Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Vought proposed an external stores capability with two different sets of hard points - the Sidewinder mounts or a pair of mounts located on the lower fuselage ahead of the main landing gear wells. (It appears that since the latter would preclude the belly-mounted speed brake, an alternative location was evaluated in flight test - petal-type brakes on the tail cone like the F-105's). At the moment I don't know why wing pylons weren't proposed since they eventually added to the Crusader I/II. Perhaps they weren't acceptable due to the presence of the ventral fins.The only F8U-3 data on performance that I have so far is from Vought proposals and a Navy comparative evaluation of the F4H and F8U-3 dated 27 February 1958. Basically, as Overscan remembers, the F8U-3 had the same range on internal fuel as the F4H-1 had on internal fuel plus a 600-gallon external tank.
Vought proposed an external stores capability with two different sets of hard points - the Sidewinder mounts or a pair of mounts located on the lower fuselage ahead of the main landing gear wells. (It appears that since the latter would preclude the belly-mounted speed brake, an alternative location was evaluated in flight test - petal-type brakes on the tail cone like the F-105's). At the moment I don't know why wing pylons weren't proposed since they eventually added to the Crusader I/II. Perhaps they weren't acceptable due to the presence of the ventral fins.
The only F8U-3 data on performance that I have so far is from Vought proposals and a Navy comparative evaluation of the F4H and F8U-3 dated 27 February 1958. Basically, as Overscan remembers, the F8U-3 had the same range on internal fuel as the F4H-1 had on internal fuel plus a 600-gallon external tank.
