Reply to thread

Message

I haven't finished reviewing and summarizing this aspect of the F8U-3, but my initial impression is that the additional acceleration and altitude wasn't worth the hydrogen peroxide storage problem and reduction of range/endurance. It was of interest (like the Mach 3 capability) because of the need to intercept a supersonic Soviet bomber as far away from the carrier as possible. McDonnell also studied a rocket capability for the F4H, apparently as a store on the belly, and Grumman proposed one on the Design 118 that was submitted in competition with Vought's 401 proposal, which was implemented as the F8U-3. (The FJ-4F was reportedly another example, although some reports suggest it was intended as a test bed for an A3J installation.)

[QUOTE="Tailspin Turtle, post: 48571, member: 966"] I haven't finished reviewing and summarizing this aspect of the F8U-3, but my initial impression is that the additional acceleration and altitude wasn't worth the hydrogen peroxide storage problem and reduction of range/endurance. It was of interest (like the Mach 3 capability) because of the need to intercept a supersonic Soviet bomber as far away from the carrier as possible. McDonnell also studied a rocket capability for the F4H, apparently as a store on the belly, and Grumman proposed one on the Design 118 that was submitted in competition with Vought's 401 proposal, which was implemented as the F8U-3. (The FJ-4F was reportedly another example, although some reports suggest it was intended as a test bed for an A3J installation.) [/QUOTE]

Verification