- Thread starter
-
- #61
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Good info and your perspective is correct IMO. The XF8U-3 was purely experimental and although it looked like a beast, I think it would have had to have a lot of refinement before it was accepted. I think the navy and Vought probably had the data you were looking for stashed away in a report or an unofficial checklist, but didn't develop a NATOPS document because it was an experimental aircraft (I think you recognize this.)Of course. The thing that I was trying to get at was that the flying speeds flaps-up are higher than flaps-down. All the images I gave on Post #52 were based on flaps being down (the variations in speed were weight and whether the power and BLC was on/off).
With the XF8U-3, normal landings (carrier or field) were done with the wings up, flaps-down and BLC on. I doubt they would have attempted an engine out landing on a carrier-deck (I figure they'd have just ejected), but the diagram depicted a field-landing and was to be done flaps-up which would mean that, even if engine power and everything was present, you'd be going quite a bit faster. Looking at a NATOPS pilot's pocket checklist for the F-8D/E (which called for this to be done with the droops in the cruise position), it stands to reason that the XF8U-3, if it had become operational, would have probably done the same, but the figures calculated seemed to be with flaps-up.
I did some looking through several sources: One source was a NATOPS Pilot's Pocket Checklist (F-8D & E); the other was an F-8H&J Flight Manual. The former looks like a rickety piece of shit that has pages missing (This unfortunately excludes landing speeds, except for an engine-out landing, ironically), but the F-8H/J manual does have this data and it roughly reads as follows (some numbers are rounded up)
Correct, it had several issues that were in the process of being resolved, and others that had already been worked through. It seems that the biggest issue by the time of program cancellation was (other than the single/twin-man crew issue) the canopy, which was being rectified by employing a type of laminated glass that would be able to take the temperatures the plane would be able to achieve at high-speeds.The XF8U-3 was purely experimental and although it looked like a beast, I think it would have had to have a lot of refinement before it was accepted.
Thanks Zipper, I will have a look this afternoon (working to MSY and back today).BiffF15
I should have tagged you on this a long time ago. I figure you would definitely have a lot of useful information since you were actually a combat pilot.
Just caught this - catching upIronically, I could still see some features that would have favored the F8U-3 had it entered operational service regardless...
Your thoughts?
- Transition might have been easier than the F-4B since it was a single-seater (excepting possibly the F3D if they were still in service).
- The aircraft had a provision for a semi-submerged store in the aft fuselage: This was predominantly for the air-to-ground role and would have been a special-store, though there had been thoughts of other possibilities such as a fuel-tank to add additional range (probably unnecessary), and a gun-pack had been proposed (at least for the RN). One of the biggest problems with the F-4 was the lack of an internal gun. While a gun-pack is externally mounted, it might have been less prone to wobble when firing as the pylon-mounted gun-pods carried on the F-4's.
I worked at GE in the late 60s when these issues were being addressed. The Vulpod had issues with accuracy in any other condition than steady state 1G upright flight. The heavy, bulky, draggy pod was nearly impossible to brace rigidly enough to hold its zero through high G maneuvering flight. It wasn't very convenient to mount/dismount, as it had to be taken out to the range and re-zeroed every time. Imagine doing that aboard a carrier?The lack of a gun on the F-4 is kind of a mixed quandary. Many complained of this deficiency during the Vietnam War but when a gun pod was fitted to USAF F-4s only a small percentage of kills were accomplished with a gun so it's a guess if the navy would have had better results.
IIRC the A-4 had a similar issue with an ECM pod, if the guns were fired the device was vibrated apart.I worked at GE in the late 60s when these issues were being addressed. The Vulpod had issues with accuracy in any other condition than steady state 1G upright flight. The heavy, bulky, draggy pod was nearly impossible to brace rigidly enough to hold its zero through high G maneuvering flight. It wasn't very convenient to mount/dismount, as it had to be taken out to the range and re-zeroed every time. Imagine doing that aboard a carrier?
When I left GE for the Navy, the E bird was still having issues with its radar being put out of action for the rest of the flight every time the gun was fired. A Vulcan with any wear on it would generate enough high amplitude, high frequency vibration to damage the radar, which was sitting right on top of the gun. Not too bad with a brand new airplane and gun, but after a few missions, wear would start to tell.
AAMs enjoyed a significant increase in capability, effectiveness, and reliability in this time period, eliminating many threats before they could get into gun range. The tactics that worked so well for the NVAF didn't translate well to different venues and later generations of weapons.In the post Vietnam war days I know that once we saw guns installed on such aircraft like the F-14, 15, 16 and F/A-18, they had very few gun kills in combat, I think the actual percentage was posted on here a while back
Zipper,IIRC the A-4 had a similar issue with an ECM pod, if the guns were fired the device was vibrated apart.
In the post Vietnam war days I know that once we saw guns installed on such aircraft like the F-14, 15, 16 and F/A-18, they had very few gun kills in combat, I think the actual percentage was posted on here a while back
Here is the obituary of Major James M. Beatty, Jr."We were in the 35 TFS TDY to Danang from Kunsan. Jim was #3. Rolled up and found 2 MiG 21s 4,000′ directly below him same direction. Barrel rolled back, stoked the AB's and started across the circle. Claims he did not go supersonic. Unable to get AIM 9Js to growl. Closing fast went to guns. He was in an old E model (no pinkie switch). MiGs broke. He pulled pipper in front for high angle shot. KILL. Over g when he pulled up. Egressed at speed of stink. No truth to the rumor that airplane never flew again. Jim claims low altitude butter fly dart sorties in the FWIC syllabus prepared him for that shot. He always went down and away to get there the quickest (with the greatest angles). This was end of April 1972. First gun kill in an F-4E. Handley's book claimed he was the first in May. I talked to Phil 'bout that and he concedes Jim was the first but his book was already out and 'you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube'."
Maj. James M. Beatty Jr. was one of America's unsung heroes. He flew 229 combat mission, 147 in North Vietnam, and during one of those missions got a confirmed gun kill on a MIG 21. Maj. Beatty earned the Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 14 Air Medals among many other awards and decorations during his combat flying. He had 3,250 hours in the F-4 and F-15 aircraft. Maj. Beatty was a recognized expert in aerial combat, and culminated his Air Force career as the Air-To-Air Test Project Manager in the Fighter Weapons test Group, Nellis AFB, Nevada.
After leaving the active Air Force, he continued to serve his country as an F-15 academic and simulator instructor for more than 22 years at Tyndall AFB, Panama City, Fla. His service in the U.S. Air Force and his vast experience was essential in developing future Air Force warriors. As an instructor pilot and simulator instructor, he trained more than 1,000 F-15 pilots and air Battle Managers for the combat air forces during his time at Tyndall. His superior instructional skills enabled the 325th Fighter Wing to meet pilot and air battle manager production goals.
Maj. Beatty was born in Eau Claire, Pa., and had lived in Panama City since 1988. He was a graduate of Grove City College, and served in the USAF from 1963 to 1976.
As always, great stuff Biff!Zipper,
Thanks for the invite. From quickly reading through the reference speeds it would appear to be 2-2.5 knots difference per every 2k in weight change on the F8. The plane had a great reputation!
FBJ,
The gun pods would not be anywhere near as accurate as an internally mounted one due to where it's located. Inside the structure being solidly mounted, exterior being pod and or flexible due to G loads and airstream. However, you could get an air to air kill with it. One of my sim IPs at Eagle RTU had one in Vietnam, Maj Jim Beatty.
Also realize that the missiles used in WW Nam improved during the conflict, they were still having lots of malfunctions up into Gulf War 1.
The Viper switchology would inadvertently allow an AIM-9 to be shot off when going from ground to air mode. The Eagle had problems with AIM-7s not firing after the pickle button was pushed (had one of these myself while shooting at a QF-106). Both problems were subsequent fixed, Viper via software and Eagle with a mod and a new motor fire wire (the AIM-7 was ejected from the aircraft, then while still attached via the motor fire wire sent a motor ignition impulse then off it went). What could go wrong with a 100+ miracles occurring in sequence over a few milliseconds…
Below is info regarding a gun pod kill, first in the F4E.
Joe Moran wrote:
Here is the obituary of Major James M. Beatty, Jr.
Not all hero's got five kills. The guy was a stud and you could hear his big brass ones dragging as he walked about. Great guy and well respected by everyone at Tyndall.
Cheers,
Biff
Yep - some of the F-4 drivers that I briefly worked with mentioned the pod was almost useless but was better then nothing. As Wes mentioned, I think Vietnam made the requirement for a gun essential especially with the ROEs and the unreliability of A2A stuff.FBJ,
The gun pods would not be anywhere near as accurate as an internally mounted one due to where it's located. Inside the structure being solidly mounted, exterior being pod and or flexible due to G loads and airstream. However, you could get an air to air kill with it. One of my sim IPs at Eagle RTU had one in Vietnam, Maj Jim Beatty.
Interesting! I would have thought things were really worked out by then.Also realize that the missiles used in WW Nam improved during the conflict, they were still having lots of malfunctions up into Gulf War 1.
Do you remember when you were shooting at QF-106s?The Viper switchology would inadvertently allow an AIM-9 to be shot off when going from ground to air mode. The Eagle had problems with AIM-7s not firing after the pickle button was pushed (had one of these myself while shooting at a QF-106). Both problems were subsequent fixed, Viper via software and Eagle with a mod and a new motor fire wire (the AIM-7 was ejected from the aircraft, then while still attached via the motor fire wire sent a motor ignition impulse then off it went). What could go wrong with a 100+ miracles occurring in sequence over a few milliseconds…
In the book "And Kill Migs" it shows this combat happened in May 72 (doesn't matter)Below is info regarding a gun pod kill, first in the F4E.
Here is the obituary of Major James M. Beatty, Jr.
Truth!Not all hero's got five kills. The guy was a stud and you could hear his big brass ones dragging as he walked about. Great guy and well respected by everyone at Tyndall.
Cheers,
Biff
We went to Tyndall AFB for WSEP probably in the first quarter of 93 when I shot at a QF-106. Four of us in a wall against a single drone in the high 50s going well above the Mach. My missile launched, guided, but failed to fire / ignite. Radar went to flood mode. Problem traced back to the motor fire wire. Last missile shoot I did on active duty was '96 with the jets all moded. 100% success rate, and I got to shoot an AIM-7MH off my jet.Yep - some of the F-4 drivers that I briefly worked with mentioned the pod was almost useless but was better then nothing. As Wes mentioned, I think Vietnam made the requirement for a gun essential especially with the ROEs and the unreliability of A2A stuff.
Interesting! I would have thought things were really worked out by then.
Do you remember when you were shooting at QF-106s?
In the book "And Kill Migs" it shows this combat happened in May 72 (doesn't matter)
Truth!
Wow! My father in law's F-106 was converted in Nov 90 and eventually sent to Tyndall. According to Joe B 59-0061 was shot down Sept 3, 1993We went to Tyndall AFB for WSEP probably in the first quarter of 93 when I shot at a QF-106. Four of us in a wall against a single drone in the high 50s going well above the Mach. My missile launched, guided, but failed to fire / ignite. Radar went to flood mode. Problem traced back to the motor fire wire. Last missile shoot I did on active duty was '96 with the jets all moded. 100% success rate, and I got to shoot an AIM-7MH off my jet.
It sounds like a freight train when it fires. Very cool.
Shot 7 of them total.
The sad thing is the ANG units keep their planes looking like new. It was probably a museum or better quality jet when it went for a swim!Wow! My father in law's F-106 was converted in Nov 90 and eventually sent to Tyndall. According to Joe B 59-0061 was shot down Sept 3, 1993
View attachment 688600
Actually his aircraft was used as a chase plane on the B-1B program. He plucked several F-106s out of the bone yard, got them refurbished. His "detachment" was the last operational F-106 unit.The sad thing is the ANG units keep their planes looking like new. It was probably a museum or better quality jet when it went for a swim!
I figured there were two problems at work at the time with this...The lack of a gun on the F-4 is kind of a mixed quandary. Many complained of this deficiency during the Vietnam War but when a gun pod was fitted to USAF F-4s only a small percentage of kills were accomplished with a gun so it's a guess if the navy would have had better results.
Of course, the two-man crew was the deciding factor. If the F-4B had the supersonic performance of the XF8U-3, there never would have been any discussion (that said, the XF8U-3 looked way cooler).At the end of the day I think choosing the F-4B was still the right choice.
Just to be clear, the bracing problem was owing to it being mounted on a thin pylon? Would it have been as bad if it were mounted in a conformal/semi-submerged configuration like this?I worked at GE in the late 60s when these issues were being addressed. The Vulpod had issues with accuracy in any other condition than steady state 1G upright flight. The heavy, bulky, draggy pod was nearly impossible to brace rigidly enough to hold its zero through high G maneuvering flight.
When did they sort that out completely? I thought they put various dampers on by the time it entered service (guess the official history isn't always accurate j/k).When I left GE for the Navy, the E bird was still having issues with its radar being put out of action for the rest of the flight every time the gun was fired.
No problem!Zipper,
Thanks for the invite.
I never saw a Vulpod mounted on an F4 "in the flesh", but the photos we got showed it mounted centerline, not on wing pylons, as they were carrying drop tanks.The F-4's gunpod (Mk-4, SUU-16, and SUU-23) was mounted on a fairly thin pylon which made the pod pod susceptible to wobbling motions
I was gone before it got sorted out, but I suspect it had something to do with original testing being done on new equipment and pilots flying not-new equipment out in the field. A Vulcan is hard on itself and everything around it, and under heavy use is subject to wear and imbalance. Your quintessential fire breathing monster.When did they sort that out completely? I thought they put various dampers on by the time it entered service (guess the official history isn't always accurate j/k).
The centerline pylon is thin by the standpoint of a grafted-on gunpack, but doesn't appear as thin as the wing-pylons.I never saw a Vulpod mounted on an F4 "in the flesh", but the photos we got showed it mounted centerline, not on wing pylons, as they were carrying drop tanks.
Probably true.I was gone before it got sorted out, but I suspect it had something to do with original testing being done on new equipment and pilots flying not-new equipment out in the field.
Sounds like it'd be damned near impossible in a carrier hangar.My memory is that the Vulpod was originally designed and intended for centerline mount, which necessitated zeroing on jackstands with gear retracted
That's a great nickname....U-Bong and Naked Fanny...