XF8U-3 Chosen Instead of Phantom

During the late 1950s, Vought developed a follow-on version to the F8U1 and F8U2 Crusader, the XF8U-3_Crusader_III. In a fly-off against the F4 Phantom, it was found to have superior maneuverability, but the F4 was chosen due to the provision of a dedicated RIO. Suppose, however, that the F8 was chosen instead. What effects might this have had on the future of aviation (especially the Vietnam War)?

XF8U-3_Crusader_III.jpg
 

Deleted member 14881

wasn't one of the reasons the F-4 was chosen was it was less stressful on the pilot since he didnt have to fly and watch the rader at the same time. It have benn an emhasis on dogfighting and a earlier top gun for the USAF
 
The jet intake lingers on. The XF8U3 was the first DSI-equipped aircraft. However, it was not the prettiest. The ventral fins were too ugly to live as well. It is said that a single pilot can't handle the workload of firing Sparrow missiles, so I guess the F-15A and C models are aborted. Poor timing that an aircraft is cancelled for not being best at using missiles that don't work at the time. It could carry and fire 'winders but the effectiveness of the gun installation was never established. Pity. Any aircraft with J-75 power has speed and reliability in its favor. The variable incidence wing, dropped as a feature on the A-7, limited the installation of underwing stores stations, limiting the role versatility and combat effectiveness. There were reasons it was doomed to be a bridesmaid, but it was a good one.

lockheed_F-16DSI_divertless_supersonic_inlet_3.jpg
 

I think those Wiki stats are a bit off, especially with regards to range and fuel capacity. I doubt a single engined fighter of that day and era is going to have 560 nautical miles range...

According to wiki it was to have rocket propulsion in addition to it's turbojet engine. Does anybody know if that was to be with JATO rockets of sorts which were to be jettisoned after launch or integrated in the aircraft, such as with the Saunders-Roe SR.53?
If it's the latter then it's mixed propulsion would have been obsolete pretty quickly. Although a good idea in the '40s, it wasn't very practical in the '50s anymore.
 
I think those Wiki stats are a bit off, especially with regards to range and fuel capacity. I doubt a single engined fighter of that day and era is going to have 560 nautical miles range...

According to wiki it was to have rocket propulsion in addition to it's turbojet engine. Does anybody know if that was to be with JATO rockets of sorts which were to be jettisoned after launch or integrated in the aircraft, such as with the Saunders-Roe SR.53?
If it's the latter then it's mixed propulsion would have been obsolete pretty quickly. Although a good idea in the '40s, it wasn't very practical in the '50s anymore.

The auxillary rocket engine, cancelled, was to be fitted at the base of the vertical fin. It was a purpose-built unit, not recycled JATO.

Range and fuel capacity are always hard to define because of disagreement between sources, and indeed with the same sources. Range of an F-106 given as 1600nm, with 1440 or 1514 US gal plus 230/330 X2 drop tanks, actual range may (will) vary according to mission parameters. Range of the F-105 is given as 400 nm or 680 nm combat radius, with 1,160 US gal internal, 390 in the weapons bay, 650 on centerline and 2X450 in wing drop tanks. Both share the J-75 engine. Variations may appear because not all the fuel in the tank is useable, and fuel in the lines may be counted. While mission parameters for the -106 were fairly conformal, the F-105 differed widely in weapons/fuel mix and flight profile. Since I've never seen an F8U3 with drop tank fitted, and it never had a combat mission to fly, data is not necessarily reliable or relevant.
 
Top