designed in. Does anyone have a firm answer on it?

The aircraft that flew did not have guns. I've not read anything about it. Wiki cites Joe Bauer, but he doesn't cite his source, so that's a deadish end.

Tommy Thomason has written a book on the Super Crusader, and is a member of SP - so maybe a PM to him might shed light on things.

Just checked my copy of the book . Didn't see anything about a gun in there. I don't even know where they'd have put one.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I have a question about the proposed armament for the Super Crusader that I'm hoping someone can help me out on. I've read competing claims that yes, the production -3 would be gun armed, and I've read claims that no, it would not retain the guns from the earlier aircraft. My problem is, both answers make sense given the time period the aircraft was designed in. Does anyone have a firm answer on it?

The aircraft that flew did not have guns. I've not read anything about it. Wiki cites Joe Bauer, but he doesn't cite his source, so that's a deadish end.

Tommy Thomason has written a book on the Super Crusader, and is a member of SP - so maybe a PM to him might shed light on things.

Just checked my copy of the book . Didn't see anything about a gun in there. I don't even know where they'd have put one.

Proposed prduction one had IRST blisters either side of the cockpit, I guess someone might have confused them for gun ports?

 

[SSgtC]

I have a question about the proposed armament for the Super Crusader that I'm hoping someone can help me out on. I've read competing claims that yes, the production -3 would be gun armed, and I've read claims that no, it would not retain the guns from the earlier aircraft. My problem is, both answers make sense given the time period the aircraft was designed in. Does anyone have a firm answer on it?

The aircraft that flew did not have guns. I've not read anything about it. Wiki cites Joe Bauer, but he doesn't cite his source, so that's a deadish end.

Tommy Thomason has written a book on the Super Crusader, and is a member of SP - so maybe a PM to him might shed light on things.

Just checked my copy of the book . Didn't see anything about a gun in there. I don't even know where they'd have put one.

Proposed prduction one had IRST blisters either side of the cockpit, I guess someone might have confused them for gun ports?

That makes as much sense as any to be honest. A low res photo combined with maybe only a glance and you could mistake those for guns. Particularly given that the aircraft was supposedly a variant of the Crusader.

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

Big advantage for the Royal Navy in a purchase of XF-8U-3 would be the size implications for the recently modified carriers. XF-8U-3 could have operated from Victorious and Hermes where the F-4K couldn't. Eagle and Ark Royal wouldn't have needed such drastic (and expensive) modifications to operate into the 1970s. Cost is what killed the RN fixed wing community in 1966, with Bucc and Super Crusader they could have operated well into the 70s without so much expensive rebuilding.

I know the RN and USN didn't like single seat operation for FAW stuff but the RN had the advantage of Interception officers in their Gannet AEWs. Plenty stories of F-4K radars going down and a gannet observer guiding the intercept. Make the policy and you save a lot of weight with a RIO in back.

 

[TomS]

http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/ has the Manufacturer's Flight Manual for the F8U-3. It is well worth the price for anyone interested in the Super Crusader and it also has the USN manual for the F-8H and J Crusader.

Some various tidbits from several sources I've run across.

The control stick actually had 2 grips. The right one had the normal aircraft controls and the left controlled the radar. To track a target you used the controller to move a cursor | | over the displayed radar return. That slewed the antenna on to the target which was then automatically tracked within the gimble limits of the dish.

Stumbled across a Vought film in the Texas Archive of the Moving Image that describes the cockpit automation incorporated into the F8U-3, including this automatic radar tracking feature.

F8U-3 Weapons System

The XF8U-3 Crusader III fighter plane is the focus of this film produced by the Jamieson Film Company on behalf of Chance Vought Aircraft

texasarchive.org

Edit: it is very Texas that they called the cursor a "lasso."

 

[SSgtC]

Just thought of another question for the Crusader III. Had the FAA purchased the type, what would it have been designated as? FAW or FG? I'm assuming that the type would have gained at least some ground attack capability over time similar to how the Crusader I and II did. I'm assuming it would have been named Crusader FAW.1 given its primary mission would be as an all weather interceptor. But that was the Phantom's mission as well and it got designated Phantom FG.1

 

[starviking]

Just thought of another question for the Crusader III. Had the FAA purchased the type, what would it have been designated as? FAW or FG? I'm assuming that the type would have gained at least some ground attack capability over time similar to how the Crusader I and II did. I'm assuming it would have been named Crusader FAW.1 given its primary mission would be as an all weather interceptor. But that was the Phantom's mission as well and it got designated Phantom FG.1

I suspect it would have been designated FAW, as that covers its mission, and the lack of a backseater limits attack ability.

Even if ground attack ability is added, that would not necessarily make for a changed designation - the Sea Vixen had considerable ground attack capability, but never moved from FAW to FG.

 

[Tallshipmaster]

Here are a few XF8U-3 images - note the earlier inlet vs. the later as produced inlet. More to come as I get them scanned...

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Any more interesting scans featuring LTV’s Low Speed Wind Tunnel?

 

[acegeek9992]

Well, thanks to lark, here's the beastie in question.

Chance Vought F9U-1 "Super Crusader"

Rolls-Royce Conway RCo.11 with 7700kgp thrust, 13,600kgp with afterburning, or Rolls-Royce C-133.

Length: 16.6m
Height: 4.5m
Span: 8.4m
Wing area: 20 sq m
Speed: Mach 2.4-2.5
Landing speed: 220km/h
Ceiling: 19800m
Range: 1800km

Flugwelt 1958

Just to make sure here - was this an actual design or not?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, thanks to lark, here's the beastie in question.

Chance Vought F9U-1 "Super Crusader"

Rolls-Royce Conway RCo.11 with 7700kgp thrust, 13,600kgp with afterburning, or Rolls-Royce C-133.

Length: 16.6m
Height: 4.5m
Span: 8.4m
Wing area: 20 sq m
Speed: Mach 2.4-2.5
Landing speed: 220km/h
Ceiling: 19800m
Range: 1800km

Flugwelt 1958

Just to make sure here - was this an actual design or not?

The suspicion is, it was a speculative drawing of the F-8U-3 from before the actual configuration was known. So, no.

 

[apparition13]

Question: I don't recall reading about it in Thomason's book, but was the Crusader III intended for operations from the Essex class? Crusader II's did, but Phantom II's didn't. The F8U-3 was somewhere between the two in size, which leaves me uncertain.

 

[MihoshiK]

Is there any artwork actually showing the proposed production nose, with IRST and the slightly larger radome?

 

[SSgtC]

Question: I don't recall reading about it in Thomason's book, but was the Crusader III intended for operations from the Essex class? Crusader II's did, but Phantom II's didn't. The F8U-3 was somewhere between the two in size, which leaves me uncertain.

From what I've read, and I don't know how accurate the sources are, the Navy intended for the Crusader III to fly from the Essex and Midway classes while the Super Carriers got Phantoms.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

The F4H was intended to be flown from Essex-class carriers and was carrier-qualified for them. However, the support facility/spares requirements resulted in Phantoms only being assigned to Midway-class and larger carriers. Circa 1965, Crusader squadrons were only assigned to Essex-class air groups for basically the same reason.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Is there any artwork actually showing the proposed production nose, with IRST and the slightly larger radome?

My illustration: Also see https://tommythomason.com/books/vought-f8u/

 

[apparition13]

Is there any artwork actually showing the proposed production nose, with IRST and the slightly larger radome?

View attachment 711515
My illustration: Also see https://tommythomason.com/books/vought-f8u/

Note that the radome isn't actually larger. As explained in this book (one of my favorites, for what it's worth), the Advanced Crusader design moved the radars electronics behind the cockpit from in front of the cockpit. This allowed sliding the radar back in the radome, allowing for a larger radome.

By the way, the V-415A missiles were Vought's submission for the competition won by the Bendix Eagle, which was to arm the F6D Missileer. Which is why I think of this version of the F8U-3 as a proto-Tomcat* since it is a very capable dogfighter with a pair (or perhaps more with wing pylons) of Phoenix ranged missiles.

*Or more accurately, an F-15 Eagle with Phoenix, though the electronics probably aren't up to that kind of single crew capability yet.

 

[apparition13]

The F4H was intended to be flown from Essex-class carriers and was carrier-qualified for them. However, the support facility/spares requirements resulted in Phantoms only being assigned to Midway-class and larger carriers. Circa 1965, Crusader squadrons were only assigned to Essex-class air groups for basically the same reason.

Do you have any idea if the F8U-3's support and spares requirements would also have precluded their use on Essex's?

I'm just wondering about alternative Essex Air Wings with some combination of Missileers, F8U-3's, and Super Tigers for the fighter components.

 

[MadRat]

I'm a bit disappointed they couldn't squeeze in a fourth Sparrow. And how did they consciously abandon an F-8 trademark, the Y-rack? I also wonder what the two-seat model could have achieved with a dedicated RIO.

I kind of got the impression a single seater using SARH missiles was a bit too much to use without a largely automated weapons suite at the time. F-15A pulled if off, but not as well as either F-4 or F-14 with the RIO.

 

[F.L.]

(I have a full page of whatif on the Crusader III but it's not the right place to post, you can go to my thread in the User Artwork of the forum.if you want)

Could you post the link to this thread ?