Why the love for the Super Crusader? (XF8U-3 Crusader III)

You won’t find literature showing Sidewinder on XF8U-3 because at the time heatseekers were considered a lesser capability. The AIM-9 on F-8 mounted on rails. Sparrow was dropped. Why wouldn’t Sidewinder still fit in its traditional locations on the Crusader family the same on Crusader III? Pretty sure the Sidewinder-free look was about politics

Why the love for the Crusader III?

Coz I grew up reading the coffee table warplane books of the 80s where the Phantom was painted as a disaster and the USN as idiots for neglecting a gun on their fighters.

In that light, the super-high-performance Crusader seemed like such a better proposition.

Later on I discover that a) the Crusader III didn’t have gun either b) the stories about NASA Crusader III pilots wiping the floor with USN Phantom pilots may have been exaggerated c) Phantom performance over Vietnam was not completely disastrous anyway

Much like with my other cherished ‘everybody knows‘ opinions from the same period of my childhood (TSR2 was the best ever and we were idiots for cancelling it, P1154 would have been amazing, if only the RN had still had Ark and Eagle the Argentinian junta would never have invaded FI and if they had it would have been a lossless walkover for the UK) I’m now prepared to think that the truth may have been a little more nuanced.

But————–using common sense and logic, a fighter should be a fighter. It should NOT be encumbered and slowed down by pylons to carry bombs. If you want to bomb, use an attack bomber like the A-4 or a medium bomber.

Using common sense and logic , most country cant affrod an adequate seperate fleet of fighter and bomber

A-7: 4 of the 6 wing pylons are wet, the inner and outer pair.
F-8: 2 hard points on the fuselage with twin rails for 4 AAMs. Only 2 hard points on the wing afaik.
XF8U: AFAIK only 3 fuselage pylons for Sparrows.

But————–using common sense and logic, a fighter should be a fighter. It should NOT be encumbered and slowed down by pylons to carry bombs. If you want to bomb, use an attack bomber like the A-4 or a medium bomber.

good idea.
so looking at hardpoints

A-7:
6 hard points on the wing. All 6 seem to be wet points, and also able to carry large loads
2 hard points on the fueselage (side) for sidewinders

F-8:
4 hard points on the wing. 2 seem to be wet
4 hard points on the fueselage for sidewinders

XF8U:
based on models
4 hard points on the wing
4 on the fueselage

A-7: 4 of the 6 wing pylons are wet, the inner and outer pair.
F-8: 2 hard points on the fuselage with twin rails for 4 AAMs. Only 2 hard points on the wing afaik.
XF8U: AFAIK only 3 fuselage pylons for Sparrows.

And now we need a chart of the XF8U-3 and F-8 to compare it.

The III was MUCH faster

It is slightly faster by 0.2 Mach. Regardless , those top speed rarely achieved in real combat

and a MUCH better dog fighter

That debatable F-8 may have better turn rate than the hard wing F-4J of US navy , but against the slatted wing F-4E or F-4EJ ? probably not

good idea.
so looking at hardpoints

A-7:
6 hard points on the wing. All 6 seem to be wet points, and also able to carry large loads
2 hard points on the fueselage (side) for sidewinders

F-8:
4 hard points on the wing. 2 seem to be wet
4 hard points on the fueselage for sidewinders

XF8U:
based on models
4 hard points on the wing
4 on the fuselage

But it is not all about hardpoints, especially when comparing the F-8 and the A-7. True the F-8 and A-7 shared a similar shape, but they were quite a bit different. The F-8 was a fighter sure and simple- (actually interceptor might be a better term but the Navy did not use that term much) Yes the F-8 was later used in a limited attack role in Vietnam, more so when the air threat was reduced and when the smaller Essex class carriers could not handle the Phantom but still had the F-8’s on board. The A-7 was an attack aircraft from the start, with larger span, a turbofan engine (no afterburner) and a much increased maximum take off weight and the beefing up required to do so. The A-7 had a fatter fuselage which helped fit the engine, and the fuel. The A-7 had quite an impressive useful load of fuel and weapons.

There are a lot of people who love the XF8U-3 Crusader III in this forum
even to the point they feel it should’ve been chosen over the F-4.

my question is why?
I think it could have a performance edge over the Phantom Jr in some areas.
but the Phantom’s key point was its ability to function as a ground attacker. Especially long after its a2a abilities were supplanted by other fighters.

the XF8U-3 Crusader III looks like it simply didn’t have the space for them on its narrow fueselage and wings.

The III was MUCH faster, and a MUCH better dog fighter. A Figher is supposed to be a fighter. The ignorance of trying to make one plane all things to all people reached its zenith when the F-111 was developed. It was a huge aircraft that the pilot couldnt see behind. It was so big and so heavy it made a fairly good medium bomber.

NASA pilots that few one of the 5 Crusader IIIs on the east coast would attack and dog fight F4s from Pax River, and wax their asses every time. The Navy got pissed and demanded the the NASA pilots quit, since it was such an embarrassment. Yes the F4 was a good aircraft, but in the fighter roll the Crusader III could have them for lunch any time they wanted to. The winner almost always goes to the pilot that flies higher, faster, and can out turn his opponent.

I agree, but remember looks can be deceiving…The Crusader’s baby brother, the A-7, seemed to carry a lot.
(Not to mention the Starfighter in NATO service).

I see there is a new book on the type, it might answer your question.

good idea.
so looking at hardpoints

A-7:
6 hard points on the wing. All 6 seem to be wet points, and also able to carry large loads
2 hard points on the fueselage (side) for sidewinders

F-8:
4 hard points on the wing. 2 seem to be wet
4 hard points on the fueselage for sidewinders

XF8U:
based on models
4 hard points on the wing
4 on the fueselage

It did ONE role. But it did it well. Unfortunately it was extremely limited in practical use. Think of MiG-29A, only without helmet cued missiles. MiG-23M was probably the closest analogy in the west, but without STOL. But if flying high and fast – and relatively agile for it day – was your goal, then this is your machine.

…the XF8U-3 Crusader III looks like it simply didn’t have the space for them on its narrow fueselage and wings.

I agree, but remember looks can be deceiving…The Crusader’s baby brother, the A-7, seemed to carry a lot.
(Not to mention the Starfighter in NATO service).

I see there is a new book on the type, it might answer your question.

Because of crazy awesome looks. Its a fricken mach 2+ flying Megalodon loaded with best AA missiles at the time.

this thread needs pics

upon google search.. Its one of the ugliest jets Ive ever seen

Because of crazy awesome looks. Its a fricken mach 2+ flying Megalodon loaded with best AA missiles at the time.