# F-8 Crusader or F-105 Thunderchief



## B-17engineer (Jan 30, 2010)

Well, I know both were "attack basis", and just was curious overall, which was better..... 

Some stats...from Global Aircraft.

*F-105*

Primary Function: Fighter-bomber
Contractor: Republic
Crew: One
Unit Cost: $2,136,668
*Powerplant*:One Pratt Whitney J75-P-19W jet engine with 24,499 lb. (11,111 kg) of thrust
*Dimensions*
Length: 67 feet (20.4 m)
Wingspan: 34 feet 11 inches (10.6 m)
Height: 20 feet, 2 inches (6.1 m)
*Weights*
Empty: 29,393 lb (13,330 kg)
Maximum Takeoff: 54,580 lbs. (24,752 kg) -- gross
*Performance*
Speed: 1,372 mph (mach 2.1) at altitude
Ceiling: 50,000 feet (15,239 m)
Range: 2,390 miles (3,848 km)
*Armament*
One M6-1 20mm Vulcan cannon plus 14,000 lbs. of ordinance including conventional bombs, rocket packs, missiles, and internally or externally carried special weapons.


AND 

*F-8*

Primary Function: Carrier-based fighter and attack aircraft
Contractor: Vought
Crew: One
Unit Cost: N/A
Powerplant:One Pratt Whitney J57 turbojet engine rated at 18,000lb
*Dimensions*
Length: 54.5 ft (16.61 m) -- F-8F
Wingspan: 35.6 ft (10.87 m) -- F-8F
Height: 15.75 ft (4.8 m) -- F-8F
*Weights*
Empty: 17,836 lb
Maximum Takeoff: 34,100 lb (gross)
*Performance*
Speed: 1,133 mph (mach 1.72)
Ceiling: 58,000 ft (17,680 m) -- F-8F
Range: 1,000 miles
*Armament*
Four 20mm cannons M39 and up to 2,268 kg weapons incl. two AIM Matra R530 missiles or eight 5 in (127 mm) rockets. -- F-8F


*My question, which is flat out better and are there only certain areas where the aircraft is better than the other? *


Just a curious question for a curious kid


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

They performed two different roles. The F-105 was a fighter bomber/ strike aircraft. The F-8 was a fighter. Air to air, the F-8 was the better aircraft.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jan 30, 2010)

Harrison, I may be wrong and some one correct me if I am but I don't believe the Thunderchief was ever a Naval aircraft. I was under the impression it was Air Force.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 30, 2010)

Yea Aaron, I had the am a bit tired from a party and I started typing F3H Demon and I was like what the hell am I doing, forgot to delete that.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jan 30, 2010)

Oh, ok. Just checking.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 31, 2010)

If memory serves...In Vietnam...the USMC used Crusaders as ground attack.

From land bases.

But comparing the F-105 to the F-8 is like comparing peaches and concrete.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 31, 2010)

and they are a bit late for WWII...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

The Basket said:


> If memory serves...In Vietnam...the USMC used Crusaders as ground attack.
> 
> From land bases.
> 
> But comparing the F-105 to the F-8 is like comparing peaches and concrete.



Crusaders did little ground attack - you're thinking of the Corsair II. The Crusader was used for air-to-air combat and actually had the best kill/ loss ratio during the Vietnam War.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 31, 2010)

Nope...

Give me some credit Flyboy!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Nope...
> 
> Give me some credit Flyboy!



Well your comparison of the two is spot on!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> and they are a bit late for WWII...



And we discuss other eras of aircraft as well here. Just because it is a WW2 forum, does not mean he can not discuss these aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> and they are a bit late for WWII...



Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > Other Eras > Post-War


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 31, 2010)

So give impression that i'm in wrong or crazy, my little note was only for move the post where is now 

Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > Other Eras > Post-War

from where was 

Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums >World War II-Aviation > Aviation


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 31, 2010)

Okay? My bad. 


Sorry mods


----------



## timshatz (Feb 1, 2010)

Good question. Like the Crusader but...I dunno, the Thud looked cool. It was big, heavy and probably handled like a set of car keys. 

I guess, if I had to do Air Superiority work, I'd go with the Crusader. Great for that. Was still doing it as late as the 90s (I think, am not positive) with the French Navy. It was that good of an airplane. 

But when it came to do anything else, (bombing, ground attack, Wild Weasel, ect), I'd go with the Thud. It has the look of a bird that will bring you back.


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 3, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Good question. Like the Crusader but...I dunno, the Thud looked cool. It was big, heavy and probably *handled like a set of car keys.
> *
> 
> Great description Tim! Funny as hell and probably not too far off!


----------



## F-86 sabre (Feb 3, 2010)

Aaron Brooks Wolters said:


> Harrison, I may be wrong and some one correct me if I am but I don't believe the Thunderchief was ever a Naval aircraft. I was under the impression it was Air Force.



Really? I thought that the 105 was naval too. It was a fairly great bomber with excellent speed, but not with a lot of guns. Even though it had a lot of SAM's and bombs, i love bombers with lots of machine guns, like the F-86 sabre.8)


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 3, 2010)

Nope, just USAF and Air National Guard.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2010)

F-86 sabre said:


> Really? I thought that the 105 was naval too. It was a fairly great bomber with excellent speed, but not with a lot of guns. Even though it had a lot of SAM's and bombs, i love bombers with lots of machine guns, like the F-86 sabre.8)



SAM's are Surface To Air Missiles. They are launched from the ground to destroy aircraft

The F-86 was a fighter not a bomber...


----------



## davparlr (Nov 10, 2010)

Not a great comparison since these two had different missions. Probably more apt would be comparing the F-105 with the A3J Vigilante. Both of these aircraft had the same mission, deep penetration nuclear delivery.

Certainly the F-105 was a more capable air to ground aircraft with great load and better range. The F8 was a great dog fighter.

The F-105 was a very clean aircraft. Once the bombs were gone, light the fire and head for the deck, nothing was going to catch you.

Interesting point here, all three planes were quickly replaced by the outstanding and long lasting F-4.


----------



## mikewint (Nov 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Crusader was used for air-to-air combat and actually had the best kill/ loss ratio during the Vietnam War.



I was under the impression that the F-4 had the best K/L record. I recall one of the F-4 squadrons had a motto about being the worlds top supplier of used MIG parts


----------



## davparlr (Nov 10, 2010)

There is a long and on-going debate on which was the best dog fighter, the F-4 or the F-8. I believe the F-8 had the best record. The F-4 was not a great dog fighter. It was big and heavy and not great at maneuvering. It did, however, have huge engines and was very fast. The F-4 was not great at any particular task, but it was good at many.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2010)

mikewint said:


> I was under the impression that the F-4 had the best K/L record. I recall one of the F-4 squadrons had a motto about being the worlds top supplier of used MIG parts



The Crusader had a higher kill/ loss ratio than the F-4


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 10, 2010)

The F-105 was initially designed to come in low and fast, climb, release an A bomb (toss an A bomb) and get the hell out again, fast - ( was it not ?) 

The Crusader was designed to provide the Navy with a supersonic air superiority weapon with GUNS.

Two completely different roles. Like saying which was better - the Mustang or the Skyraider.

MM


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 10, 2010)

davparlr said:


> There is a long and on-going debate on which was the best dog fighter, the F-4 or the F-8. I believe the F-8 had the best record. The F-4 was not a great dog fighter. It was big and heavy and not great at maneuvering. It did, however, have huge engines and was very fast. The F-4 was not great at any particular task, but it was good at many.


The simple fact that it never had an integrated gun really says that it was never designed with dogfighting in mind. The Phantom always struck me as a hard-accelerating bomb-hauler. Notwithstanding that, it didn't seem to fare badly in a mix.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 10, 2010)

F-105 wing area is much too low for any meaningful dog fighting capabilities with sustained turns in the Vietnam era wherein the missile was proven less than exemplary in single shot kills.

There is a reason that they originally installed the 20mm gun pods on the centerline prior to incorporation of a gun into the airframe of the F-4.

The F-105 in an encounter was utterly reliant upon its dash speed to avoid engagement. No contest.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2010)

Here's a cool F-105 website, if any cares.

Craig Baker's F-105 Site, The Awesome Thunderchief


----------



## Glider (Nov 11, 2010)

The F8 was a truely remarkable aircraft capable of taking on any other fighter, of any nation, either land or naval based. Its worth remembering that the A7 attack aircraft which is one of the most undervalued aircraft of the 1960's/70's was to a certain degree based on the F8.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 11, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> There is a reason that they originally installed the 20mm gun pods on the centerline prior to incorporation of a gun into the airframe of the F-4


You are the master of suspense..


----------



## davparlr (Nov 11, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Here's a cool F-105 website, if any cares.
> 
> Craig Baker's F-105 Site, The Awesome Thunderchief



Iron men flying metal steeds into the jaws of Hell. I have great admiration for the Thud and those who flew them. By the time I got my wings, no 105s came down in the block only F-4s, surprisingly there was an F-100. Only the guy who got that was routed to an OV-10. He was later shot down in the same action as BAT 21 and was mentioned in the book. When they brought back the POWs, I saw him get off the C-141.

I remember when I was a kid and I put together a model of the F-105. When I looked at the model from the front with no racks I thought, wow, what a sleek aircraft! It certainly was different from the F-4.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 11, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> You are the master of suspense..



No suspense meant, buddy. It was a major eff-up in the F-4 development. The centerline 20mm gatling gun was a field expedient means of addressing the gun issue. Originally approved under the auspices of ground attack (centerline and two wing pod attachment points), the real intent with the fighter community was to address lack of a gun for close MiG encounters. I don't have the book in front of me, but this was documented in the memoirs of the 336th if I recall. I've got the book upstairs, but am to lazy to get it.


----------



## mikewint (Nov 11, 2010)

Colin1, Matt is 100%, the AF felt, at the time, that aircraft dog-fighting, was a thing of the past, air-to-air missiles launched from miles away, no risking multimillion dollar aircraft in duels. The external pods were an attempt to allow the F-4 some means of close quarter combat capability. while they worked, i.e. spat out lots of lead, without an integrated gun-sight actually hitting something was highly problematical. The problem was eventually rectified and the f-4 was a hellofa MIG killer


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2010)

Robin Olds had a great influence on the F4E with the internal gun.... but he rotated home as AF Academy Den Mother before the E got to Nam.

The F105 was still the fastest ship in the US (and everywhere else) inventory on the deck and 'check your 12' was still the cry out at Nellis in the war game exercises until the day they retired that wonderful beast.

IMO - the F8 was the best air fighter in the US inventory until the day they retired it.

Thankfully the F4 was such a versatile beast but it was always first an interceptor designed to protect the fleet. The USAF turned it into a 'weapon system' and thank god for Col John Boyd - the anarchist in the Pentagon.. he pissed a LOT of people off but we got the F-16 and F-15 primarily because of him. No more 'weapon systems' until the F-35.

Had the sidewinders and sparrows worked worth a damn all the USAF fighters would have done well as long as they stayed out of horizontal fights..


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> No suspense meant, buddy. It was a major eff-up in the F-4 development. The centerline 20mm gatling gun was a field expedient means of addressing the gun issue. Originally approved under the auspices of ground attack (centerline and two wing pod attachment points), the real intent with the fighter community was to address lack of a gun for close MiG encounters. I don't have the book in front of me, but this was documented in the memoirs of the 336th if I recall. I've got the book upstairs, but am to lazy to get it.



True - I don't recall anybody hitting anything but jungle with the pod 20's -


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 12, 2010)

drgondog said:


> True - I don't recall anybody hitting anything but jungle with the pod 20's -



Actually they did. As part of the argument that Robin made to the Pentagon was the few kills that did occur with the 20mm pods "that were installed for ground strafing". According to his accounts, these kills contributed in revamping the thinking about a gun in the F-4. I've got a quote I can cite, if this post causes anyone anyone any strife.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 14, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Actually they did. As part of the argument that Robin made to the Pentagon was the few kills that did occur with the 20mm pods "that were installed for ground strafing". According to his accounts, these kills contributed in revamping the thinking about a gun in the F-4. I've got a quote I can cite, if this post causes anyone anyone any strife.



Matt - I will look in Fighter Pilot as I remember the discussion. Interesingly, the 355th TFW was the lead MiG killer for awhile with the Thud internal 20mm M-61. IIRC 18 of their 20 MiG kills were the 20mm and two were AIM-9's

I remember a conversation between Olds, Titus and Kidd with my father.. the gist of that conversation was "Jeesus, if a Thud can kill that many with an internal 20 - just imagine what an F4 could do."


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 14, 2010)




----------



## renrich (Nov 20, 2010)

The F8U was a true supersonic day fighter. It's forty two degree wing sweep was among the greater wing sweep designs. It had a variable incidence wing to allow better carrier landing characteristics. I was working at Temco AC, next door to Vought in 1955, and everyone was talking about that variable incidence wing. Like almost all Vought creations the Crusader had high performance for it's time but could be a handfull to fly, especially landing! It mounted four Colt MK 12 20mm cannon. The MK 12 required a lot of care and feeding. The ammunition feed system gave a lot of trouble. Sidewinder missiles could also be carried. Air to ground capability in the early Crusaders was furnished by a "rocket pack". This pack was faired into the bottom of the fuselage and had sixteen chambers that could hold up to 32 2.75 inch folding fin airborne rockets. The opportunity for disasters was great and later the packs were disabled and late model F8 did not have them. Above info from Linnekin, "Eighty Knots to Mach 2".


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 20, 2010)

I wish I could find the story, but recall reading about some early astronauts that regulary flew the F-8. They apparently would routinely make a high speed approach for landing and pull a max-G 90 turn on final. Not only would this rapidly bleed off speed, but apparently would make one hell of a noise for folks on the ground. Well the story was related because one day while performing this maneuver, both wings on the airplane sheared off at the wing root. They apparently found the fuselage with the deceased pilot still in his seat on a baseball diamond, perfectly aligned along the home plate - first base line. The astronaut relating the story said the scene was surreal because the fuselage looked undamaged and as if the pilot was just sleeping peacefully. The wreckage was sent back for testing and no fatigue cracks and manufacturing defects were found. Vought was utterly in dismay and I recall them stating that their position was the pilot must have been pulling greater than 14Gs for the wings to have sheared off in that manner.


----------



## renrich (Nov 20, 2010)

I had a book, "Feet Wet", which was written by a retired Navy pilot whose name escapes me. I lent it out and did not get it back. Very fine book and the author had a lot of experience in the F8 with some harrowing stories. One story I recall in the book was extraordinary. The author was serving a tour in the Med on a carrier and they were doing a "blue water" practise mission at night in bad weather. "Blue Water" meant they had no option to recover at a land base. The author, who, as I remember was the CAG, had a strike package of F4s in the pattern and he was watching them recover in this bad weather and visibility on a TV closed circuit. They all got aboard on the first pass. There was a Soviet trawler shadowing them. The author got a message to come to the bridge and he went up, hoping to get an "atta boy" and not get chewed out for something. The CO handed him a slip of paper which contained a message from the Soviet trawler. It said, "Your pilots fly good". I wish I still had that book!


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 20, 2010)




----------



## renrich (Nov 22, 2010)

Found the name of he author of "Feet Wet". Gillchrist, retired rear admiral. Wrote several books. Wish I could afford all of them.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Nov 25, 2010)

renrich said:


> Found the name of he author of "Feet Wet". Gillchrist, retired rear admiral. Wrote several books. Wish I could afford all of them.



Answers a question I was going to ask. 


Wheels


----------



## drgondog (Nov 25, 2010)

Matt - F4C = 4 MiG kills w/pod, F4D= 4 MiG kills w/Pod.

There may be more


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2010)

From what I understand the gun pod on the F-4 was not an accurate weapon - comments?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 25, 2010)

Heard the same thing Joe, had to drop alot of rounds downrange to get a good group on target...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 25, 2010)

That's what I have read too. It was a field expedient change that was not DoD authorized. Rationale for getting approval was for ground attack operations, but initiators of the project had a real goal of testing them against MiGs. Once they had proven them successful in fighter sweeps, they then lobbied congress for monies to properly integrate a gun into the airframe to get the performance up to peak.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2010)

I guess the pod at high speed would actually distort and throw lead all over the sky. On the TV show "Dogfights" I believe they spoke of this and I think Lou Drendel mentioned this in his book "And Kill MiGs."


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 25, 2010)

I think it was a vibration problem induced by eddy currents. Even though they had three stations for attaching gun pods (centerline and both wings), they only used the centerline station for planned air-to-air engagements. I recall them noting that the pod resulted in a huge drag upon the airplane and thus range was severely curtailed. Operations were well planned with missile carrying escorts in close proximity as wingmen and top cover too.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 27, 2010)

Not to mention 1700 lbs of added weight.


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From what I understand the gun pod on the F-4 was not an accurate weapon - comments?



I remember seeing a tv show about the F4 that showed a segment of video of the gun pod firing. There was several inches of movement up/down/ side to side. It's no wonder it was fairly inaccurate.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 27, 2010)

The attachment points were never meant for such dynamic forces.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Nov 27, 2010)

Messy1 said:


> I remember seeing a tv show about the F4 that showed a segment of video of the gun pod firing. There was several inches of movement up/down/ side to side. It's no wonder it was fairly inaccurate.


I've seen that video several times too. 
This clip shows the gun pod firing and the up/down/ side to side motion you mention.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXI8bo0lfDo_


Wheels


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 14, 2011)

I had the good fortune of having started a thread on the ARC forum pertaining to the F-105.

An amazing amount of information that came out of it. The question was really, why the F-105 was not also sold to any other nation.

We got into things like: was it a SAC a/c or should it be TAC?

A fighter with an internal bomb bay in TAC? maybe not
Not 4+ engines? no way in SAC

That started out as an interesting discussion all by itself as well

Ivan


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> I had the good fortune of having started a thread on the ARC forum pertaining to the F-105.
> 
> An amazing amount of information that came out of it. The question was really, why the F-105 was not also sold to any other nation.
> 
> ...


To simplify - TAC was subordinate to SAC and treated as a bastard stepchild.

The 'mission for the F-105 was to be able to penetrate low and deliver via toss bomb technique one nasty nuc. The secondary mission was tactical air support with large external load.

As to saleability - the F-105 line was shut down in 1965(?) and almost exactly 1/2 of the fleet was lost in Vietnam.. They were still the fastest low level ship in the world and pretty damn fast at altitude so it had value remaining as a nuclear capable ship... so we weren't selling ours to anybody else and they started transition to Nasty Guard in 1972+ timeframe.

The favorite message of the Red Flag Thud Drivers to chasing F-16/15's on the deck was 'check your 12' because they weren't gonna catch up.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 16, 2011)

Apparantly, they tried to sell the F-105 but no interest.

Not like the F-104, but there the "incentive" to the German Defence minister may have helped a bit.

It is strange with the naming. If the ppurpose was one big nuke, it could (should?) have been B-105. The F-111 is another one, which I would not like to call a fighter. 

Despite the losses, I also think F-105 had a lot of capabilities. Maybe it was also starting to be late in the day for the Century series approach and newer approaches came into play. F4 coming online. F-14/15 thinking coming into play, etc.

Ivan


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 16, 2011)

Comparing F-8 and F-105 cannot be a fair comparison. Different mission profiles as far as I know. Exactly as has been said above.

A fair comparison could be F-104 vs. F-105 (at least in the nuclear bomb tossing role)or F-8 vs Mirage III (?).

Ivan


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2011)

The F105 did fairly well in the wild weasel role. I don't think the F8 could have done that. But then, the F105 was not designed as a dog fighter and the F8 as a tactical bomber.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 17, 2011)

Here is the link to the discussion on the ARC forum:

F-105 (Thud) - ARC Air Discussion Forums


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 17, 2011)

and the other link, sorry for doing so many messages

F-105 SE Asia wrap around camo - ARC Air Discussion Forums


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> The F105 did fairly well in the wild weasel role. I don't think the F8 could have done that. But then, the F105 was not designed as a dog fighter and the F8 as a tactical bomber.



The Thud was a great Weasel - and absolutely required a WSO in the back seat to a.) survive, and b.) pinpoint the Fansong sites.

Then the combination of Shrikes, Cluster bombs and 20mm was a great combo for air to ground options.

The 105 was uncatchable until it decided to turn to engage.. never, ever, an air superiority fighter (like the F-8 ) by design or accident. It had the lead in MiG kills in 1967 strictly because of opportunity - and the gun to compensate for lousy air to air missiles.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 17, 2011)

I also think the gun was the saving grace there.

But I have found it a bit confusing (please help me out here):

You have a single-seater "bomber" F-105, a fighter with an internal bomb bay and a gun, escorted by a 2-seater "fighter" F-4, which can carry 8 tons of bombs, is missile armed but having no gun.

Starting to read all the posts (as a layman, ok) the F-105 and F-5 could have been a good combination, when looking at the North Vietnamese fighter community IMHO.


----------



## renrich (Feb 14, 2011)

From what I have read the F105 in VN was much more accurate in the air to ground role than the F4. I have a friend who flew 150 missions as a FAC and I think he was the one who told me that. He was an interesting case in that he had 2000 hours in the F100 and had been an IP at the Fighter Weapons School and then went to VN to be a pilot in a light plane. Had a lot of decorations in that role.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 14, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> I also think the gun was the saving grace there.
> 
> But I have found it a bit confusing (please help me out here):
> 
> ...


The F5 had very very limited range


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2011)

Depending on the load out, mission and model, the F-5 had a combat radius between just over 500 miles to 800 miles. It "could have" served well in Vietnam in an expanded role providing there were enough tankers to support its mission or it continually operated from forward air bases which again "could have" been accomplished if the war "would have" been conducted with an offensive mindset in lieu of just containment. Hue to Hanoi was just over 300 miles so the F-5 could have certainly served a larger role.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 20, 2018)

B-17engineer said:


> Well, I know both were "attack basis", and just was curious overall, which was better.....


Okay, firstly the F-8 was designed as a largely dedicated fighter with the F-105 basically classified as a fighter bomber, and in practice, mostly a bomber.

The F-8 was...

Designed as mostly as a fighter with a variable incidence wing that would allow a reasonably high AoA, with a low pitch angle so they could keep the deck in view
Was built predominantly around the Air to Air role
While there were early depictions of the aircraft with wing-pylons that could carry bombs or a single AAM-N-3 (AIM-7B), the fact is that the Sparrow II was never fielded operationally, and was mostly a wish-list either made by Vought, or by the United States Navy itself
It came in several variants, and since many of these designs came before 1962, I'll list both the pre-1962 (USN) designations, and post 1962 designation as well (There could be an error or two here so don't take it as gospel)

XF8U-1/XF-8A: The prototypes, had 4 x 20mm cannon (144 RPG), provision for rails on either side of the forward fuselage able to carry a single AIM-9B, as well as a rocket tray that could carry 32 x 2.75" rockets for air-to-ground operations.
F8U-1/F-8A: The first operational variant, and had the same armament as depicted for the XF8U-1/XF-8A. It differed in that it had a radar-directed gun-sight.
F8U-1P/RF-8A: Modified for photo-reconnaissance, it had no armament a flat, squared-off under-fuselage with additional area-ruling. I'm not sure if it was any faster than the baseline F8U-1
F8U-1T/TF-8A: Two seat trainer variant of the F8U-1, sometimes called the "Twosader"
F8U-1E/F-8B: Equipped with the AN/APS-66/67 radar providing a limited all-weather capability, was able to use the AIM-9C which was SARH equipped
F8U-2/F-8C: More powerful afterburners with a pair of cooling scoops, ventral fins, and new pylons able to carry 4 x AIM-9 instead of 2 x AIM-9. Like the F-8B, it was possible to carry AIM-9C. I think the inlet had a door which either would fix airflow-disturbances, and possibly relieve excess pressure inside the duct
F8U-2N/F-8D: An all-weather variant of the F-8C
F8U-2NE/F-8E: It had a bigger nose for an improved radar, pylons on the wings able to carry up to 5,000 pounds of bombs, or a pair of drop-tanks (almost never used)
It had more maneuverability than F-105 as a result of a lower stall-speed (and by extension, corner velocity -- that's the speed you need to fly at to achieve full g-load) and a superior rate of sustained turn (a function of lift & drag vs power). It was slower at all altitudes as far as I know (as the F-105 beat nearly everybody), with the F-105 able to achieve a placard limit of 815-830 knots at sea-level, and a maximum mach number of 2.3 to 2.5. Both had good roll-rates, the F-105 might have had a similar or T/W ratio in the fighter load-out, but it didn't always fly in that set-up, and it's heavier wing-loading would interfere with turn-rate.

The advantage of the F-105 is largely the ability to outrun everybody at low altitude where airspeed becomes the limiting factor, ironically few Soviet fighters could have kept up with it, so the predominant threat would have basically been gunfire. The F-8 combined a good mix, responsiveness, sustained agility, roll-rate, and climb-rate, that made it quite a formidable opponent.



michaelmaltby said:


> The Crusader was designed to provide the Navy with a supersonic air superiority weapon with GUNS.


During the time it was produced, guns were the norm, so that wasn't unusual. It was noteworthy later



drgondog said:


> Robin Olds had a great influence on the F4E with the internal gun.... but he rotated home as AF Academy Den Mother before the E got to Nam.


I thought the F-4E first flew in 1965, and entered service in 1967?


> Had the sidewinders and sparrows worked worth a damn all the USAF fighters would have done well as long as they stayed out of horizontal fights..


Actually that depends on weight and speed. The problem was that it didn't have enough lift to turn so good at high altitude, but below 20,000 feet it sustain something like 7g in turns at combat weight.


----------

