Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III

[TomS]

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.

The F8U3 did have an amazingly automated fire control system for its day. There's a video linked here somewhere, I think.

 

[SSgtC]

The F8U3 did have an amazingly automated fire control system for its day. There's a video linked here somewhere, I think.

Yeah, IIRC, the Crusader III FCS was basically point and click. The pilot would select a target on his screen, and the computer would keep the radar locked on it as long as the pilot kept the targeted aircraft within 60° of the nose. I'm just not sure how well it would have functioned in practice given the reliability of the electronics of the day. Particularly when operating off of a carrier.

The autopilot was also highly advanced for its time. Once the pilot reached his patrol area, he could set the autopilot to maintain speed, heading and altitude while he went "heads down" in the cockpit to work the radar. In what was almost a novelty at the time, the autopilot could even turn the plane to a new heading just by adjusting the heading select knob in the cockpit. For reference, late 50s/early 60s autopilots, in general, couldn't turn. They could only hold the aircraft on the heading it was on when it the autopilot was engaged. To make turns, the pilot would have to manually turn the aircraft, then re-engage the autopilot once he was stable on his new course. So having an autopilot that could actually turn your plane for you was a game changer.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah, IIRC, the Crusader III FCS was basically point and click. The pilot would select a target on his screen, and the computer would keep the radar locked on it as long as the pilot kept the targeted aircraft within 60° of the nose. I'm just not sure how well it would have functioned in practice given the reliability of the electronics of the day. Particularly when operating off of a carrier.

The autopilot was also highly advanced for its time. Once the pilot reached his patrol area, he could set the autopilot to maintain speed, heading and altitude while he went "heads down" in the cockpit to work the radar. In what was almost a novelty at the time, the autopilot could even turn the plane to a new heading just by adjusting the heading select knob in the cockpit. For reference, late 50s/early 60s autopilots, in general, couldn't turn. They could only hold the aircraft on the heading it was on when it the autopilot was engaged. To make turns, the pilot would have to manually turn the aircraft, then re-engage the autopilot once he was stable on his new course. So having an autopilot that could actually turn your plane for you was a game changer.

Still think the Navy would have been a LOT happier with a 2-seater, plus that fancy AWG-7 and autopilot.

 

[helmutkohl]

question
if the F-8 is the Crusader 1
and the XF8U-3 is the Crusader 3

what was the Crusader 2?

 

[Scott Kenny]

question
if the F-8 is the Crusader 1
and the XF8U-3 is the Crusader 3

what was the Crusader 2?

F8U-1 Crusader 1
F8U-2 Crusader 2 with the Y pylons on the cheeks
XF8U-3 Crusader 3

 

[MadRat]

The line art implies the tilting wing was installed. I've yet to see a picture using it.

XF-8U was the pinnacle of Crusader development. I always felt it achieved what the British wanted from their EE Lightning program.

 

[Richard N]

From post 175.

 

[zen]

The line art implies the tilting wing was installed. I've yet to see a picture using it.

XF-8U was the pinnacle of Crusader development. I always felt it achieved what the British wanted from their EE Lightning program.

Sort of, if tied in the datalink, then GCI or CCI would direct the intercept automatically until the aircraft's radar could pick up the target.

 

[SSgtC]

Still think the Navy would have been a LOT happier with a 2-seater, plus that fancy AWG-7 and autopilot.

Yeah, no argument. Odds are, if the plane had been ordered, it almost certainly would have been reordered with a RIO almost immediately (or at least within a year after entering service and the FCS started getting beat up with carrier launches and traps

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Moved the V-415A discussion to the AAM-N-10 Eagle topic.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bendix-aam-n-10-eagle-its-rivals-and-developments.4264/#post-633966

 

[Dew]

From GRC image library via NARA:

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

 

[Scott Kenny]

Part of my moved comment was directly about the Crusader III, going to somewhat repost it (modified/paraphrased).

From post 175.

That looks like the belly AIM-7 is not on the centerline, so there could be space for a fourth Sparrow. So now it's conceivable that the Crusader III could actually carry the same missile load as a Phantom with Y-racks on the cheeks.

In that picture, there's a piece that looks like a second Sparrow nose on the belly. I'm wondering if that was an IRST or long-range camera system?

 

[Cjc]

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.

Well that air enthusiasts article posted previously says Vought did do engineering work on the fourth sparrow but it apparently hampered the plane so badly that vought went back and completely re did the navys Interceptor study inorder to show (aka justify) that plane's would only be able to launch 3 sparrows in any fight do to its semi active radar mode of operations (fire, track,fire, track, fire, track, out of fule according to vought ignoring the sparrows issues). Consdering this is the same article that clames the cursader 3 could make it to mock 2.9 once the cockpit windows were reinforced needless to say I am dubious on this explanation.

 

[SSgtC]

Well that air enthusiasts article posted previously says Vought did do engineering work on the fourth sparrow but it apparently hampered the plane so badly that vought went back and completely re did the navys Interceptor study inorder to show (aka justify) that plane's would only be able to launch 3 sparrows in any fight do to its semi active radar mode of operations (fire, track,fire, track, fire, track, out of fule according to vought ignoring the sparrows issues). Consdering this is the same article that clames the cursader 3 could make it to mock 2.9 once the cockpit windows were reinforced needless to say I am dubious on this explanation.

While I don't know about the rest of it, I don't doubt the speed claim in the slightest. During flight testing, the Crusader III reached, I believe, Mach 2.25 and it was still accelerating fairly rapidly. AIUI, Vought extrapolated those numbers out and determined that the aircraft would be, in theory anyway, able to reach between Mach 2.7 and 2.9 once a windshield that could withstand the extreme heat at those speeds was installed.

 

[Cjc]

While I don't know about the rest of it, I don't doubt the speed claim in the slightest. During flight testing, the Crusader III reached, I believe, Mach 2.25 and it was still accelerating fairly rapidly. AIUI, Vought extrapolated those numbers out and determined that the aircraft would be, in theory anyway, able to reach between Mach 2.7 and 2.9 once a windshield that could withstand the extreme heat at those speeds was installed.

If that's the case then I don't know how the hell adding one missile (In an area that has a buch of other missiles to boot) could degrade a planes proformance so much that a company is welling to break the compition rules (I'm pretty sure the requirement was for 4 sparrows) inorder to avoid it. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if the redoing the study cost more then adding the stupid missile to the plane would have.

 

[starviking]

If that's the case then I don't know how the hell adding one missile (In an area that has a buch of other missiles to boot) could degrade a planes proformance so much that a company is welling to break the compition rules (I'm pretty sure the requirement was for 4 sparrows) inorder to avoid it. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if the redoing the study cost more then adding the stupid missile to the plane would have.

Accelerating to high speed in a straight line is quite different from getting to a patrol area, engaging in combat, breaking off combat, and returning to the ship. Lots more maneuvers in the latter, and a need for a fuel reserve for contingencies.

 

[alanqua]

Hi

I post here the original files I made for this article (3 view plan and profile).

 

[Antonio]

Alan,

you're truly gifted with talent. The Sundowners profile is amazing, a pleasure to the eyes. Thanks a lot for such a present!

 

[flateric]

...