I served in a f-8u2ne squadron; the night fighter electronic version. Beautiful plane, except for constant radar maintenance. The f4h was a truck compared to the f-8u3 sports car.
Super Deal! A truly GR8 vid, As a "Huge" F-8, it matched well w/ all the reference material I have, kudos. It's wonderful to see 0340, 0341 & 7085. Many thanx 👍👍.
Bought had some good ideas my favorite warbird of all is the f4 corsair and I love the fact that the Crusader is known as the last gun fighter great video you should really have more subs
Your detailed information suggests this was a formidable aircraft in every respect. I knew of the model, yet did not know of its abilities. Thanks, keep them coming.
I grew up near a Marine Corp Air Base and would regularly watch F8U Crusaders flying over my home. I even had one in my model collection of military aircraft. Honestly and IMO, they weren’t the most attractive military jets of the Vietnam War era compared to an F4 Phantom or an F105 Thunderchief, but they were an incredibly effective Carrier Aircraft.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Crusader was a much cleaner yet older design. Biggest drawback that I was personally involved with... anything Chance/LTV were hydraulic leakers and bastards to repack.
are you sure they were effective? from what i remember reading, 800 out of the 1100 built were involved in some kind of accident due to the poor handling of the plane. There was a reason this plane was called the "Ensign Killer"
The Super Crusader failed the domestic market but I guess it could have been offered to France and the UK. With their smaller carriers, and lack of home grown supersonic ship-based fighter/interceptor projects, it would have been a great deal for all parties involved. France had to operate their original F8 Crusaders from the 50s until the late 90s for a lack of a proper replacement for their 45.000/50.000 tons range carriers.
I met George Spangenberg after he retired. What he really thought was that both the U-3 and F4H were too reliant on unproven missile technology and BVR tactics. He really preferred the U-3 because if the technology failed you would still have a dominant air superiority fighter. This was born out in Vietnam where air combat still took place in the same regime as WWII and Korea and where the original Crusader had more kills, fewer losses with far few sorties than the Phantom prior to the 1968 bombing pause.
But the US Navy addressed the limitations of the F-4 not only with installing the M61 _Vulcan_ gun and putting in front slats on the wings, but also creating the famous _Top Gun_ training school to improve tactics for pilots. After _Top Gun_ became operational, the kill rate by F-4's over MiG's in North Vietname dramatically improved.
@@Sacto1654 The Navy did not add a gun. They improved the AIM-9. The first FWS classes used F8s flown by experienced pilots and even at the end of the training syllabus the Crusaders was still superior to the Phantom. The Air Force added the gun but not the improved missile and their kill went down in 1972. Outside ofa very few senior officers the Air Force no longer had any trained fighter pilots. The Navy still did. What the FWS taught F4 crew is don't get into turning fight with a MiG and that they had to fly their aircraft to limits of the envelope to be successful.
Arguably, had Vought looked at the attack role in subsequent varients, they would have built the plane. Furthermore, had they offered it to the Air Force against the F-104, they would have found a receptive audience. The commonality between the F-105 and F-106 would have been the same advantage the F-16 enjoys with the F-15. Why not sell it to our allies? How about Israel, Germany, France, and Italy flying Crusader IIIs instead of the far more dangerous Starfighter?
The XF8U-3 wasn't offered, it was the F8U, F11F-1F, F-105 and Lightning in competition against the F-104. I agree with the general idea that a F-8 derived land-based fighter would have been preferable for the NATO requirement; the design could have been simplified in some ways, leading to something along the lines of the YA-7F. That said, for low level strike it's hard to beat those tiny wings on the F-104. An F-8 or F-11 variant would have made a better fighter but the intended role was deploying tactical nukes to delay a Soviet invasion. With that in mind the -104 and -105 seem like the best candidates. Now, the real shame is that they all weren't built around Orenda Iroquois engines. 😶🌫
The f-104 wasn''t flown by Israel or France, If anyone thinks France was buying anything but the Mirage III, I have a bridge to sell you. And the French were the only people willing to sell armaments to Israel in the /fifities
@@colbeausabre8842 France bought Crusaders for their carrier. Asking them to shop Vought again wouldn't be all that outrageous. I agree Dessault had a tight grip on French aviation, and it's only getting tighter. But the Mirage is not a carrier aircraft. At least not until the Mirage 2000 came along. I'll also admit, without hesitation, the Raphael is a mean looking airplane. France has every reason to be proud of it. I still think Finland would be wise to buy those over F-35s. Hell, Canada would be wise to buy those over F-35s. But back to this mean old fighter. It had better handling upon landing. That alone could have saved quite a few lives where the F-104 was concerned. The next aircraft in the video series, the Super Tiger, would have been a better choice as well. So far as the Phantom goes, it speaks volumes when B-1B handling comes up when discussing it.
"Accelerates from Mach .9 to Mach 2 in only 3 minutes." The Saturn V Moon rocket went from Mach .9 to 6000 MPH in half that time. But it couldn't turn on a dime!
Thank's a lot for this document. Very nice pictures never-seen for me. Is it true that flight tests have been stopped while the speed expectations where at the mach 3 range?
Of course, thank you for watching! To my knowledge there was no expectation for the baseline F8U-3 to reach mach 3. I can confidently state that whether the expectation was there or not, it would not have been feasible for the finished product: the heat and structural strain would simply have been too much. The only variant which would've addressed these structural issues (and was specially designed to fly at or past mach 3) would have been the J58 equipped F8U-3, but it was never made, and would've included enough changes enough to be considered a super-super Crusader.
@@hermeshistory1731 I'm an old chap living in Toulouse (France) and I have served in the French Navy as "avionic", but unfortunatly not on the F8, but on the Etendard IV-M. We had fierce "competition" between 14F/12F and 11F flotillas when sailing on Foch or Clémenceau aircraft carriers. Exceptional remembering for me. Thank you again for these rare pictures.
@@hermeshistory1731 Of course F8 was unbeatable in interception as the Etendard IV-M was a real "flying iron", but then the Super Etendard made his history in the Malvinas coupled with the Exocet AM39 missile.
@@hermeshistory1731 I can attest to that because when I first checked out on the F-4B, I went up for my Mach 2 run that all of us in the squadron were required to perform, but due to a glitch in the computer that controlled the instruments I could only reach Mach 1.5. I left it in afterburner longer than I should have because I wanted to complete the requirement. After landing, and doing a walk-around inspection, wherever there was an access panel, there were charred areas around the leading edges of the panels. The maintenance officer theorized that I was probably exceeding Mach 2.5. For the F-8 to have reached Mach 3, it would have had to have many mods to the skin and structure of the entire frame and I do not believe it would have been practical.
I NEVER FORGOT THIS AIRCRAFT, I believe it was the only one with variable incidence wing, then their was a smaller model, in Vietnam days as the A7 CORSAIR,,,,,🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The A-7 and the F-8 had almost nothing in common except looks. The A-7 was a pig with no AB and the wing did not move. The F-8 wing was not a variable wing. It was either up or down with no variation in between but I guess you could call it variable as you might call the landing gear variable.
@@rudyyarbrough5122 variable geometry vs variable incident. The F-8 was a hanger glider w/ the wing up. Power & stick management were a lot different. 😉
@@rudyyarbrough5122 Actually that up and down as you call it was actually a Variable-incidence wing so the OP is 100% correct and you are wrong. (week 3 AMH A school. The A7 was DESIGNED as a sub sonic ATTACK aircraft. Using your logic the A4 Skyhawk was a pig. Somehow maybe I'm wrong but I doubt you ever served on a airwing at sea during that time in a war. I personally saw a A7 come back with 2' hole straight through the wing (SAM did not detonate)... non barracaded landing. That pig was one tough sob. It had it's problems... mostly hydraulic but that was LTV design at the time, same with the F8.
4 the F-4 had over the F8U-3; Two-of Crew, and then Engines; Range, un-refueled, but carried aloft; And, the Canopy (soon to be fixed at Vought) that kept the F-4 "near" but-not better-than, the F8U-3. Had Vought "fixed" that ONE issue, I think it could've gone almost Mach-3 when 'light' on fuel-load, and was at the 1-to-1 Thrust/Weight threshold. Vought chose to 'Restrict' it's True top-end, as they worried the plexiglass might melt If the plane went Too Fast, for Too long. Oh, and, it wasn't a 'bomb Truck', Yet...
Sorry if I'm writing only now as saw only 15 min ago but I always liked your previous videos but I keep on forgetting to to subscribe but I just did now. That said the F8U-3 despite having superlative general performance compared to the F-4 I believe that it had less development upgrading and would not have the great versatility of the rival, but it comes to my mind that over Vietnam War the pilots of the F-4 were screaming to have guns installed, were would the guns be installed on the F8U-3 without creating compressor stalls with the scoop so low? I don't think it could be done so easily like F8 that was conceived from the start. Anyway good job 👍👍
Amazing aircraft, but I'm shocked, (not) that they stripped "the last gun fighter" of its guns. A failing of more than one aircraft of the era including the F-4. This however is one that admittedly I haven't heard much about. Nicely done sir.🤝❤🇺🇸
The production Crusader III still would've had the Colts, though they were frankly useless due to the poorly designed feeding mechanism. The feeding system would jam under anything more than 1 G, and there was no recocking system to clear jams. Basically, if your guns jammed mid-flight, they just became dead weight. The Crusader scored 17 out of the 19 total kills with Sidewinders, anyway.
I'm always amazed that Vought didn't pit this against the USAF's F-107, but, I'm guessing, Vought didn't have the Computer to 'lob-launch' Tac-Nukes, nor the Internal Bay the F-105 & YF-107 had built-in. It handily out-ran, out climbed and out-turned Both USAF planes! I think it even could have contested the F-104 in Over-Seas Sales, had Vought considered such.
Very good, very informative! Suggestion: Slow down when speaking. Try to make your narration sound as if you are speaking from memory rather than reading a script. Also, leave the text on a bit longer so that average readers can absorb it. Otherwise,.excellent material! I subscribed.
The cancellation of The F8U-3 resulted in substantial layoffs for the company, with about 2,500 people being cut from the 16,000 strong company on December 17th, 1978. Later on, in 1992, Vought was bought by The Carlyle Group and Northrop, later Northrop Grumman. Hope that answers the question!
I think is a aircraft it was a technological marvel. But strategically, the days of the pure interceptor were fading. It has the same flaws as the English Electric lightning. Really fast. But lightly armed and little multi-role capability. More importantly, combat would show the Sparrow left a lot to be desired performance wise.
According to George Spangenberg both the U-3 and F4H were too reliant on unproven missile technology and BVR tactics, but the advantage of the U-3 over the Phantom was precisely that, once the technology failed, a manuverable and easy to fly aircraft was still there. Yeah, the U-3 was a pure interceptor, but that was easily fixable. See the A-7 Corsair II, that had double the hardpoints with pretty much the same wing and fuselage than the F-8 Crusader. A fighter-bomber variant of the U-3 was feasible.
Maneuverability is nice. But you don't have any weapons to do with it. It needed the Sidewinder and a gun would be nice. The lack of a second crew man to handle radar is also a bit of an issue.
@@WALTERBROADDUS The aircraft was designed to have the same gun layout than the F8, simply the guns had never been installed in the prototypes. And it was intended to carry 4 Sidewinders.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Also for the F8 the use of guns (that were also pretty unreliable, almost all the foreign customers replaced them) was absolutely residual. Almost all of his aerial victories were due to Sidewinders.
Totally love the plane. Definitely a better PLANE than F-4. But, given all the shortcomings/unreliabilities of those days' electronics components and sensors, armed with just three AIM-7s, it would have made a worse WEAPON SYSTEM than F-4, unfortunately.
I flew them both and the F-8 was definitely a better air-to-air plane and it felt more like being a part of the plane instead of riding in it like the F-4. But for the multirole requirements that the Navy and Marines had, the F-4 was by far the best. All of the fighters of that generation had the same issue with visibility and I never understood why after the Mustang bubble canopy, the manufacturers went to that built-in design of the F-4, F-8, F-11, A-5, A7, F-104, F-105, F-106. It took the next generation to go BACK to the bubble canopy.
We fought hard to dump the sparrow and just use sidewinder - as the sparrow was a dog of a missile at this time.. the navy’s own test data showed that. They would have none of it…
This aircraft could not meet the evolving requirements for a front line Naval fighter/attack aircraft. It lacked the volume and the generator capacity to run the most moderen look down, beyond visual range radar systems and ECM gear, and did not have nearly enough payload, and it only had one engine. It was obsolete even before it took its first flight.
It's a really interesting comparison to the BAC Lightning. Great video, but please speak just a bit more slowly. It's like an auction or calling a horse race.
1st time on the channel here, and found commendable work on an often overlooked program. I really struggled with the crazy pace of the narration though - way, way too fast and detracted significantly from my enjoyment. Thanks
@@Derek-je6vg Everyone's eyes see differently. For me, the shape of the Phantom is quite 'erotic'. I have models of this plane in all versions and scales :) Also, I really like the basic design of the Crusader...But that 'Super Crusader' was a really funny design.
The people in charge of getting the aircraft just didn’t see it : The US. Needed both aircraft ! It’s only money , when has that ever been a problem for them ! $$$
Just subscribed - great info and great references. If you haven’t done so already, check out Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles, similar to your channel in concept. As others have mentioned, consider slowing your speech. Many aviation enthusiasts are older and prefer a slow delivery and don’t mins spending more time consuming a video. Cheers!
The F8U-3 and the F-107 are two examples that break the arguments of the Avro Arrow being unfairly cancelled because of corruption and interference. We were "left with" a bomb truck that held speed and altitude records, the Phantom-II, not bad at all.
I think the West German Luftwaffe would of been doing real good with this plane. It would of been developed with multi roll air-to-ground attack bombing capability and carry a NUKE. This would of been better than the F-104G.
A can of worms. They changed hands, merged, sold, and reorganized about every 10 minutes and are now owned by Triumph. Boeing bought the 787 plant in Charleston from Vought.
The A7 had been the last major contract won by Vought. In 1992 the company had been acquired by Carlyle Group, then by Northrop-Grumman, now is of Triumph Group.
At that time, nothing really stood in the way of the F-104, due to corruption and payola offered by Lockheed sales crew, and the officials who accepted these payments ensured that not the best aircraft was always considered.
My favorite description of the F-4 is "you can make a brick fly if you put a big enough engine on it"- don't know who said it, and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing. The Crusader seems much more elegant
Not sure what they were thinking. One of the best things about the Crusader was it's maneuverability which earned it the nickname "the last gunfighter". While the Super Crusader was still maneuverable, with the increased speed, it wasn't really necessary. In fact, it was superfluous, as dogfights take place at much lower speeds. So you end up complicating the design by introducing new components, which were sometimes prone to failure, when you already had a superb aircraft.
This thing was kinda meant to be more of an interceptor than close-quarters dogfighter, hence having a far more powerful radar and AIM-7 Sparrows. It also had absolutely zero ability to do any sort of ground attack, like what the Navy required, hence why the Phantom was chosen.
That was the theory. Reality, when the "not manuverability, or guns, needed" F4 had been introduced, and used in actual combat, was that high speed could not be mantained in combat, because you had to manuver to come in launch position, and sustained turning decreased speed.
@@Tigershark_3082 It had zero ability to do any sort of ground attack because the Navy didn't require it at the start. The bid was for an interceptor/interdictor. Otherwise it would have had 6 hardponts, like the A7.
why care about maneuverability when it was designed withought a gun? and it needs to be in autopilot to use the mistles anyway so it defeats the purpose.
![The Plane That Cut Off Your Arm If You Wanted To Land | CANT Z.501 Gabbiano [Aircraft Overview #65]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uQHhwjq9aOM/mqdefault.jpg)
Dang, this is a really nice overview of a super underrated fighter. Surprised me to see this channel so small, you have a lot of potential!
It sounds cliché but that truly means a lot. Thank you so much!
New video soon (hopefully)
@@hermeshistory1731 do you have the book that you talked about earlier in the video??? And would you be talking about the f-8e or just other aircraft?
This video is really interesting, the research work you have done is just remarkable.
Congratulations to you!
Thank you so much, and I'm so glad you enjoyed it! You are too kind!
I'm really glad someone finally made a video on this plane
I served in a f-8u2ne squadron; the night fighter electronic version. Beautiful plane, except for constant radar maintenance. The f4h was a truck compared to the f-8u3 sports car.
Super Deal! A truly GR8 vid, As a "Huge" F-8, it matched well w/ all the reference material I have, kudos.
It's wonderful to see 0340, 0341 & 7085. Many thanx 👍👍.
Bought had some good ideas my favorite warbird of all is the f4 corsair and I love the fact that the Crusader is known as the last gun fighter great video you should really have more subs
Just found you and based on this one video you have a new subscriber
Nice work. Another fighter competition I always wondered about was the one the F-15 won, wouldn't mind seeing the losers of that.
Your detailed information suggests this was a formidable aircraft in every respect. I knew of the model, yet did not know of its abilities. Thanks, keep them coming.
Nice overview. Thank you
My pleasure! Thank you for watching!
F-4 has to be the most average plane ever when compared to its contemporaries.
I grew up near a Marine Corp Air Base and would regularly watch F8U Crusaders flying over my home. I even had one in my model collection of military aircraft. Honestly and IMO, they weren’t the most attractive military jets of the Vietnam War era compared to an F4 Phantom or an F105 Thunderchief, but they were an incredibly effective Carrier Aircraft.
F8 ...not attractive?....sacre blue! Das ist nicht Akzeptabel!
Seriously though, in my opinion, its the best looking fighter around! Its a man-eater!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Crusader was a much cleaner yet older design. Biggest drawback that I was personally involved with... anything Chance/LTV were hydraulic leakers and bastards to repack.
are you sure they were effective? from what i remember reading, 800 out of the 1100 built were involved in some kind of accident due to the poor handling of the plane. There was a reason this plane was called the "Ensign Killer"
Man. This would have eaten up Mig 21s like doritos.
The Super Crusader failed the domestic market but I guess it could have been offered to France and the UK. With their smaller carriers, and lack of home grown supersonic ship-based fighter/interceptor projects, it would have been a great deal for all parties involved. France had to operate their original F8 Crusaders from the 50s until the late 90s for a lack of a proper replacement for their 45.000/50.000 tons range carriers.
I met George Spangenberg after he retired. What he really thought was that both the U-3 and F4H were too reliant on unproven missile technology and BVR tactics. He really preferred the U-3 because if the technology failed you would still have a dominant air superiority fighter. This was born out in Vietnam where air combat still took place in the same regime as WWII and Korea and where the original Crusader had more kills, fewer losses with far few sorties than the Phantom prior to the 1968 bombing pause.
But the US Navy addressed the limitations of the F-4 not only with installing the M61 _Vulcan_ gun and putting in front slats on the wings, but also creating the famous _Top Gun_ training school to improve tactics for pilots. After _Top Gun_ became operational, the kill rate by F-4's over MiG's in North Vietname dramatically improved.
@@Sacto1654 The Navy did not add a gun. They improved the AIM-9. The first FWS classes used F8s flown by experienced pilots and even at the end of the training syllabus the Crusaders was still superior to the Phantom. The Air Force added the gun but not the improved missile and their kill went down in 1972. Outside ofa very few senior officers the Air Force no longer had any trained fighter pilots. The Navy still did. What the FWS taught F4 crew is don't get into turning fight with a MiG and that they had to fly their aircraft to limits of the envelope to be successful.
Imagine if this and the Ultra Sabre pushed thru , it would look like Star Wars in the 60s!
Arguably, had Vought looked at the attack role in subsequent varients, they would have built the plane.
Furthermore, had they offered it to the Air Force against the F-104, they would have found a receptive audience. The commonality between the F-105 and F-106 would have been the same advantage the F-16 enjoys with the F-15. Why not sell it to our allies? How about Israel, Germany, France, and Italy flying Crusader IIIs instead of the far more dangerous Starfighter?
The Starfighter had… non-engineering advantages in sales.
The XF8U-3 wasn't offered, it was the F8U, F11F-1F, F-105 and Lightning in competition against the F-104.
I agree with the general idea that a F-8 derived land-based fighter would have been preferable for the NATO requirement; the design could have been simplified in some ways, leading to something along the lines of the YA-7F.
That said, for low level strike it's hard to beat those tiny wings on the F-104. An F-8 or F-11 variant would have made a better fighter but the intended role was deploying tactical nukes to delay a Soviet invasion. With that in mind the -104 and -105 seem like the best candidates.
Now, the real shame is that they all weren't built around Orenda Iroquois engines. 😶🌫
The f-104 wasn''t flown by Israel or France, If anyone thinks France was buying anything but the Mirage III, I have a bridge to sell you. And the French were the only people willing to sell armaments to Israel in the /fifities
@@colbeausabre8842 France bought Crusaders for their carrier. Asking them to shop Vought again wouldn't be all that outrageous.
I agree Dessault had a tight grip on French aviation, and it's only getting tighter. But the Mirage is not a carrier aircraft. At least not until the Mirage 2000 came along. I'll also admit, without hesitation, the Raphael is a mean looking airplane. France has every reason to be proud of it. I still think Finland would be wise to buy those over F-35s. Hell, Canada would be wise to buy those over F-35s.
But back to this mean old fighter. It had better handling upon landing. That alone could have saved quite a few lives where the F-104 was concerned. The next aircraft in the video series, the Super Tiger, would have been a better choice as well. So far as the Phantom goes, it speaks volumes when B-1B handling comes up when discussing it.
@@Kabayoth It's "Rafale".
That intake reminds me of Bubba's lower lip from 'Forest Gump'....
Really enjoyed this video. I loved the F8U.
"Accelerates from Mach .9 to Mach 2 in only 3 minutes."
The Saturn V Moon rocket went from Mach .9 to 6000 MPH in half that time. But it couldn't turn on a dime!
Thank's a lot for this document. Very nice pictures never-seen for me. Is it true that flight tests have been stopped while the speed expectations where at the mach 3 range?
Of course, thank you for watching! To my knowledge there was no expectation for the baseline F8U-3 to reach mach 3. I can confidently state that whether the expectation was there or not, it would not have been feasible for the finished product: the heat and structural strain would simply have been too much. The only variant which would've addressed these structural issues (and was specially designed to fly at or past mach 3) would have been the J58 equipped F8U-3, but it was never made, and would've included enough changes enough to be considered a super-super Crusader.
@@hermeshistory1731 I'm an old chap living in Toulouse (France) and I have served in the French Navy as "avionic", but unfortunatly not on the F8, but on the Etendard IV-M. We had fierce "competition" between 14F/12F and 11F flotillas when sailing on Foch or Clémenceau aircraft carriers.
Exceptional remembering for me. Thank you again for these rare pictures.
@@stabilo3170 Wow, that's really cool, thank you for sharing your story! It's always awesome to hear peoples connections to aviation and its history!
@@hermeshistory1731 Of course F8 was unbeatable in interception as the Etendard IV-M was a real "flying iron", but then the Super Etendard made his history in the Malvinas coupled with the Exocet AM39 missile.
@@hermeshistory1731 I can attest to that because when I first checked out on the F-4B, I went up for my Mach 2 run that all of us in the squadron were required to perform, but due to a glitch in the computer that controlled the instruments I could only reach Mach 1.5. I left it in afterburner longer than I should have because I wanted to complete the requirement. After landing, and doing a walk-around inspection, wherever there was an access panel, there were charred areas around the leading edges of the panels. The maintenance officer theorized that I was probably exceeding Mach 2.5. For the F-8 to have reached Mach 3, it would have had to have many mods to the skin and structure of the entire frame and I do not believe it would have been practical.
Awesome video. BUT dude you gotta slow down the info transfer.......
Had a picture of this plane in the local museum and always wondered what it was about
I NEVER FORGOT THIS AIRCRAFT, I believe it was the only one with variable incidence wing, then their was a smaller model, in Vietnam days as the A7 CORSAIR,,,,,🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The A-7 and the F-8 had almost nothing in common except looks. The A-7 was a pig with no AB and the wing did not move. The F-8 wing was not a variable wing. It was either up or down with no variation in between but I guess you could call it variable as you might call the landing gear variable.
Lol.... smaller? I have seen pictures of the TF-8A next to a TA-7C. The -7C is big. Shorter sure, smaller no. 👍👍
@@rudyyarbrough5122 variable geometry vs variable incident. The F-8 was a hanger glider w/ the wing up. Power & stick management were a lot different. 😉
@@rudyyarbrough5122 Actually that up and down as you call it was actually a Variable-incidence wing so the OP is 100% correct and you are wrong. (week 3 AMH A school. The A7 was DESIGNED as a sub sonic ATTACK aircraft. Using your logic the A4 Skyhawk was a pig. Somehow maybe I'm wrong but I doubt you ever served on a airwing at sea during that time in a war.
I personally saw a A7 come back with 2' hole straight through the wing (SAM did not detonate)... non barracaded landing. That pig was one tough sob. It had it's problems... mostly hydraulic but that was LTV design at the time, same with the F8.
@@michaelgautreaux3168 Do you see where I said it was smaller?
Ohhhh the Unicorn F8u-3 ❤
4 the F-4 had over the F8U-3; Two-of Crew, and then Engines; Range, un-refueled, but carried aloft; And, the Canopy (soon to be fixed at Vought) that kept the F-4 "near" but-not better-than, the F8U-3. Had Vought "fixed" that ONE issue, I think it could've gone almost Mach-3 when 'light' on fuel-load, and was at the 1-to-1 Thrust/Weight threshold. Vought chose to 'Restrict' it's True top-end, as they worried the plexiglass might melt If the plane went Too Fast, for Too long. Oh, and, it wasn't a 'bomb Truck', Yet...
Excellent video
if it became operational, they'd call this one "The Shark"
Good info, but it sounds like you're speed reading the whole time which would prevent me from watching further videos.
Sorry if I'm writing only now as saw only 15 min ago but I always liked your previous videos but I keep on forgetting to to subscribe but I just did now. That said the F8U-3 despite having superlative general performance compared to the F-4 I believe that it had less development upgrading and would not have the great versatility of the rival, but it comes to my mind that over Vietnam War the pilots of the F-4 were screaming to have guns installed, were would the guns be installed on the F8U-3 without creating compressor stalls with the scoop so low? I don't think it could be done so easily like F8 that was conceived from the start. Anyway good job 👍👍
The F-8 already had guns mounted on the sides of the fuselage and had no issues with compressor stalls.
Same here but a whatta catch 😉
As far as a gun, there's info that a M-61 was being rigged.
Amazing aircraft, but I'm shocked, (not) that they stripped "the last gun fighter" of its guns. A failing of more than one aircraft of the era including the F-4. This however is one that admittedly I haven't heard much about. Nicely done sir.🤝❤🇺🇸
The production Crusader III still would've had the Colts, though they were frankly useless due to the poorly designed feeding mechanism. The feeding system would jam under anything more than 1 G, and there was no recocking system to clear jams.
Basically, if your guns jammed mid-flight, they just became dead weight.
The Crusader scored 17 out of the 19 total kills with Sidewinders, anyway.
Too hard to get aboard the carriers. The Navy didn't want the accident rate that would come with it. In the air, a great machine.
I'm always amazed that Vought didn't pit this against the USAF's F-107, but, I'm guessing, Vought didn't have the Computer to 'lob-launch' Tac-Nukes, nor the Internal Bay the F-105 & YF-107 had built-in. It handily out-ran, out climbed and out-turned Both USAF planes! I think it even could have contested the F-104 in Over-Seas Sales, had Vought considered such.
Excellent content, but slow down the delivery we have all the time in the world.😉
Very good, very informative! Suggestion: Slow down when speaking. Try to make your narration sound as if you are speaking from memory rather than reading a script. Also, leave the text on a bit longer so that average readers can absorb it. Otherwise,.excellent material! I subscribed.
Good well thought out and presented video. I suggest slowing down. Sounds like I am watching a video on 1.5x
What happened with vought company??
The cancellation of The F8U-3 resulted in substantial layoffs for the company, with about 2,500 people being cut from the 16,000 strong company on December 17th, 1978. Later on, in 1992, Vought was bought by The Carlyle Group and Northrop, later Northrop Grumman.
Hope that answers the question!
@@hermeshistory1731 Vought also merged with two other companies to form LTV (Lim-Temco-Vought), which built the A-7
It's still around in aerospace form. They had a lot to do with the F-16N
I think is a aircraft it was a technological marvel. But strategically, the days of the pure interceptor were fading. It has the same flaws as the English Electric lightning. Really fast. But lightly armed and little multi-role capability. More importantly, combat would show the Sparrow left a lot to be desired performance wise.
According to George Spangenberg both the U-3 and F4H were too reliant on unproven missile technology and BVR tactics, but the advantage of the U-3 over the Phantom was precisely that, once the technology failed, a manuverable and easy to fly aircraft was still there.
Yeah, the U-3 was a pure interceptor, but that was easily fixable. See the A-7 Corsair II, that had double the hardpoints with pretty much the same wing and fuselage than the F-8 Crusader. A fighter-bomber variant of the U-3 was feasible.
Maneuverability is nice. But you don't have any weapons to do with it. It needed the Sidewinder and a gun would be nice. The lack of a second crew man to handle radar is also a bit of an issue.
@@WALTERBROADDUS The aircraft was designed to have the same gun layout than the F8, simply the guns had never been installed in the prototypes. And it was intended to carry 4 Sidewinders.
@@neutronalchemist3241 I have to look that one up. Neither the Phantom or this plane were intended to use guns.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Also for the F8 the use of guns (that were also pretty unreliable, almost all the foreign customers replaced them) was absolutely residual. Almost all of his aerial victories were due to Sidewinders.
Totally love the plane. Definitely a better PLANE than F-4. But, given all the shortcomings/unreliabilities of those days' electronics components and sensors, armed with just three AIM-7s, it would have made a worse WEAPON SYSTEM than F-4, unfortunately.
I flew them both and the F-8 was definitely a better air-to-air plane and it felt more like being a part of the plane instead of riding in it like the F-4. But for the multirole requirements that the Navy and Marines had, the F-4 was by far the best. All of the fighters of that generation had the same issue with visibility and I never understood why after the Mustang bubble canopy, the manufacturers went to that built-in design of the F-4, F-8, F-11, A-5, A7, F-104, F-105, F-106. It took the next generation to go BACK to the bubble canopy.
We fought hard to dump the sparrow and just use sidewinder - as the sparrow was a dog of a missile at this time.. the navy’s own test data showed that. They would have none of it…
Why does it look like the Avro?
Hmm,the engine intake feels familiar with the j-10.
This aircraft could not meet the evolving requirements for a front line Naval fighter/attack aircraft. It lacked the volume and the generator capacity to run the most moderen look down, beyond visual range radar systems and ECM gear, and did not have nearly enough payload, and it only had one engine. It was obsolete even before it took its first flight.
The Supersader
It's a really interesting comparison to the BAC Lightning.
Great video, but please speak just a bit more slowly. It's like an auction or calling a horse race.
and crank the volume, just a bit.
You can change playback speed.
1st time on the channel here, and found commendable work on an often overlooked program. I really struggled with the crazy pace of the narration though - way, way too fast and detracted significantly from my enjoyment. Thanks
Interesting comments, but the commentator should slow down his delivery. It becomes garbled at warp speed!
The Laughing Crusader :)
Thank God the Phantom won, which is one of the most beautiful planes of all time.
God I find the phantom ugly a sin - sorry
@@Derek-je6vg Everyone's eyes see differently. For me, the shape of the Phantom is quite 'erotic'. I have models of this plane in all versions and scales :)
Also, I really like the basic design of the Crusader...But that 'Super Crusader' was a really funny design.
The people in charge of getting the aircraft just didn’t see it : The US. Needed both aircraft !
It’s only money , when has that ever been a problem for them ! $$$
Gotta Love the Beautiful design of the F-4
When you’re out of F-8’s, you’re out of fighters.
They tried to keep fighters in stock. They really tried.
Just subscribed - great info and great references. If you haven’t done so already, check out Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles, similar to your channel in concept. As others have mentioned, consider slowing your speech. Many aviation enthusiasts are older and prefer a slow delivery and don’t mins spending more time consuming a video. Cheers!
This is like choosing between the Eagle and the Viper... Or the Tomcat and the Hornet!
The F8U-3 and the F-107 are two examples that break the arguments of the Avro Arrow being unfairly cancelled because of corruption and interference. We were "left with" a bomb truck that held speed and altitude records, the Phantom-II, not bad at all.
Very informative, but the narrator speaks way, way too fast.
I think the West German Luftwaffe would of been doing real good with this plane. It would of been developed with multi roll air-to-ground attack bombing capability and carry a NUKE. This would of been better than the F-104G.
Excelleration is not a word. Did you mean acceleration?
it looks like a rockstar
What happened to the company that made this wonderful aircraft?
A can of worms. They changed hands, merged, sold, and reorganized about every 10 minutes and are now owned by Triumph. Boeing bought the 787 plant in Charleston from Vought.
@@Milkmans_Son Boeing loves to steal ideas and tech from other companies, nothing new there. I just feel sad for Vought, they deserved better.
@@YuiYuria Like I said, Boeing bought the plant. Somebody else bought the company.
The A7 had been the last major contract won by Vought. In 1992 the company had been acquired by Carlyle Group, then by Northrop-Grumman, now is of Triumph Group.
@@neutronalchemist3241 all the good companies either merged or were taken over my others sadly.
A bit like the F22 vs the F23
Mach 2 for 10 minutes will get you somewhere friendly
At that time, nothing really stood in the way of the F-104, due to corruption and payola offered by Lockheed sales crew, and the officials who accepted these payments ensured that not the best aircraft was always considered.
Slow down a tad!
X-32 got its looks from this plane
Could you talk a little faster?
One of the few times a robot voice would have been much better.
Perhaps the Super Crusaders wings couldn’t carrier the bomb ordinance the Phantom could…
The A-7 and the F-8 had practically the same wing, but the A7 had double the hardpoints. It was a question of choice.
My favorite description of the F-4 is "you can make a brick fly if you put a big enough engine on it"- don't know who said it, and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing. The Crusader seems much more elegant
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Not sure what they were thinking. One of the best things about the Crusader was it's maneuverability which earned it the nickname "the last gunfighter". While the Super Crusader was still maneuverable, with the increased speed, it wasn't really necessary. In fact, it was superfluous, as dogfights take place at much lower speeds. So you end up complicating the design by introducing new components, which were sometimes prone to failure, when you already had a superb aircraft.
This thing was kinda meant to be more of an interceptor than close-quarters dogfighter, hence having a far more powerful radar and AIM-7 Sparrows.
It also had absolutely zero ability to do any sort of ground attack, like what the Navy required, hence why the Phantom was chosen.
That was the theory.
Reality, when the "not manuverability, or guns, needed" F4 had been introduced, and used in actual combat, was that high speed could not be mantained in combat, because you had to manuver to come in launch position, and sustained turning decreased speed.
@@Tigershark_3082 It had zero ability to do any sort of ground attack because the Navy didn't require it at the start. The bid was for an interceptor/interdictor. Otherwise it would have had 6 hardponts, like the A7.
Watch this at 0.75 speed ...
MiG21 single seat fighters gave F4 trouble Vietnam.
why care about maneuverability when it was designed withought a gun? and it needs to be in autopilot to use the mistles anyway so it defeats the purpose.
It had a 20mm Vulcan
It was designed with the same 4 20mm guns of the F-8. They had been never installed in the prototypes.
Can you please narrate a little bit faster. Smh. 🙄
When designed the F4 never had a Canon. Stupid just stupid. Our reliance on sidewinder and sparrows,falcons were poor designes. They sucked!
talk slower its not a race!
Put whiskers on an F-4 and it looks like a big rat .
'EXcelleration'? Really?
talk slower
the commentary is spoken too fast, and without pauses, leading one to terminate video at 2.37 and hit the dislike button.
Speak a tad slower. You sound too much like an auctioneer.
GENIUS THAT IS NOT A AMERICAN AIRPLANE IS A MADE IN THE USA AIRPLANE, prove me erroneous if you can pavelavietor1 visigoth1 iberian1
Too ugly and weird looking,,,Like the Boeing JSF.
Who cares - it’s a predator - killing you is all that matters