Vought XF8U-3 Super Crusader III

The Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III was an aircraft developed by Chance Vought as a successor to the successful F-8 Crusader program and as a competitor to the F-4 Phantom II. Though based in spirit on the F-8 (then known as the F8U-1 and F8U-2) and sharing the older aircraft's designation in the old Navy system, the two aircraft shared few parts.

The XF8U-3 first flew on June 2, 1958. During testing, the aircraft reached Mach 2.6 at 35,000 ft (10,670 m). Vought projected a top speed of Mach 2.9, though the windscreen and most aluminum airframes were not designed to withstand the heat of such speeds. In December 1955, the US Navy declared a competition for a Mach 2+ fleet defense interceptor. Fly-offs against the Crusader III's main competitor, the future F-4 Phantom II, demonstrated that the Vought design had a definite advantage in maneuverability. However, the solitary pilot in the XF8U-3 was easily overwhelmed with the workload required to fly the intercept and fire Sparrows which required constant radar illumination from the firing aircraft, while the Phantom II had a dedicated radar intercept officer on-board. In addition, with the perception that the age of the guns was over, the Phantom's considerably larger payload and the ability to perform air-to-ground as well as air-to-air missions, trumped Vought's fast but single-purposed fighter. For similar reasons, the Phantom would replace the Navy's F-8 Crusader as the primary daylight air superiority fighter in the Vietnam conflict, although it was originally introduced as a missile-armed interceptor to complement day fighters like the Crusader.

The F8U-3 program was canceled with five aircraft built. Three aircraft flew during the test program, and were transferred to NASA for atmospheric testing, as the Crusader III was capable of flying above 95% of the Earth's atmosphere. NASA pilots flying at NAS Patuxent River routinely intercepted and defeated U.S. Navy Phantom IIs in mock dogfights, until complaints from the Navy put an end to the harassment.

All of the Crusader IIIs were later scrapped.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Vought
• XF8U-3
• Super
• Crusader
• III
• combat
• aircraft
• mach
• F-8
• fighter
• interceptor
• NAS
• Patuxent
• River
• NASA

[kdraper2007]

one word BVR missiles. they thought missiles would be the end all & be all of air combat. so a two man crew was an advantage, while manuverability wasn't thought to be important. Vietnam proved the experts wrong.

[CVKent317]

The XF8U-3 was an amazing jet. Allegedly it was just as maneuverable as the smaller F8U-1/F-8A or F8U-2/F-8C despite it's size yet was faster -- it was even faster than the F-106A

[KJLesnick]

It could actually cruise further supersonic on dry power than the F-104 on internal fuel. AB used to accelerate to Mach 2.0 and then cut the burners and run on dry power with the F-104. The F-104 as far as I know had no drop tanks and was flying with it. Halfway through the flight the F-104 had to turn back and the F8U-3 had to go subsonic but continued the rest of the way subsonic during the flight test.

[ironkaiserholtz13]

This plane would demolish everything out there no contest thanks to its speed and maneuverability. If only it had a second crew member and then Vought might have been cooking with gas.

[disamjisa]

@kdraper2007 Totally agree with this comment. The Raptor is a superlative; it derives its amazing capabilities from the fact that it was designed extremely well, with all-aspect stealth, good fuel on internals, amazing thrust. Things like EW systems, AWACS support, networking, and other capabilities, are the cherry on top, rather than an argument that the manufacturer uses to claim that the aircraft would meet a baseline of acceptable performance in a hypothetical air engagement.

[disamjisa]

@TheWizardTrembyle Finally, USAF claims that networking, AWACs and EW systems (this last claim can obviously not be scrutinised) will be enough, but Russia and China have their own AWACs, networking and EW capabilities, and the short range of this aircraft means that we will certainly have to deploy tankers to support them in battle; this is not a good situation to be in. Having these capabilities does not excuse selling a lemon to America's allies (and the USAF!), and is quite short-sighted.

[disamjisa]

@TheWizardTrembyle (reply 4) BVR is nearly as dependent on energy management as dogfighting. The F-35 will not find it easy to get into a position to make a shot against a Sukhoi due to the considerable advantage the Sukhoi has in fuel and thrust. And the Sukhois will usually be carrying twice as many rounds as the F-35, and will find it easier to get into an advantageous position in relation to the F-35 to make a BVR shot.

[disamjisa]

@TheWizardTrembyle (reply 3) If it did come to dogfighting, the F-35 is at an incredible disadvantage. It does not carry a large amount of fuel in its internals, and so would not be able to stay over the battle area long. It is not particularly fast compared to Sukhois, and so if it expends its missiles and turns to head home, the Sukhois will come thundering up and run it down.

[disamjisa]

@TheWizardTrembyle (reply part 2) In an age of stealth, it is quite possible that dogfighting will be the dominant form of battle between fighter aircraft, not BVR engagements. Besides, the stealth on the F-35 is certainly not designed to do particularly well against the IRST systems that are commonplace, along with long-range infrared guided missiles, on more modern Sukhois.

[disamjisa]

@TheWizardTrembyle The F-35 is a dog of an aircraft. Its stealth is really only optimised from the frontal aspect, and mostly designed to defeat large, ground-based radars. Russians and Chinese have quite successfully started to deploy AWACS units, and utilise networking technology. I doubt a Russian AWACs and flight of four late build Sukhois would be particularly outmatched by the F-35. If it does come to an air battle, it could be that the opfor is deploying stealth aircraft of its own.

[disamjisa]

@TheWizardTrembyle The F-35 is an absolute dog of an aircraft. Its' "stealth" is really only appreciable from the frontal aspect, and even then is nowhere near F-22 level. In fact, I understand it has a larger RCS than the B-2 bomber from the front aspect (and orders of magnitude larger from side and back).

[joluqa]

The last of the gunfighters,great post mate.