Why did USN accept fast landing and take off F4s and F8s?

[Riain]

Both the F4 and F8 ad simple airframe modifications to make them able to take off and/or land at significantly lower speeds.

By 1964 the F4B was tested with the extended nose oleo strut (as eventually used on the RN F4K) which was found to reduce the wind over deck required by 9-12 knots, and drooped ailerons which reduced WOD requirement by 3-4 knots.

The French F8E(FN) had a number of wing modifications; reducing the incidence from 7 to 5 degrees, much greater flap deflection and BLC blown flaps in 1963. While these aircraft weren't built until 1963-64 apparently Vought offered these same modifications to the USN while their F8s were still in production.

In both cases the USN did take up these easy modifications, apparently they were happy with the 141kt landing speed of the F8 until they started rebuilding crashed F8Es and I don't know the story of the long nose wheel F4 but it wasn't adopted.

Why? Were their carrier operations so easy that they could afford not to bother to drastically improve the low speed behaviour of these fighters?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Pretty much, yeah. The 27C Essexes were significantly larger than the Clemenceaus, with more powerful catapults; same story with the Midways compared to the Audacious-class. And then you had the supercarriers just coming online, which had even bigger margins.

Also, where are you getting that landing speed for the Crusader? I checked the SAC documents, the F-8 was not that nasty when landing, not even close.

 

[marathag]

Also, where are you getting that landing speed for the Crusader? I checked the SAC documents, the F-8 was not that nasty when landing, not even close.

High accident rate, 3.6 per 10k hours. F-104 with the USAF was 2.67, the worst of any Century Series Fighter
Even in West Germany, the F-104G killed a pilot for every 17,000 hours flown, and an overall write-off rate of 1.5 for every 10k hours flown.
Of 1266 Crusaders the USN operated, there were 1106 major accidents

 

[CV12Hornet]

High accident rate, 3.6 per 10k hours. F-104 with the USAF was 2.67, the worst of any Century Series Fighter
Even in West Germany, the F-104G killed a pilot for every 17,000 hours flown, and an overall write-off rate of 1.5 for every 10k hours flown.
Of 1266 Crusaders the USN operated, there were 1106 major accidents

Which is terrible but is not a function of their landing speed, near as I can tell. From Wiki:

The Crusader was not an easy aircraft to fly, and was often unforgiving in carrier landings, where it suffered from poor recovery from high sink rates, and the poorly designed, castering nose undercarriage made it hard to steer on the deck. Safe landings required the carriers to steam at full speed to lower the relative landing speed for Crusader pilots. The stacks of the oil-burning carriers on which the Crusader served belched thick black smoke, sometimes obscuring the flight deck, forcing the Crusader's pilot to rely on the landing signal officer's radioed instructions.[6] It earned a reputation as an "ensign eliminator" during its early service introduction.[13] The nozzle and air intake were so low when the aircraft was on the ground or the flight deck that the crews called the aircraft "the Gator".

 

[Riain]

Pretty much, yeah. The 27C Essexes were significantly larger than the Clemenceaus, with more powerful catapults; same story with the Midways compared to the Audacious-class. And then you had the supercarriers just coming online, which had even bigger margins.

Also, where are you getting that landing speed for the Crusader? I checked the SAC documents, the F-8 was not that nasty when landing, not even close.

Despite bigger, faster carriers with more powerful cats the USN had an horrific safety record, they didn't get down to USAF safety levels until the Hornet entered service in the 80s.

I can't find the F8 landing numbers right now, I found them deep digging a while ago and put them in the British Cold War Facts and Figures thread but no link or reference. Its easy to find references to the fast landing speed and the mods the French F8s had to lower their landing speed. What do the SAC figures say?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Despite bigger, faster carriers with more powerful cats the USN had an horrific safety record, they didn't get down to USAF safety levels until the Hornet entered service in the 80s.

I can't find the F8 landing numbers right now, I found them deep digging a while ago and put them in the British Cold War Facts and Figures thread but no link or reference. Its easy to find references to the fast landing speed and the mods the French F8s had to lower their landing speed. What do the SAC figures say?

About 112-119 knots for the A-D models, jumping to almost 140 knots with the F-8E, then dropping to 125 for the H and back to 112 for the J due to applying the same wing modifications and Boundary Layer Control as on the French planes.

Also: of course the US Navy had a horrific safety record. Carrier landings are really fucking dangerous.

 

[Zheng He]

Despite bigger, faster carriers with more powerful cats the USN had an horrific safety record,

At least some of that was due to the Tomcat's crappy engines which led to a lot of compressor stall failures.

 

[Riain]

About 112-119 knots for the A-D models, jumping to almost 140 knots with the F-8E, then dropping to 125 for the H and back to 112 for the J due to applying the same wing modifications and Boundary Layer Control as on the French planes.

Also: of course the US Navy had a horrific safety record. Carrier landings are really fucking dangerous.

Why the jump to 140kts for the E?

Given the near contemporary A3 hit the deck at 87 knots and A1s were still in CVWs until the mid 60s even 112 knots is bloody fast and might give the F8 a reputation as a hot ship.