As a former Vought aircraft senior employee - it’s been my opinion the navy had made up its mind before the competition. The quandary was the new crusader vastly exceeded expectations in nearly all measurable categories. What was to be an insurance policy now became a serious consideration. The reduced deck space was a good catch by some here. A phantom could not be operated by the converted Essex or smaller carriers. Having designed many missile systems in the course of my career, missile reliability of sparrow at this point in its career was simply substandard. It matters not what your theoretical stowed kill load was if the missile isn’t reliable. You were far better off with more sidewinders and the speed and acceleration to deliver them quickly. Vietnam combat showed that rather decidedly. The substitute of the Vulcan on the airframe eliminated the jamming issues with linkage in the earlier colt 20mm. It’s all in the rear view mirror now - but I know of no pilot that had the chance fly the crusader III that chose the phantom over it. None. This crusader was cheaper, faster, more maneuverable, and likely easier to maintain at sea. The one down check I might give it were the ventral fins in the case of damage and coming back aboard ship. One can make the twin engine argument but that really boils down to how any engine degrades with damage. The J-57 had a reputation for not dying outright but continuing to deliver degraded thrust with damage. I have no doubt the crusader III engine would have been much the same. Would you rather have two engines that fail catastrophically or a single engine that fails gracefully? I believe the two engine argument is a red herring for that reason. In the course of my career I saw the government frequently select winners on the basis of a design conforming to a ‘school solution’ - whether there was any technical justification for said solution did not matter. That was the case here. Crusader III was in essence an F-16 long before that aircraft existed. A relatively light weight cheap effective fighter that could be continually upgraded with technology. There are few fighters flying today that could touch it in ACM, never mind adding fly by wire or other improvements over its career. To this day I remain convinced the navy made the wrong decision. It was going to take the school solution no matter what…even if it would be decades before missile reliability could come close to actually delivering the solution. The Vought design was call um as you see um - no use wishing for things decades in the future. You could ask any Vietnam grunt on seeing an F-4 with 2-500lb bombs just how ‘multirole’ phantom was in ground support when you take in the need for fuel, ecm, air to air, additional armor etc. There was a reason the A-4 and A-7 had successful careers. They were better bomb trucks than a phantom could ever be. Nuff said…

@smam7006

Жыл бұрын

I think that this plane converted to land use makes even more sense for the USAF. If you compare it to the century series of aircraft, it outperforms them in pretty much nearly every way. The Crusader III could have also been awesome for the USMC or countries like Israel.

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

It was an outstanding platform. There might have been two downsides on land use. The deep fuselage provided a large sail area so you would need to take care landing in severe crosswinds, which was never an issue with carrier landings into the wind. The landing gear was relatively narrow tracked, so just as with a spitfire, take heed. That same feature also helped with its speed though. Pretty much just training issues…The landing gear and the nose wheel in particular were much more robust than the F-8. Converted to recce it was easily faster and more survivable than a vigilante, but I doubt it would have ever been converted for nuclear weapon delivery. It was tough so it could have toss bombed had the desire been there. The main thing I had against phantom selection was that the phantom was born semi-‘toothless’ thanks to the shortfalls in sparrow and lack of a gun. The pilots knew it, the navy knew it. Even many years later in Israeli service with much later marks of both the airframe and sparrow, the vast majority of phantom kills were with sidewinders and other IR missiles. The phantom basically lived it’s entire operational life without a bvr missile that really did proper justice to the bvr concept. Again all water over the dam. Crusader III like it’s earlier namesake was unapologetically a fighter pilot’s aircraft designed to outfly and kill the enemy.

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

The j-75 proved itself to be a pretty tough engine in the F-105, and it would have been equally so in a crusader III. Twin J-79 in the phantom give you a bit more thrust but at the cost of doubling everything and vastly increasing total cost as well as doubling or tripling maintenance. In the end you are going to lose air frames in battle. Best to build them tough but recognize losses will be inevitable. Had a fly by wire variant with upgraded electronics eventually been done I think it would be no more difficult to handle than any F-16, which is also an inherently unstable aircraft by design. You could horse the j-75 into compressor stall if using the afterburner hard at certain speeds but that would have been an easy fix with mods to the afterburner, engine controls, or even slightly modifying the inlet internally. This was the fastest thing from subsonic to Mach 2 that I ever saw. Acceleration was fantastic as it was relatively clean aerodynamically. Given a modern engine a crusader III would have invented ‘super cruise’ or flight above Mach one without afterburner effortlessly…before we even knew that such a thing could in fact be reality.

@pyro1047

Жыл бұрын

Not to mention by the time SARH missiles became consistently viable, the F-4s were already well on their way to getting phased out and given to guard and reserve units anyways. By the Persian Gulf they were basically just used as missile trucks for SEAD.

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

@@pyro1047 exactly - even the radar in bad weather argument is largely meh - harriers had no problems conducting fleet defense with IR only in the falklands/bad weather against more capable land based aircraft. US AEW is far more advanced and would provide the stand-off required to stop anti ship missile launches when supported by a long range cap. Crusader III had the legs for that. The AIM-9C radar variant of sidewinder could have plugged the gap as sparrow evolved at a very low cost, just as it did on the F-8. I hate seeing money wasted, and our carriers would have been far better served with 20 percent more fighters on deck with missiles that actually worked than what we ended up fighting with.

This is an unexpected last-minute but very welcomed Christmas gift. Aside from its slack jaw air intake, it looks fast. Thank you you so much Ed and have a wonderfully Merry Christmas around your loved ones.

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

Жыл бұрын

Merry Christmas to you too Aaron.

@gsamov

9 ай бұрын

It really looks like it has an underbite

It's surprising that no-one thought to replace the weapons with a camera suite. With that altitude and speed, it would have made an excellent recon aircraft/spy plane.

@stevetournay6103

Жыл бұрын

That did happen with the original F-8; the last ones in USN service were RF-8G recon birds. But yes, the 3 would have been competition for that or the RA-5 Vigilante...

My old man has a bunch of paperwork and models from the "Super Crusader" project. USNA 1956 he loved the F-8 and after leaving active duty he went to work for Vought/ LTV .His favorite .

@gavinearls2935

Жыл бұрын

if indeed he did, would be great if you could share these or save them digitally for preservation

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

You should have those scanned and preserved - agree

@bad_pilot13official

Жыл бұрын

Yeah that would be very useful for making replicas in video games n stuff and general archiving

The XF8U-3 is certainly an interesting plane. Highly capable, just not what the Navy was looking for (The Navy wanted two crew and multirole capability, both of which the Crusader III/Super Crusader lacked)

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

Big mistake - the phantom is good multirole but it’s more expensive and can’t hold a candle to the crusader in ACM. Missile reliability in no way justified reliable BVR intercept…even through Vietnam.

@Tigershark_3082

Жыл бұрын

@@Derek-je6vg I'd disagree. Once the Navy introduced better missile maintenance and training for pilots, their Phantoms started doing really well. The Crusader III had a shorter lifespan than the Phantom, in my opinion, due to what it was designed for

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

Disagree - the kill ratio speaks for itself - f-8 was getting 6:1 which was way ahead of the f-4 - crusader III would have been way ahead of that. The sparrow never did well in Vietnam. Period. It couldn’t pull G and maintain lock. It was a bomber kill principally, and not designed for a furball unless you had a -very- cooperative target. Sidewinder, as it developed beyond its initial 2G limits was increasingly effective. ‘Better’ doesn’t mean a lot when you aren’t doing well to begin with. I think crusader III would have lasted just as long as phantom had it been fielded. One only need look at the likes of hawker hunters serving as long as they have. It’s always about the best pilot…but I think a good pilot in an f-4 would have a much easier time of it in a crusader III. I’m not aware of a single instance in tests where the F-4B/C ever beat crusader III in ACM. Every pilot I talked with was unanimous. Pilots want to be pilots at the heart of thing…they don’t want to babysit systems unless they have. The phantom forced them to do that hence the need for two crew. The crusader III didn’t. It still let the pilot be the pilot and focus on situational awareness and getting kills with a reliable system be it Vulcan or sidewinder. It’s all water over the dam - but no amount of training slats, guns and afterburners would ever get a phantom to the level of crusader III. The pilots knew it, they told everyone that would listen, but a concept unsupportable by the technology of the day was chosen because it was what the navy and pentagon wanted. The better design does not always win - something I learned the hard way over many decades. I applaud the efforts of top gun and re-educating pilots back into ACM with phantom…but they wouldn’t have been in that situation to begin with if they had left the tu-95 to phantom and the migs to crusader III. It would decades before reliable BVR combat was an operational reality.

@BruhMoment-re8nc

Жыл бұрын

@@Derek-je6vg While I don't disagree with you on the ACM of the Phantom, I still think the Navy made the correct choice, not just because it made one less plane to have to keep spare parts for, but also as what they wanted with the Phantom (even if the Phantom itself wasnt really suited for it due to technological limitations) was indeed the future of air combat However a big part of my heart that doesn't care about logistics and hindsight and yadda yadda yadda is very sad cuz god i love the F-8 its such a nice looking plane to me

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

Not sure I agree again … you had 2x the engine spares with phantom to include entire spare engines themselves. Components like Vulcan were ultimately common to both airframes. This was long before spreadsheets but every calculation we did showed we could get more Crusader III on any flight deck deck for less fuel, less maintenance, and fewer aviation techs. The phantom was basically gone by the time you got real reliable bvr intercept paired with a modern reliable missile (amraam)… in essence it flew its entire career waiting for good bvr missiles.

For me, if the Centurion is the archetypal main battle tank, the F4 is the archetypal jet warplane.

@babboon5764

Жыл бұрын

What have you got against the F 86 Saber or the EE Lightning? The MiG 15 even? Me 262 anyone? What's the criterion / the standard / the test?

@birkensafttt

Жыл бұрын

@@babboon5764 F4 was the grandfather of multi role fighters that dominate the skies today. It was arguably the first aircraft to perform air superiority, intercept, CAS, SEAD, and it often did the job better than dedicated fighters / interceptors / bombers

@babboon5764

Жыл бұрын

@@birkensafttt The Gloster Javellin did most of those at least a decade before. Jets which have appeared since the F4 have added more abilities to the tally &/or do them better. Don't get me wrong - I agree the Phantom was (in a couple of Airforces *still* is) a superb aircraft. On the other hand I'm trying to point out that once you get past George Cayley's Glider and later the wright flyer there's not really a single point.

Back in the 80's, while working at LTV's Grand Prairie, TX facility, I worked with some older engineers who had worked on the F8U-3. It was an absolute beast, with a top speed limited not by power, but by thermal heating of the windscreen. I have no doubt that it would have mauled an F-4 in a 1v1 dogfight. However, the Phantom was still the better aircraft, being far more versatile, as it's long service life demonstrated.

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

Not sure that’s true - also a former Vought guy - phantom was much more expensive in procurement and operations cost - crusader would eat any phantom alive regardless of mark. I’ll live with its lesser armament given its acceleration and ACM capability.

@rossanderson4440

Жыл бұрын

According to my cousin, the F-4 Phantom is proof that a brick can fly, if you put enough thrust behind it.

@sheeplord4976

Жыл бұрын

@@rossanderson4440 The F-4 was actually surprisingly aerodynamic. Not great, but no brick.

A friend of the family was a pilot in the Navy and flew both f8 and f4s. He always said the F8 would kick the F4's ass any day of the week.

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

Agree - pilots who had the choice to fly either usually chose the crusader first

What a wonderful Christmas gift. A video on one of my favorite "what could've been" aircraft. Say, how about a video on the YA-7F "Strikefighter" as a followup ? (as it is another fantastic (yet not chosen) Vought jet that can trace its lineage to the F-8)

I used to rebuild F-4 Phantom rate gyros in the RAF. Taken completely to bits then rebuild. Tiny things, yaw, roll and pitch, three on each. After about half a dozen, became quite a tedious job. Balance the gyro wheel well. 👍😎

This sounds just the like F-107 vs F-105 story, or indeed (as you linked) the Super Tiger, which I'd forgotten about (I watch all your brilliant videos)

Had they heard of the Mig-25 Foxbat at that time , this Crusader would have gone through

Thanks, Ed, I had seen pictures of this aircraft before but never knew the story. An amazing case of "what might have been", if there ever was one. Happy Christmas from across The Pond!

Good to have a Christmas post, especially on such an odd aircraft. Merry Christmas, Ed!

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

Жыл бұрын

Merry Christmas Serval.

In the UK F-4 fleet it took a fairly switched on Nav in the back seat to get the best out of that radar and its arcane display. Giving the pilot that job on top of fighting the aeroplane would have been a recipe for disaster.

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

That’s why Vought didn’t believe in carting sparrow at all at this point… given our druthers the new crusader would have been sidewinders supplemented by the likes of the radar 9C . The sparrow was forced on us…

Few aircraft have survived long as a single role combat platform. Flexibility is what makes a great and lasting aircraft. While the F-4 was a mediocre interceptor and dogfighter, it was a much more capable ground attack platform than the F8U-3. Hence the longevity of the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. Arguably other aircraft have done its jobs better, but nothing has done all of its jobs equally well. (I'm no fan of the Hornet, but I recognize its reasons for being.)

@Ushio01

Жыл бұрын

The F-4 was a great interceptor. The interceptor role is not to fight enemy fighters it's to kill bombers and attack aircraft. The F-4's original interceptor mission was to shoot down Soviet naval bombers before they could get in range to fire their anti-ship cruise missiles a vital duty as early ship launched SAM's were very short range, slow firing and only a few ships had them when the F-4 entered service. Imagine a US carrier group is escorting a convoy to Europe in the mid to late 60's after the USSR invades Western Germany. Tu-95's, Tu-16's and Tu-22's will be waiting loaded with anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles with 100km+ ranges. To counter this the USN has ships with Tartar and Terrier SAM missiles with best at the time range of 32km plus 7 ships in the entire USN with Talos the long range 100km SAM. That's what the F-4 is for to provide long range CAP and shoot down those bombers before they get in-range. Not engaging in aerial duals with MiG 17's and 19's or trying to chase down MiG 21's.

@babboon5764

Жыл бұрын

The Hornet is widely under-rated ............. That's not my knowledge speaking its Tug Wilson's (author of confessions of a Phantom pilot) he loved his Phantoms but rated the Hornet way more potent having flown both.

@tarmaque

Жыл бұрын

@@babboon5764 It kinda depends on which Hornet you're talking about. The original YF-17 that became the Hornet was actually the loser in the competition that brought us the F-16 Falcon. Not that it was a bad aircraft of course, but the F-16 outperformed it a lower price range. The F/A 18 Super-Hornet is the enlarged version that is more equivalent to the F-15 in many ways. I would suggest that the Phantom would be outclassed by either one, but in different ways. (Me not being an expert or anything.)

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

@@Ushio01 rather moot if the hit probability of your missile on a cooperative target is on the order of 5 percent - which was sparrow at the time. The f-4 as it came off the shelf was toothless because of the emphasis on sparrow in the face of repeatedly bad test data. There was a reason phantom pilots fired all four missiles at a single target in Vietnam - hoping that one might work. Given the speed and acceleration advantage of Crusader III over the phantom, I would venture it could -reliably- kill far more targets in fleet air defense, with a bonus of having more aircraft on deck than was possible with phantom. There was no Russian bomber ever made that would run away from or out-sprint the Crusader III to a launch position in a reasonable scenario. All depends on your AEW.

@Ushio01

Жыл бұрын

@@Derek-je6vg Multiple issues with your comment. The Phantom carried 4 sparrow and 4 sidewinder in comparison to either 3 sparrows or 4 sidewinders in the Crusader 3 and neither were planned to have guns. As to the Soviet bombers when they only need to get within several hundred km of the fleet. It's not WW2 were they have to get right ont op.

Missed Thailand as a user of the F8. Seen one of them in the early noughties at the Utapao airport.

Merry Christmas and thanks for awesome video! I think you left out the United States Marine Corps when mentioning the few users of the F-8 Crusader. The face on the F8U-3 Crusader III looks like an F-8 got goosed.

@offshoretomorrow3346

Жыл бұрын

Or The Tin Man from The Wizard Of Oz sprouted wings.

Interesting to consider what it might have achieved if it had been adopted, as newer technologies solved the radar-tracking issues for the missiles.

@babboon5764

Жыл бұрын

With that it would have been akin to the British F3 Tornado interceptor at its peak but two decades sooner and at high altitude (whether it could have undertaken the F3's job of hunting cruise misiles 'right down on the deck' is maybe not so certain)........... Maybe more EE Lightning with massivley more endurance?

This one didn't work out for Vought so they tried it again by going the other way. The YA-7F Strikefighter was their answer to the USAF request for a faster A-10. That didn't work out for them either.

@Idahoguy10157

Жыл бұрын

IIRC the proposed YA-7F was intended for the air-too-ground mission the USAF rolled the F-16 into. Much to the disappointment of the fighter mafia who wanted the F-16 as strictly air-too-air.

The F-8 was known as The MigMaster. That means it was pretty darn successful, Mr. Nash.

Merry Christmas sir. Love your videos, wish the Vought company was still with us

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

Жыл бұрын

Merry Christmas to you too :)

l never got a chance to fly the Crusader lll so the F-4 was my deal....Excellent video Mr Ed Nash....Thanks so much.... Shoe🇺🇸

As I understand it, it's speed was limited to that where the windshield started to melt. That while an even bigger engine was proposed.

Merry Christmas Ed and everyone 🎄

Got up early because I am so excited. And Santa has indeed left me a present to help me through all the shit on TV on Christmas day.

I have a 1/144 kit of this bird. I think it just moved way up in the queue. Good stuff Ed, keep it up!

@huwzebediahthomas9193

Жыл бұрын

Sounds quite an animal. 74,000 feet and capable of MACH 3 - wow. 👍

The Black Bunny VX-4 F-4 went to the RAF in 1984, and its cockpit is preserved in Liverpool.

I saw this jet in a f8 documentary, and it was hard to find any info on it. Thanks much!

Those ventral fins folded to be out of the way for landing and remained in the airflow. They didn't retract.

@SatumangoTheGreat

Жыл бұрын

I was wondering about that. But on some pictures shown, I can't see them...

I just love all the variations of the F8, what a beautiful and useful plane.

Fantastic content! Thank you.

Great work Ed!

Excellent video, Ed. Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas, thank you for all the great videos

Merry Christmas Ed and thanks for all the interesting videos all year always looking forward to them

Merry Christmas Ed. Your videos give us all so much joy, thank you.

Thanks Ed. Merry Christmas.😁

Merry Christmas Ed and a happy and holy new year. Looking forward to more great presentations in 2023.

Thanks for the Christmas gift. Really enjoying your channel!!!

Thank you and Merry Christmas 🎅

What a merry Chritsmas! Thank you!!!!

I really enjoy your channel. Merry Christmas Ed Nash

Merry Christmas Ed! 🎄 Have a wonderful day.

Still uploading this close before Christmas, you sweeten my evening, Ed. Thanks, and a joyful Christmas evening.

Fantastic video, as usual!!!!

Absolutely gorgeous craft. Merry Christmas my friends. 🇺🇸👍🏽🎄

Ed, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. I thoroughly enjoy each of your videos and your hard work over the year is very much appreciated. Thank you and see you often in the New Year. Cheers from Ottawa, ON.

Holidays best Ed. This 1 is sweet 1 for me. Many thanx for the gift 😁. 🎄😉

New sub here and happy to have found you. I really appreciate your book references for further study! Always good to have a recommendation! The Crusader III was always an interest to me and still is. What a brute!!

I remember collecting the Take Off series off magazines back in the 90s. And a feature on the F-8 Crusader. It was titled the.. The Last off the Gun Fighters....

Happy Christmas!

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

Жыл бұрын

You too :)

Happy Holidays, Ed!

If only budgets were unlimited...The comparison with the F-106 was valid. Besides having the same engine, the F-106 also used a double control stick for flight and missile guidance. Those two aircraft would have made a really interesting competition, though the Super Crusader had the handicap of being a Navy airplane.

@TheGrant65

Жыл бұрын

Pete/Ed, Yes, the F-106 Delta Dart would be worthy of its own vid; a great, underrated/semi-forgotten peer, in possibly the most competitive era for interceptors ever (e.g. MiG-21, Su-11, F-104, F-5, Mirage III, EE Lightning, Draken, and Shenyang J-6). In terms of USAF contemporaries, in raw speed and aerodynamic performance, including manoeuvrability the F-106 was superior to the F-104; it had better range than the F-4 and while the single-engine Delta Dart didn't quite have the acceleration of the Phantom, in straight line races, it could soon overtake the F-4. I believe that one of the only other air forces that looked seriously at the F-106 was the RAAF, although the Australian govt insisted on local production (by GAF) as a prime criterion, which was why that particular contract came down to a choice between the F-104 and the ultimate winner, the Mirage III. I guess that Convair had the advantage of incumbency, in that the F-102 (as direct precursor of the 106) was already flying. Also, the company - as the result of the Consolidated-Vultee merger - had a long-standing relationship with the USAF and its precursors (whereas Vought was a long-established navy supplier).

@petesheppard1709

Жыл бұрын

@@TheGrant65 Thanks! The F-106 was arguably the best interceptor of its day. For some really good interviews with Dart drivers, check out the Fighter Pilot Podcast, also on KZread.

Great video of a aircraft I only saw in a book once and forgot how interesting I found it.

The F-8 Crusader is one of the great planes in my book. Underrated.

You don't get hotter than the Crusader

Merry Christmas 2022!

The Vought has got a bit of an English Electric Lightning profile going on.

Hey Ed, Merry Christmas and a happy new year! I have just one question….. It has to do with those two tail fins that extend out the bottom of the aircraft….. How do they retract/extend and where do they go when they’ve not being used? I’ve seen this plane before and I’ve always wondered. Again, happiest of holidays sir!

​@EdNashsMilitaryMatters >>> A belated _MERRY CHRISTMAS_ to you, Sir. Also: Great video...👍

Both awesome aircraft and both extremely fast!

Merry christmas.

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

Жыл бұрын

Same to you!

Happy Holidays Ed.

Merry Christmas. There is a Crusader ten kilometres from me in the Rochefort aviation museum. Well worth a visit, right next to tge Ecole Gendarmery.

Merry Christmas! I love the F-8 Crusader and Crusader 3

Things you don't expect. Former Navy pilot, I remember landing at Navy Axillary Field, El Centro, California. In the 80's. While my bird was being gassed up, I took A walk to the nearest hanger, where I had been told there was a candy and coke machine. On entering the Hangar, lordy, lordy there was and F8 Crusader parked inside ! I thought they had all been flown to the bone yard to rest. While at base ops filling my flight plan I enquired about the F8: they said it had made an emergency landing due to a cockpit fire! The kicker was, that it was the last F8, in the Navy and that the pilot had a puppy in the cockpit that had pissed and that had caused smoke in the cockpit. leaving the hangar, I inspected the plane, and sure enough, you could still smell smoke near the front wheel bay area.

@raywhitehead730

Жыл бұрын

Bet they hauled it to the bone yard on a truck.

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

VFP-206 continued flying the RF-8G until the end of March 1987.

Fascinating as always. Merry Christmas Ed and all the best for 2023. NB - doesn't it look so much like a shark with that air intake??!

So many times too, it seems to come down to new vs old. A really good ultimate version of a design vs the new undeveloped design. It would have been interesting to see how the single pilot/EWO combination on the III would have worked in the skies over Vietnam though.

@babboon5764

Жыл бұрын

It would have urgently wanted cannon. Hitting something as agile as the Mig 17s flown by the North Vietnamese by trying to hold a radar lock on for the Sparrow missile whilst taking evasive action ............ I honestly do not think that would have been possible ......... It was hellish difficult for the Phantoms so they very frequently used their cannon if things got up close & personal - Which was, wisely, the NV pilot's main tactic.

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

@@babboon5764 exactly - and given that sparrow pssk at the time was at best was around 5-10% given a cooperative target that was the right thing to do. There was a reason phantom drivers tried firing all 4 sparrows simultaneously at single targets. They simply weren’t reliable. If we at Vought had had our druthers the sparrow would have been ditched and the Crusader III would have had loads of sidewinders to include the 9C, which was its radar variant. That would give you all weather as well as a very high reliable stowed kill count in addition to the Vulcan cannon. It’s what the Navy’s own data said - you can lead the horse to water but….

great vid

Hi Mr Nash and thanks for the excellent video. The Crusader as well as other aircraft before and after it, were also subjects of political decisions of which factories will eventually build an aircraft and how the management of aircraft factories serves the grand plan of military technology and resourcing. In other words: the strategists of US-Defence, (these people are not necessary servicemen) decide not only the requirements-achievement of the provided aircraft, but also the contract-delivery, the situation of the manufacturing plant and how much affect a specific company the political situation in the long term. Vought as well as Grumman were victims of this policy. P.S. Merry Christmas.

It looks so happy!

Definitely the best plane that never had a production run. This is what's on Wikipedia. "The F8U-3 program was cancelled with five aircraft built. Three aircraft flew during the test program, and, along with two other airframes, 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.[11] All of the Crusader IIIs were later scrapped."

Do a video on the XF-107 next!

Interesting plane. How about the follow on to the F-104, the CL-102 Lancer?

A great interesting video Mr.Nash. I have never heard much about this plane. Really what a pitty it was not accepted into the service.But not even one 20-30mm gun for the Gunslinger just in case? Was not the failure of aircraft launched AA guided missiles quite common during the Vietnam War? Of course the designers of the F8U-3 did not possess the hindsight. Happy hollidays have a good one.

@seanmalloy7249

Жыл бұрын

The US military was fixated on the concept that radar- and IR-homing missiles would eliminate the need for a gun, since combat would be at ranges well beyond the useful engagement range of a cannon. And then came Vietnam, with rules of engagement that required pilots to visually identify their targets before firing, completely negating the advantage of their long-range missiles, and often putting fighters in positions where the lack of a cannon became a significant disadvantage.

@sealove79able

Жыл бұрын

@@seanmalloy7249 Thank you. There were the Gunslinger and Thunderchief and the gun pod and gun chin for the F4 came along.

Never a disappointment! In content and Christmas deliveries!

Could we get a video on the A-7, and/or the impressive YA-7F?

Have a very Merry Christmas!

F-4 Phantom II. The world’s leading distributor of MiG parts

I find your analysis about Vietnam and the multirole the F-4 Phantom ended up in is excellent. But it still seems like the F11F-1 and F8U-3 still should have been adopted as interceptors by other nations for interception and fighter roles.

@harryspeakup8452

Жыл бұрын

Nobody wants low-volume aircraft that the US military have rejected unless they are being heavily subsidised by Uncle Sam. And understandably. From a procurement perspective you are on a much stronger bet if you are using an aircraft to which the US military is committed in large volume.

@SoloRenegade

Жыл бұрын

@@harryspeakup8452 It wasn't "rejected" by the US as you put it. The contract is for one design, doesn't mean the alternate couldn't be made in large numbers for export and fit another mission perfectly. F-5 overcame this. As did the YF-17. I'm sure I can find some other examples of aircraft losing primary contracts but still being purchased by others or for other roles if i looked for them. "Nobody wants low-volume aircraft", well that's exactly what they're going to get unless they bought from the US or Russia. Try again with an intelligent counter.

@Jusuff

5 ай бұрын

​@@SoloRenegadei don't think the US ever intended to buy the F-5. I could be wrong though

@SoloRenegade

5 ай бұрын

@@Jusuff sadly, that's my understanding as well, they bought them only to help boost international sales, and then used some for aggressors given their size and performance characteristics compared to things like the Mig21

One of those aircraft you'd have loved to see in service. It may have proven itself as a dogfighter but Robin Olds showed that the Phantom was quite capable of dealing with MiG21s with the right planning. And as a mud mover it was very capable in that role. In fact that is what the Royal Air Force bought them for. And the Vought F8 proved itself as a dogfighter. Maybe not as quickly as its sibling. Here's a thought. If it had won out against the F-4 would this video have a what if for the Phantom and how it had more potential than the Vought F8U-3

Superb Video as usual ..... What's NASA's phrase 'Routine Magic'? Was vaguely aware an enhanced 'super Crusader' had been developed, had no idea it was *that good* 'though. Having read Tug Wilson's book 'Confessions of a Phantom Pilot' (buy yourself a late Christmas present but shop arround for prices - the Printer may be cheapest) his description of using Sparrow and later SkyFlash needing manual radar 'steering' to target lends weight to the argument the US Navy made a very hard call to chose the F4 correctly. But what a phenomenal aeroplane Politicians once again caused to be sidelined.

Lots of interesting dead ends that we never can know what the reasons are but it is what it is

I'm curios about the use of the Conway un the type. How would it compare with the American engine. O know the Conway was used to render the VC10 the fastest airliner in the world once Concord was finished. But how much further development would have been required to put the engine into military service? Merry Christmas Ed.

Wow what a jet

Merry Christmas! I always thought the Crusader III was a cool looking aircraft. Something tells me those folding ventral fins would be asking for trouble on a carrier fighter though.

the twin engine / twin crew layout seems much more versatile and is more or less the default for carrier jets for a reason

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

Cept it’s to big for all the smaller Essex conversions in the navy fleet at that time…they couldn’t support phantoms…ever

You know a plane is fast when it has a J75 in it.

Got to see the Playboy Phantom II on a regular basis while stationed with VP-65, just across the runway from VX-4.

Please make a video about the dogfights between the Skyraiders and Vietnamese jets.

Thank you, Ed. A very interesting airplane indeed. I guess that its failure was due to the fact that it had neither the manoeuvrability of the F8, nor the flexibility and redundancy of the F4. I can only wonder how, without sidewinders, a gun and a second pair of eyes and hands, this heavy craft would have fared against nimble Vietnamese MiG-17s.

It looks like a Goblin Shark ...LITERALLY.

How can I only discover this aircraft today? I'm hella missing out...

If there ever was a plane that looked like a Great White Shark this was it! What a magnificent monster! But alas, it was not meant to be.

When you're standing right next to a Crusader, there is nothing in your brain that says this thing could possibly be agile. It doesn't even look like it should fly.

@Derek-je6vg

Жыл бұрын

I would say that about a phantom - it proves a brick can fly with enough thrust

@jtjames79

Жыл бұрын

@@Derek-je6vg Funny enough I did say that about the Phantom. Until I got under a Crusader. It's on a whole nother level.

fascinatng upload, thank you.....i learned a lot..............h6

As a matter of fact I am not even going to watch this as of 1:19am PST but I am however going to wait until at least a full 12 hours until watching it, because anticipation is key

How quickly do you think it would burn through it's fuel supply at mach 3

How did the ventral fins retract?