F-8 Crusader or F-105 Thunderchief

[B-17engineer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Oh, ok. Just checking.

 

[The Basket]

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]

and they are a bit late for WWII...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

Nope...

Give me some credit Flyboy!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Nope...

Give me some credit Flyboy!

Well your comparison of the two is spot on!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

and they are a bit late for WWII...

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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]

Okay? My bad.


Sorry mods

 

[timshatz]

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]

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]

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]

Nope, just USAF and Air National Guard.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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.