XF8U-3 Crusader III - The actual last gunfighter

[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

If you think of a Carrier-capable US Aircraft from the mid-to-late fifties, planes such as the F-4 Phantom or the A-4 Skyhawk might come to your mind. But among the less known carrier borne jets, there was also the F-8 Crusader II, often considered the last true gunfighter.

While the Crusader did have its time in the spotlight, its proposed successor, the XF8U-3 Crusader III, didn’t quite make the cut and was outperformed by its competition as the true gunfighter era seemed to come to an end. All of the built XF8U-3s were likely scrapped and it has become a footnote in US-Navy history.


History:

Spoiler

Parallel to the F8U-1 and -2, the Crusader design team of Vought also worked on a larger, more powerful aircraft with better performance. Internally this improved variant was dubbed the V-401.

The project only had superficial resemblance to the Crusader II as the V-401 was larger and equipped with a Pratt & Whitney J75-P-5A engine, the same engine that was used on the F-105, F-107, Lockheed U-2, A-12 etc. The larger engine was able to produce around 131kN of afterburning thrust, giving the Plane better acceleration and quicker response time.
The Crusader III was designed to reach Mach 2.7 for short periods and had two visible features displaying its ability of reaching such speeds, those being the swept-forward “Ferri scoop” inlet, designed by the italian born scientist Antonio Ferri, and two large ventral fins to guarantee safe flight at those excessive speeds.

Those ventral fins were essential for the program to have any hope as stability issues have already made themselves known on the Crusader II as it could not go beyond Mach 1.7 as it simply became unstable. The fins also needed to be able to fold out of the way horizontally to make takeoffs and landings possible as they would extend almost as much as the rudder itself. To ensure that this high performance was reached, Vought made provisions for a XLF-40 Liquid-fueled rocket engine with around 35.6 kN of additional thrust.
Avionics included the AN/AWG-7 fire control, AN/APG-74 radar and a AN/ASQ-19 datalink, giving the possibility to track six and engage two targets at once.
Due to the massive amount of changes that were made from the original F-8U-2, it was dubbed the XF8U-3, the Crusader III.

The XF8U-3 had its first testflight on June 2nd, 1958, and despite claims of the Aircraft reaching speeds around Mach 2.6, it only reached a top speed of Mach 2.39 instead.Its cruising speed was only a bit below its top speed at Mach 2.32.This top and cruising speeds weren’t reached right from the start however. Only on the 14th of August, during its 38th test flight, it achieved Mach 2.0 in level flight for its first time.
Even if some sources claim that Vought projected an even higher top Speed of Mach 2.9 with the tail rockets mounted, the windscreen and aluminum airframe would not have been able to withstand the kinetic forces created at such speeds and melted.

Back in December 1955, the US Navy declared the competition for a Mach 2+ fleet defense interceptor, the competitor to the XF8-U was the first prototype of the F-4 Phantom II, the XF4H-1. Voughts design turned out to be a lot more maneuverable than the XF4H-1. Vought’s chief test pilot, John Konrad, even claimed that the Crusader III could fly circles around the Phantom II.
Another edge Vought had over McDonnell Douglas was their plane’s thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.97, while the early F4H was sitting at a measly 0.87.

Despite all those advantages, there were also downsides. Multiple pilots reported being overwhelmed with the workload required to fly, fire Sparrows and look at the radar illumination from the aircraft, while the Phantom II had a radar intercept officer who shared that workload, leaving the pilot to focus on flying the aircraft.

In addition to that, the “Age of the Gunfighter” was seemingly coming to an end and the Phantom’s ability to carry out air-to-ground and air-to-air missions made it more versatile while the XF8U lacked any multirole capabilities. Just a little while later, the Phantom started replacing the F-8 Crusader II bit by bit and became the daylight air superiority fighter in the Vietnam War.

After the abandonment of the F8U-3 program, all 5 aircraft went to NASA for further atmospheric testing, as the Crusader III was, to the surprise of many, able to fly above 95% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
NASA labeled their newest additions as NASA 255, NASA 226 and NASA 227
If that wasn’t already enough, NASA Pilots at NAS Patuxent River routinely intercepted and defeated U.S Navy Phantoms in mock dogfightings, which eventually made the Navy furious and demanded an end to “the harassment”.
Some sources are unsure whether those planes still exist or if they were scrapped.


Specification:

Spoiler

Crew: 1
Length: 17.88m
Wingspan: 12.16m
Height: 4.98m
Wing area: 41.8m²
Empty/Loaded mass: 9.915kg/14.660kg
Powerplant: 1 x Pratt & Whitney J75-P-5A afterburning turbojet

Max. Speed: 2.951 km/h
Cruise Speed: 925 km/h
Climbrate: 165 m/s
Ceiling Height: 19.800m
Range: 1.040 km

Offensive Armament: 4 x 20mm Colt Mk12 (planned)
Missiles: 3 x AIM-7 or 4 x AIM-9


Images:

Spoiler





Videos:

Spoiler

Vought XF8U-3 Super Crusader III - jaglavaksoldier
Vought XF8U 3 Crusader III American aircraft - MilitArmy
Chance Vought’s F-8 CRUSADER II and III - the Mig Masters - AVhistorybuff


Sources:

Spoiler

XF8U-3 Crusader III English Wikipedia
XF8U-3 Crusader III German Wikipedia
WebArchive Version of the Article from “Klassiker der Luftfahrt”
Defense Media Network Article
Luftfahrtmuseum Hannover Article (PDF)
Tommy H. Thomason - Vought F8U-3, Crusader III, Super Crusader - ISBN 978-0-9846114-0-9
Barrett Tillman - MiG Master - ISBN 0-87021-585-X

9 Likes

+1 for Super Crusader!

3 Likes

+1, but you’re forgetting about the last last gunfighter, the F-8P

11 Likes

No countermeasures F-8 with magic 2 go brrr

8 Likes

Hehe don’t make me bring up the F-5C

1 Like

If you don’t mind I do have a few questions about this plane:
1: are there any images of it carry 4 sidewinders? Would they be carried on those double racks on the sides of the fuselage?
2a: would the top sidewinder be the Aim-9G or Aim-9D variant?
2b: What is the latest variant of the Aim-7 it’s expected to receive? Aim-7E or Aim-7E-2?
3: Can it carry the Sparrows and Sidewinders together without any obstruction? The way you worded it as 3 sparrows “or” 4 sidewinders made it sound like it needed to sacrifice the sparrows or sidewinders for one another. Based on the location of previous sidewinder pylons, and the visual location of the sparrows on this variant I’d assume it isn’t a problem, but just wanted to double check.
4: Countermeasures… didn’t see any mention of them in this post, I’m assuming none? Were they at least planned as the guns were?

3 Likes

At least those aren’t equipped with 35/50G all aspect IRCCM medium ranged missiles

2 Likes

Well your options are 11.3 Magic II or 12.0 Magic II if we made a little historical gray point and gave it the CMs on the American crusaders

1 Like

+1, Because I just love USAF Vehicles!

2 Likes

They definitely should. It’s still a crusader after all, and the countermeasure system found on the American variants should be compatible with the French ones, in the same way the F-5C flare/chaff system is “compatible” with it.

I’m all for giving all planes countermeasure if possible, since dying because someone clicked a single button isn’t really that fair…

3 Likes

100%, F-4C players already have to deal with AIM-9Ms lol

1 Like

From the small amount of research I’ve done, the development of the XF8U-3 ended before the AIM-9D entered service, so historically it should only have AIM-9B and AIM-7D. Notably though, as best I can tell (though I haven’t found any photos of it with sidewinders), I believe that it was intended to have cheek pylons for the Sidewinders, and the Sparrows were in recessed pylons similar to the Phantom. This would give it a total of 7 missiles. Also notably, it was only planned to have guns, but they were never installed. I don’t see them adding it without guns though, as they were fully intended for any production version.

You’d have a plane with considerable performance but lacking armament, which if kept that way would probably see it wind up at 10.0 or 10.3. I could see it being added as a “likely service version” though, with AIM-7E2 and AIM-9G as well as flares, a sort of late 60s version rather than the 1959 of the actual plane. I certainly wouldn’t complain.

8 Likes

A +1 from me! It would be neat as an Event vehicle or a premium… or even a BP reward

2 Likes

Might as well add the Magic 2 to the US Crusaders, since they’re “compatible”.

The countermeasures are a defining point of the US Crusaders and they shouldn’t be handed out to the French ones just because, otherwise they’ll be ahistorically better which is unacceptable.

+1 for suggestion


Could these be countermeasures mounts? I don’t know when the earliest launchers were fitted on US aircraft, so given the time it was built in, wouldn’t surprise me if it didn’t have any

2 Likes

F8U-3 Standard Aircraft Characteristics 1958 + Characteristics Summary
AIM-7 and AIM-9:

Spoiler


image
image

F8U-3 Characteristics Summary (better quality)
AIM-7 and AIM-9:

Spoiler

image

So, looks like it can carry 2x fuselage mounted AIM-9s and 3x semi-submerged AIM-7s, for a total of 5x missiles OR it can carry 2x fuselage mounted AIM-9s and 4x semi-submerged AIM-9s altough I don’t see how that works (or maybe the CS description means mixed loadout of 2x fuselage AIM-9s and 2x semi-submerged)

3 Likes

For research purposes, I’d highly recommend getting this book.

This book might answer everybody’s questions here. I haven’t acquired this yet, but I will see what I can do in the future.

5 Likes

Magic launcher rails are compatible with sidewinders, sidewinder launcher rails are not compatible with Magics.

Because the F-5C flares are historical? The F-5C was withdrawn from service in 1966. The AN/ALE-40 flare dispensers it has in game didn’t exist until the 1970s. Ergo the F-5C can’t have used them in real life.

3 Likes

As much as I hate to sort of defend the F-5C’s countermeasures/RWR, they are at the least a bit more historical than the F-8E (FN) getting CMs, for a very big reason: they were a simple bolt-on system for the F-5A/B platform overall. The Crusader’s CM suite was directly integrated into the airframe (and was even done as part of a very historical overhaul program for a majority of the US Navy and Marines’ aircraft) making it impossible as a “bolt-on” addition that Gaijin could just simply slap on and be done with. I will also mention that I’m not entirely opposed to it, as long as Gaijin devs come forth with either a forum post or even development post explaining precisely their reasoning (as well as overall player reasoning) for the change.

3 Likes

The F-5Cs CMs are for balance reasons, I don’t really want the F-8E(FN) to have CMs because it would be ahistorical, but the F-8P would be a balancing choice.

3 Likes

Yeah, I would honestly be extra okay with that

3 Likes