The Vought F8U-3 Crusader III; So Good it Almost Beat the F-4 Phantom!

When the US Navy wanted a back up to the program that would produce the legendary McDonnell Douglas F-4, Vought had just the thing - the Crusader III.
And it was so good it almost beat out the Phantom!
Tommy Thomason's Book - amzn.to/3WH7uZr
Donald Mallick Memoir (Free) - www.nasa.gov/c...
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/edna...
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.

[@Derek-je6vg]

As a former Vought aircraft senior employee - it’s been my opinion the navy had made up its mind before the competition. The quandary was the new crusader vastly exceeded expectations in nearly all measurable categories. What was to be an insurance policy now became a serious consideration. The reduced deck space was a good catch by some here. A phantom could not be operated by the converted Essex or smaller carriers. Having designed many missile systems in the course of my career, missile reliability of sparrow at this point in its career was simply substandard. It matters not what your theoretical stowed kill load was if the missile isn’t reliable. You were far better off with more sidewinders and the speed and acceleration to deliver them quickly. Vietnam combat showed that rather decidedly. The substitute of the Vulcan on the airframe eliminated the jamming issues with linkage in the earlier colt 20mm. It’s all in the rear view mirror now - but I know of no pilot that had the chance fly the crusader III that chose the phantom over it. None. This crusader was cheaper, faster, more maneuverable, and likely easier to maintain at sea. The one down check I might give it were the ventral fins in the case of damage and coming back aboard ship. One can make the twin engine argument but that really boils down to how any engine degrades with damage. The J-57 had a reputation for not dying outright but continuing to deliver degraded thrust with damage. I have no doubt the crusader III engine would have been much the same. Would you rather have two engines that fail catastrophically or a single engine that fails gracefully? I believe the two engine argument is a red herring for that reason. In the course of my career I saw the government frequently select winners on the basis of a design conforming to a ‘school solution’ - whether there was any technical justification for said solution did not matter. That was the case here. Crusader III was in essence an F-16 long before that aircraft existed. A relatively light weight cheap effective fighter that could be continually upgraded with technology. There are few fighters flying today that could touch it in ACM, never mind adding fly by wire or other improvements over its career. To this day I remain convinced the navy made the wrong decision. It was going to take the school solution no matter what…even if it would be decades before missile reliability could come close to actually delivering the solution. The Vought design was call um as you see um - no use wishing for things decades in the future. You could ask any Vietnam grunt on seeing an F-4 with 2-500lb bombs just how ‘multirole’ phantom was in ground support when you take in the need for fuel, ecm, air to air, additional armor etc. There was a reason the A-4 and A-7 had successful careers. They were better bomb trucks than a phantom could ever be. Nuff said…

[@smam7006]

I think that this plane converted to land use makes even more sense for the USAF. If you compare it to the century series of aircraft, it outperforms them in pretty much nearly every way. The Crusader III could have also been awesome for the USMC or countries like Israel.

[@Derek-je6vg]

It was an outstanding platform. There might have been two downsides on land use. The deep fuselage provided a large sail area so you would need to take care landing in severe crosswinds, which was never an issue with carrier landings into the wind. The landing gear was relatively narrow tracked, so just as with a spitfire, take heed. That same feature also helped with its speed though. Pretty much just training issues…The landing gear and the nose wheel in particular were much more robust than the F-8. Converted to recce it was easily faster and more survivable than a vigilante, but I doubt it would have ever been converted for nuclear weapon delivery. It was tough so it could have toss bombed had the desire been there. The main thing I had against phantom selection was that the phantom was born semi-‘toothless’ thanks to the shortfalls in sparrow and lack of a gun. The pilots knew it, the navy knew it. Even many years later in Israeli service with much later marks of both the airframe and sparrow, the vast majority of phantom kills were with sidewinders and other IR missiles. The phantom basically lived it’s entire operational life without a bvr missile that really did proper justice to the bvr concept. Again all water over the dam. Crusader III like it’s earlier namesake was unapologetically a fighter pilot’s aircraft designed to outfly and kill the enemy.

[@Derek-je6vg]

The j-75 proved itself to be a pretty tough engine in the F-105, and it would have been equally so in a crusader III. Twin J-79 in the phantom give you a bit more thrust but at the cost of doubling everything and vastly increasing total cost as well as doubling or tripling maintenance. In the end you are going to lose air frames in battle. Best to build them tough but recognize losses will be inevitable. Had a fly by wire variant with upgraded electronics eventually been done I think it would be no more difficult to handle than any F-16, which is also an inherently unstable aircraft by design. You could horse the j-75 into compressor stall if using the afterburner hard at certain speeds but that would have been an easy fix with mods to the afterburner, engine controls, or even slightly modifying the inlet internally. This was the fastest thing from subsonic to Mach 2 that I ever saw. Acceleration was fantastic as it was relatively clean aerodynamically. Given a modern engine a crusader III would have invented ‘super cruise’ or flight above Mach one without afterburner effortlessly…before we even knew that such a thing could in fact be reality.

[@pyro1047]

Not to mention by the time SARH missiles became consistently viable, the F-4s were already well on their way to getting phased out and given to guard and reserve units anyways. By the Persian Gulf they were basically just used as missile trucks for SEAD.

[@Derek-je6vg]

@@pyro1047 exactly - even the radar in bad weather argument is largely meh - harriers had no problems conducting fleet defense with IR only in the falklands/bad weather against more capable land based aircraft. US AEW is far more advanced and would provide the stand-off required to stop anti ship missile launches when supported by a long range cap. Crusader III had the legs for that. The AIM-9C radar variant of sidewinder could have plugged the gap as sparrow evolved at a very low cost, just as it did on the F-8. I hate seeing money wasted, and our carriers would have been far better served with 20 percent more fighters on deck with missiles that actually worked than what we ended up fighting with.

[@aaronlopez492]

This is an unexpected last-minute but very welcomed Christmas gift. Aside from its slack jaw air intake, it looks fast. Thank you you so much Ed and have a wonderfully Merry Christmas around your loved ones.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Merry Christmas to you too Aaron.

[@jaxsmith1744]

My old man has a bunch of paperwork and models from the "Super Crusader" project. USNA 1956 he loved the F-8 and after leaving active duty he went to work for Vought/ LTV .His favorite .

[@gavinearls2935]

if indeed he did, would be great if you could share these or save them digitally for preservation

[@Derek-je6vg]

You should have those scanned and preserved - agree

[@bad_pilot13official]

Yeah that would be very useful for making replicas in video games n stuff and general archiving

[@christoffermonikander2200]

It's surprising that no-one thought to replace the weapons with a camera suite. With that altitude and speed, it would have made an excellent recon aircraft/spy plane.

[@stevetournay6103]

That did happen with the original F-8; the last ones in USN service were RF-8G recon birds. But yes, the 3 would have been competition for that or the RA-5 Vigilante...

[@socaljarhead7670]

Nothing could touch the Vigilante in terms of range.

[@BoltUpright190]

Back in the 80's, while working at LTV's Grand Prairie, TX facility, I worked with some older engineers who had worked on the F8U-3. It was an absolute beast, with a top speed limited not by power, but by thermal heating of the windscreen. I have no doubt that it would have mauled an F-4 in a 1v1 dogfight. However, the Phantom was still the better aircraft, being far more versatile, as it's long service life demonstrated.

[@Derek-je6vg]

Not sure that’s true - also a former Vought guy - phantom was much more expensive in procurement and operations cost - crusader would eat any phantom alive regardless of mark. I’ll live with its lesser armament given its acceleration and ACM capability.

[@rossanderson4440]

According to my cousin, the F-4 Phantom is proof that a brick can fly, if you put enough thrust behind it.

[@sheeplord4976]

@@rossanderson4440 The F-4 was actually surprisingly aerodynamic. Not great, but no brick.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@sheeplord4976 It's more a joke than else. At that time two J79 were like "infinite power", and the performances were not superior to aircrafts that had half that thrust. But it was only a question of weight and dimensions. The F-14 had overall worse performances with more thrust, and it was not considered a brick.

[@DymondzTrucking1962]

A friend of the family was a pilot in the Navy and flew both f8 and f4s. He always said the F8 would kick the F4's ass any day of the week.

[@Derek-je6vg]

Agree - pilots who had the choice to fly either usually chose the crusader first

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

For me, if the Centurion is the archetypal main battle tank, the F4 is the archetypal jet warplane.

[@babboon5764]

What have you got against the F 86 Saber or the EE Lightning? The MiG 15 even? Me 262 anyone? What's the criterion / the standard / the test?

[@birkensafttt]

@@babboon5764 F4 was the grandfather of multi role fighters that dominate the skies today. It was arguably the first aircraft to perform air superiority, intercept, CAS, SEAD, and it often did the job better than dedicated fighters / interceptors / bombers

[@babboon5764]

@@birkensafttt The Gloster Javellin did most of those at least a decade before. Jets which have appeared since the F4 have added more abilities to the tally &/or do them better. Don't get me wrong - I agree the Phantom was (in a couple of Airforces *still* is) a superb aircraft. On the other hand I'm trying to point out that once you get past George Cayley's Glider and later the wright flyer there's not really a single point.

[@Vifam7]

What a wonderful Christmas gift. A video on one of my favorite "what could've been" aircraft. Say, how about a video on the YA-7F "Strikefighter" as a followup ? (as it is another fantastic (yet not chosen) Vought jet that can trace its lineage to the F-8)

[@kirkmooneyham]

Thanks, Ed, I had seen pictures of this aircraft before but never knew the story. An amazing case of "what might have been", if there ever was one. Happy Christmas from across The Pond!

[@Tigershark_3082]

The XF8U-3 is certainly an interesting plane. Highly capable, just not what the Navy was looking for (The Navy wanted two crew and multirole capability, both of which the Crusader III/Super Crusader lacked)

[@Derek-je6vg]

Big mistake - the phantom is good multirole but it’s more expensive and can’t hold a candle to the crusader in ACM. Missile reliability in no way justified reliable BVR intercept…even through Vietnam.

[@Tigershark_3082]

@@Derek-je6vg I'd disagree. Once the Navy introduced better missile maintenance and training for pilots, their Phantoms started doing really well. The Crusader III had a shorter lifespan than the Phantom, in my opinion, due to what it was designed for

[@Derek-je6vg]

Disagree - the kill ratio speaks for itself - f-8 was getting 6:1 which was way ahead of the f-4 - crusader III would have been way ahead of that. The sparrow never did well in Vietnam. Period. It couldn’t pull G and maintain lock. It was a bomber kill principally, and not designed for a furball unless you had a -very- cooperative target. Sidewinder, as it developed beyond its initial 2G limits was increasingly effective. ‘Better’ doesn’t mean a lot when you aren’t doing well to begin with. I think crusader III would have lasted just as long as phantom had it been fielded. One only need look at the likes of hawker hunters serving as long as they have. It’s always about the best pilot…but I think a good pilot in an f-4 would have a much easier time of it in a crusader III. I’m not aware of a single instance in tests where the F-4B/C ever beat crusader III in ACM. Every pilot I talked with was unanimous. Pilots want to be pilots at the heart of thing…they don’t want to babysit systems unless they have. The phantom forced them to do that hence the need for two crew. The crusader III didn’t. It still let the pilot be the pilot and focus on situational awareness and getting kills with a reliable system be it Vulcan or sidewinder. It’s all water over the dam - but no amount of training slats, guns and afterburners would ever get a phantom to the level of crusader III. The pilots knew it, they told everyone that would listen, but a concept unsupportable by the technology of the day was chosen because it was what the navy and pentagon wanted. The better design does not always win - something I learned the hard way over many decades. I applaud the efforts of top gun and re-educating pilots back into ACM with phantom…but they wouldn’t have been in that situation to begin with if they had left the tu-95 to phantom and the migs to crusader III. It would decades before reliable BVR combat was an operational reality.

[@BruhMoment-re8nc]

@@Derek-je6vg While I don't disagree with you on the ACM of the Phantom, I still think the Navy made the correct choice, not just because it made one less plane to have to keep spare parts for, but also as what they wanted with the Phantom (even if the Phantom itself wasnt really suited for it due to technological limitations) was indeed the future of air combat However a big part of my heart that doesn't care about logistics and hindsight and yadda yadda yadda is very sad cuz god i love the F-8 its such a nice looking plane to me

[@Derek-je6vg]

Not sure I agree again … you had 2x the engine spares with phantom to include entire spare engines themselves. Components like Vulcan were ultimately common to both airframes. This was long before spreadsheets but every calculation we did showed we could get more Crusader III on any flight deck deck for less fuel, less maintenance, and fewer aviation techs. The phantom was basically gone by the time you got real reliable bvr intercept paired with a modern reliable missile (amraam)… in essence it flew its entire career waiting for good bvr missiles.

[@shero113]

This sounds just the like F-107 vs F-105 story, or indeed (as you linked) the Super Tiger, which I'd forgotten about (I watch all your brilliant videos)

[@prowlus]

Had they heard of the Mig-25 Foxbat at that time , this Crusader would have gone through

[@ccursedfool]

Good to have a Christmas post, especially on such an odd aircraft. Merry Christmas, Ed!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Merry Christmas Serval.

[@MichaelLlaneza]

I have a 1/144 kit of this bird. I think it just moved way up in the queue. Good stuff Ed, keep it up!

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Sounds quite an animal. 74,000 feet and capable of MACH 3 - wow. 👍

[@jpgabobo]

Merry Christmas and thanks for awesome video! I think you left out the United States Marine Corps when mentioning the few users of the F-8 Crusader. The face on the F8U-3 Crusader III looks like an F-8 got goosed.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Or The Tin Man from The Wizard Of Oz sprouted wings.

[@johnladuke6475]

Interesting to consider what it might have achieved if it had been adopted, as newer technologies solved the radar-tracking issues for the missiles.

[@babboon5764]

With that it would have been akin to the British F3 Tornado interceptor at its peak but two decades sooner and at high altitude (whether it could have undertaken the F3's job of hunting cruise misiles 'right down on the deck' is maybe not so certain)........... Maybe more EE Lightning with massivley more endurance?

[@sim.frischh9781]

Still uploading this close before Christmas, you sweeten my evening, Ed. Thanks, and a joyful Christmas evening.

[@tarmaque]

Few aircraft have survived long as a single role combat platform. Flexibility is what makes a great and lasting aircraft. While the F-4 was a mediocre interceptor and dogfighter, it was a much more capable ground attack platform than the F8U-3. Hence the longevity of the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. Arguably other aircraft have done its jobs better, but nothing has done all of its jobs equally well. (I'm no fan of the Hornet, but I recognize its reasons for being.)

[@Ushio01]

The F-4 was a great interceptor. The interceptor role is not to fight enemy fighters it's to kill bombers and attack aircraft. The F-4's original interceptor mission was to shoot down Soviet naval bombers before they could get in range to fire their anti-ship cruise missiles a vital duty as early ship launched SAM's were very short range, slow firing and only a few ships had them when the F-4 entered service. Imagine a US carrier group is escorting a convoy to Europe in the mid to late 60's after the USSR invades Western Germany. Tu-95's, Tu-16's and Tu-22's will be waiting loaded with anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles with 100km+ ranges. To counter this the USN has ships with Tartar and Terrier SAM missiles with best at the time range of 32km plus 7 ships in the entire USN with Talos the long range 100km SAM. That's what the F-4 is for to provide long range CAP and shoot down those bombers before they get in-range. Not engaging in aerial duals with MiG 17's and 19's or trying to chase down MiG 21's.

[@babboon5764]

The Hornet is widely under-rated ............. That's not my knowledge speaking its Tug Wilson's (author of confessions of a Phantom pilot) he loved his Phantoms but rated the Hornet way more potent having flown both.

[@tarmaque]

@@babboon5764 It kinda depends on which Hornet you're talking about. The original YF-17 that became the Hornet was actually the loser in the competition that brought us the F-16 Falcon. Not that it was a bad aircraft of course, but the F-16 outperformed it a lower price range. The F/A 18 Super-Hornet is the enlarged version that is more equivalent to the F-15 in many ways. I would suggest that the Phantom would be outclassed by either one, but in different ways. (Me not being an expert or anything.)

[@Derek-je6vg]

@@Ushio01 rather moot if the hit probability of your missile on a cooperative target is on the order of 5 percent - which was sparrow at the time. The f-4 as it came off the shelf was toothless because of the emphasis on sparrow in the face of repeatedly bad test data. There was a reason phantom pilots fired all four missiles at a single target in Vietnam - hoping that one might work. Given the speed and acceleration advantage of Crusader III over the phantom, I would venture it could -reliably- kill far more targets in fleet air defense, with a bonus of having more aircraft on deck than was possible with phantom. There was no Russian bomber ever made that would run away from or out-sprint the Crusader III to a launch position in a reasonable scenario. All depends on your AEW.

[@Ushio01]

@@Derek-je6vg Multiple issues with your comment. The Phantom carried 4 sparrow and 4 sidewinder in comparison to either 3 sparrows or 4 sidewinders in the Crusader 3 and neither were planned to have guns. As to the Soviet bombers when they only need to get within several hundred km of the fleet. It's not WW2 were they have to get right ont op.

[@evanrousseau8666]

Thank you and Merry Christmas 🎅

[@corey8420]

Merry Christmas, thank you for all the great videos

[@andrewpease3688]

Got up early because I am so excited. And Santa has indeed left me a present to help me through all the shit on TV on Christmas day.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

l never got a chance to fly the Crusader lll so the F-4 was my deal....Excellent video Mr Ed Nash....Thanks so much.... Shoe🇺🇸

[@christiantosumbung5791]

Missed Thailand as a user of the F8. Seen one of them in the early noughties at the Utapao airport.

[@deltavee2]

Ed, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. I thoroughly enjoy each of your videos and your hard work over the year is very much appreciated. Thank you and see you often in the New Year. Cheers from Ottawa, ON.

[@aj-2savage896]

As I understand it, it's speed was limited to that where the windshield started to melt. That while an even bigger engine was proposed.

[@jmstudios5294]

I saw this jet in a f8 documentary, and it was hard to find any info on it. Thanks much!

[@TheDing1701]

Happy Christmas!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

You too :)

[@Sublette217]

The Black Bunny VX-4 F-4 went to the RAF in 1984, and its cockpit is preserved in Liverpool.

[@Christian762]

So many times too, it seems to come down to new vs old. A really good ultimate version of a design vs the new undeveloped design. It would have been interesting to see how the single pilot/EWO combination on the III would have worked in the skies over Vietnam though.

[@babboon5764]

It would have urgently wanted cannon. Hitting something as agile as the Mig 17s flown by the North Vietnamese by trying to hold a radar lock on for the Sparrow missile whilst taking evasive action ............ I honestly do not think that would have been possible ......... It was hellish difficult for the Phantoms so they very frequently used their cannon if things got up close & personal - Which was, wisely, the NV pilot's main tactic.

[@Derek-je6vg]

@@babboon5764 exactly - and given that sparrow pssk at the time was at best was around 5-10% given a cooperative target that was the right thing to do. There was a reason phantom drivers tried firing all 4 sparrows simultaneously at single targets. They simply weren’t reliable. If we at Vought had had our druthers the sparrow would have been ditched and the Crusader III would have had loads of sidewinders to include the 9C, which was its radar variant. That would give you all weather as well as a very high reliable stowed kill count in addition to the Vulcan cannon. It’s what the Navy’s own data said - you can lead the horse to water but….

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Those ventral fins folded to be out of the way for landing and remained in the airflow. They didn't retract.

[@SatumangoTheGreat]

I was wondering about that. But on some pictures shown, I can't see them...

[@luvr381]

Happy Holidays, Ed!

[@bigblue6917]

One of those aircraft you'd have loved to see in service. It may have proven itself as a dogfighter but Robin Olds showed that the Phantom was quite capable of dealing with MiG21s with the right planning. And as a mud mover it was very capable in that role. In fact that is what the Royal Air Force bought them for. And the Vought F8 proved itself as a dogfighter. Maybe not as quickly as its sibling. Here's a thought. If it had won out against the F-4 would this video have a what if for the Phantom and how it had more potential than the Vought F8U-3

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

​@EdNashsMilitaryMatters >>> A belated _MERRY CHRISTMAS_ to you, Sir. Also: Great video...👍

[@tmcge3325]

Both awesome aircraft and both extremely fast!

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

The Vought has got a bit of an English Electric Lightning profile going on.

[@miketeeveedub5779]

If there ever was a plane that looked like a Great White Shark this was it! What a magnificent monster! But alas, it was not meant to be.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

Holidays best Ed. This 1 is sweet 1 for me. Many thanx for the gift 😁. 🎄😉

[@SimonWallwork]

Thanks Ed. Merry Christmas.😁

[@jerryjeromehawkins1712]

Absolutely gorgeous craft. Merry Christmas my friends. 🇺🇸👍🏽🎄

[@christopherneufelt8971]

Hi Mr Nash and thanks for the excellent video. The Crusader as well as other aircraft before and after it, were also subjects of political decisions of which factories will eventually build an aircraft and how the management of aircraft factories serves the grand plan of military technology and resourcing. In other words: the strategists of US-Defence, (these people are not necessary servicemen) decide not only the requirements-achievement of the provided aircraft, but also the contract-delivery, the situation of the manufacturing plant and how much affect a specific company the political situation in the long term. Vought as well as Grumman were victims of this policy. P.S. Merry Christmas.

[@RJM1011]

The front end of it looks like the Saunders Roe jet/rocket aircraft that was cancelled in the UK.

[@CSMwarhammer]

Great video of a aircraft I only saw in a book once and forgot how interesting I found it.

[@gunner678]

Merry Christmas. There is a Crusader ten kilometres from me in the Rochefort aviation museum. Well worth a visit, right next to tge Ecole Gendarmery.

[@raywhitehead730]

Things you don't expect. Former Navy pilot, I remember landing at Navy Axillary Field, El Centro, California. In the 80's. While my bird was being gassed up, I took A walk to the nearest hanger, where I had been told there was a candy and coke machine. On entering the Hangar, lordy, lordy there was and F8 Crusader parked inside ! I thought they had all been flown to the bone yard to rest. While at base ops filling my flight plan I enquired about the F8: they said it had made an emergency landing due to a cockpit fire! The kicker was, that it was the last F8, in the Navy and that the pilot had a puppy in the cockpit that had pissed and that had caused smoke in the cockpit. leaving the hangar, I inspected the plane, and sure enough, you could still smell smoke near the front wheel bay area.

[@raywhitehead730]

Bet they hauled it to the bone yard on a truck.

[@AA-xo9uw]

VFP-206 continued flying the RF-8G until the end of March 1987.

[@phayzyre1052]

The F8U3 was a much better fighter jet than the F-4 was then or is now. Apart from that I find it ironic the Navy went with the twin engine Phantom but you have to remember this was the 1950s and jets had just recently gone supersonic. Jet engine technology was still in its infancy and the problems had not quite been worked out. Therefore, speaking from a statistical standpoint the more engines you put on an aircraft thinking that extra engine gives you extra insurance (and in a roundabout way it does) but when you factor in the failure rate of the engines back then all you did was increase the probability of an incident related to an engine problem.

[@Derek-je6vg]

you hit the nail on the head

[@pastorrich7436]

New sub here and happy to have found you. I really appreciate your book references for further study! Always good to have a recommendation! The Crusader III was always an interest to me and still is. What a brute!!

[@yes_head]

Excellent video, Ed. Happy holidays!

[@anselmdanker9519]

Merry Christmas Ed and a happy and holy new year. Looking forward to more great presentations in 2023.

[@MantisShrimp80]

Definitely the best plane that never had a production run. This is what's on Wikipedia. "The F8U-3 program was cancelled with five aircraft built. Three aircraft flew during the test program, and, along with two other airframes, were transferred to NASA for atmospheric testing, as the Crusader III was capable of flying above 95% of the Earth's atmosphere. NASA pilots flying at NAS Patuxent River routinely intercepted and defeated U.S. Navy Phantom IIs in mock dogfights, until complaints from the Navy put an end to the harassment.[11] All of the Crusader IIIs were later scrapped."

[@charlesrousseau6837]

Thank you, Ed. A very interesting airplane indeed. I guess that its failure was due to the fact that it had neither the manoeuvrability of the F8, nor the flexibility and redundancy of the F4. I can only wonder how, without sidewinders, a gun and a second pair of eyes and hands, this heavy craft would have fared against nimble Vietnamese MiG-17s.

[@colinw7205]

I would love to hear Vought's pitch of the Super Crusader vs the F-106 Delta Dart to the USAF. Both planes to this day are acknowledged as the two top speed queens of their time, both had great range, both had great high speed and high altitude handling capabilities with hidden good dogfighting qualities. Finally both were powered by the fabulous J75 engine definitely the big dog of 1950's fighter engines. As a side note there was a saying among F-105 maintenance crews during the Vietnam War that "If you toss a rock into the intake of a J75 while running a dust cloud comes out of the tailpipe." The difference here is the weaponry. While the Sparrow was horrible in its initial operation in Vietnam it did get progressively better while the radar guided Falcon was always a turd.

[@Tigershark_3082]

There were also IR falcons. There was one model in particular that, while not on the leven of the AIM-9L, was roughly on-par with the AIM-9J: the XAIM-4H. Unlike the earlier Falcons, it had a proxy fuse, as well as a tighter turn circle. They were only ever test-fired from the F-106.

[@Derek-je6vg]

Exactly right on the j-75 … which is why the twin engine argument is a technical red herring. I’ll take a single j-75 for battle damage over twin j-79s any day and twice Sunday

[@stewartellinson8846]

the twin engine / twin crew layout seems much more versatile and is more or less the default for carrier jets for a reason

[@Derek-je6vg]

Cept it’s to big for all the smaller Essex conversions in the navy fleet at that time…they couldn’t support phantoms…ever

[@SoloRenegade]

Merry Christmas! I love the F-8 Crusader and Crusader 3

[@ironteacup2569]

Lots of interesting dead ends that we never can know what the reasons are but it is what it is

[@robertdragoff6909]

Hey Ed, Merry Christmas and a happy new year! I have just one question….. It has to do with those two tail fins that extend out the bottom of the aircraft….. How do they retract/extend and where do they go when they’ve not being used? I’ve seen this plane before and I’ve always wondered. Again, happiest of holidays sir!

[@shaymcquaid]

Fantastic content! Thank you.

[@abitofapickle6255]

You know a plane is fast when it has a J75 in it.

[@barrybecker3706]

Fantastic video, as usual!!!!

[@RincetheWind]

It looks so happy!

[@mattw785]

great vid

[@kevinbaird9763]

Happy Holidays Ed.

[@jimcunningham5376]

It looks like a Goblin Shark ...LITERALLY.

[@jtjames79]

When you're standing right next to a Crusader, there is nothing in your brain that says this thing could possibly be agile. It doesn't even look like it should fly.

[@Derek-je6vg]

I would say that about a phantom - it proves a brick can fly with enough thrust

[@jtjames79]

@@Derek-je6vg Funny enough I did say that about the Phantom. Until I got under a Crusader. It's on a whole nother level.

[@imadrifter]

As a matter of fact I am not even going to watch this as of 1:19am PST but I am however going to wait until at least a full 12 hours until watching it, because anticipation is key

[@terrylutke]

I've always liked the Phantom. It was slick, big, fast, smokey & hauled bombs by the truck load. Who could ask for more:)

[@Derek-je6vg]

You might ask that question when you’re high subsonic because of the bomb load, drinking fuel so fast your afterburner use is limited at best, and faced with say a mig-21 operating on home turf with a gun (which you didn’t have) at your 6….The phantoms best use as a bomb truck was get in fast, salvo, and get out…just as was the case with the f-105s. Fly to your strengths. You forgot it’s other ‘strengths’ - expensive, very very fuel hungry, a maintenance hog, etc. The proper answer was a hi-lo mix just as was done with f-15/f-16. There was no reason not to do that, beyond the stubbornness of the admirals and the pentagon who believed sparrow would become effective ‘any day now’. That took place decades later unfortunately.

[@migueldelacruz4799]

This thing needs a hug. It tried so hard.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The XF8U-3 missile control and the use of autopilot in a BVR engagement would turn me off. The unfortunate thing was the F4 phantom even with the extra crewman had a fairly complex process for launching a missile in particular the Sparrow. It wasn't what you would call optimal. There was a lot of switches to throw I remember reading about some complaints regarding that during the Vietnam war. The rhino, nickname for the F4 all is impressed the hell out of me when I was living just north of MacDill Air Force Base. These train Air Force F4 pilots at MacDill. When those things took off it rattled the windows. Tax dollars at work is the way I always looked at it! When they were doing touch and goes at night it was really cool. You'd see the smoke come off the tires and the afterburners with light and the F4 would rocket into the air.

[@Derek-je6vg]

early sparrows had low reliability - the chances of getting off any successful sparrow shot at this point in time against anything but something flying straight and steady were zero. Even the early sidewinders would break lock at over 2G - the pilots all knew it but as usual common sense was overruled by a requirement that could not yet be technically filled - namely a low cost reliable twin engine design with reliable missiles and a gun. Remember the early phantoms had no gun and ended up using a gun pod which literally sprayed rounds everywhere thanks to vibration in the pod and pylon. Imho the navy selected the phantom simply as the school solution, not because it was a better aircraft for the mission. It wasn’t. It wasn’t until much later in the aircraft design cycle that engines airframe and armament actually allowed good multipurpose jets with the range and performance to be worthy of the role

[@tacticalmanatee]

Could we get a video on the A-7, and/or the impressive YA-7F?

[@icewaterslim7260]

Another intriguing what if. J79 powered F11 would've been an interesting turn fighter but wasn't about to replace the more rangy F8 as a carrier fighter in any case. I think however that the foreign purchasers of the F104 over the j79 powered F11F-1F were regretting their choice.

[@onkelmicke9670]

Interesting plane. How about the follow on to the F-104, the CL-102 Lancer?

[@johnshepherd9676]

I had several opportunities to talk to George Spangenberg when I was at NAVAIR. He told me that he had cautioned the source selection authority that they were counting on unproven technology for both aircraft and his real preference was for the Crusader III because it was the superior aircraft for traditional air-to-air combat. Vietnam proved him correct. The Sparrow was ineffective and the early Sidewinder had such a narrow field of view that the MiGs could out turn it at slow speeds. The Crusader III would have had the same issues with the missiles but it could out fly the opposition. The Phantom's multirole capability was a selling point but the Navy's next fighter, the F14, didn't have it until the end of it's service life. They realized that you are either a fighter pilot or an attack pilot, not both. I also had an opportunity to talk to a retired Navy test pilot who flew the the U-3, the F4 and the F14A and he said that except for low speed/low altitude the U-3 was superior to the Tomcat. Finally I think the myth of the U-3 embarrassing the F4 has it origin in the first year or so of the Fighter Weapons school when there was no dedicated aggressor squadron. The simply flew F8s with experienced pilots against Phantoms and the Crusader beat them most of the time.

[@Derek-je6vg]

I think you have this right as an ex Vought aircraft person - in retrospect phantom was the wrong choice because technology wouldn’t support the desire for effective twin engine multirole until decades later. No use wishing for things you can’t have - you do the best with you have at the tine of design and build in as much upgrade room as possible.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

I guess dogfighting and guiding the missile smultaniusly would have been a bit to much multitasking.

[@rolanddutton]

Merry Christmas! I always thought the Crusader III was a cool looking aircraft. Something tells me those folding ventral fins would be asking for trouble on a carrier fighter though.

[@sealove79able]

Please make a video about the dogfights between the Skyraiders and Vietnamese jets.

[@tedstrikertwa800]

Certainly goes against the old adage if it looks right it flys right

[@cab6273]

Considering its performance, I wonder if Vought considered redesigning it as a reconnaissance aircraft.

[@scottshaw1310]

Amazing plane! All scrapped! It doesn't make sense! Why????

[@imadrifter]

Unnnhhhhhh!! 🍄💦💦💦💦.....💦 THE Greatest Christmas present I could have and did ask for this year, but since these XF8 Crusader III Interceptors are quite impossible to come by nowadays, plus the cost of fuel, hanger fees, convincing the FAA that it is just a fun, weekend getaway "ultralight", I suppose this amazing dive into the development and potential production of what could have been *Amazing Vought High-Speed Soviet Bomber Interceptors

[@benjaminjohnson6476]

Im wouldn't be surprised if part of the choice was to diversify aircraft manufacturing. If they chose the F8U-3 Vaught would have been building both the navy's fighter and interceptor which could have lead to supply issues but who really knows. Maybe they could do it just fine.

[@banggobang5148]

How can I only discover this aircraft today? I'm hella missing out...

[@brucewelty7684]

Vought, so close to the brass ring but so often a bridesmaid.

[@grahamnash9794]

I'm curios about the use of the Conway un the type. How would it compare with the American engine. O know the Conway was used to render the VC10 the fastest airliner in the world once Concord was finished. But how much further development would have been required to put the engine into military service? Merry Christmas Ed.

[@gblowe62]

Just think how Chance-Vaught would be now if they had gotten the contract instead of the F4

[@JGCR59]

Could the Crusader III have been used from Essex class carriers? The Phantom wasn't so maybe that was something it would have had going for it

[@Derek-je6vg]

Phantom could never be operated by any Essex class regardless of conversion. They could and did operate crusaders

[@mondo851]

I wonder if the Super Crusader would have lost some of its dogfighter agility compared to the original Crusader, with the added weight/size. As an interceptor, the Super C. looks like a beast.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

The Navy wanted a fighter Attack aircraft.. and a better plane for deck landings .. and the landing gear on the F-4 could really take a beating ..

[@BenState]

Twin engines must be a plus for a marine going force no?

[@ProjectFlashlight612]

"This series is not as good as Dark Skies" - nobody, ever.

[@randyhavard6084]

How quickly do you think it would burn through it's fuel supply at mach 3

[@charlesfaure1189]

Many years ago I saw a tv program that said the Super Crusader was also going to be difficult to get aboard the carriers. There was concern over projected losses of pilots and aircraft. Whether that report has any credibility these days, I don't know.

[@ifga16]

I favor the Crusader over the Phantom. Being retired military, I have seen some of the nonsense political moves made to favor one contractor over another. FYI, in 1980, I was aboard USS Nimitz during the Iranian hostage situation. We had another of my favs, the Tomcat and RF8 Crusader photo recon planes. While waiting for Jimmy Carter to pull the trigger and send the helos in to try to rescue the hostages, the F14s and F8s flew exercises which included mock dog fights. The Crusaders did more than hold their own against the Cats.

[@Derek-je6vg]

Agree completely

[@AA-xo9uw]

VFP-63 Det 5

[@sealove79able]

This F8U-3 looks like 4x a rocket with a man strapped inside in comparison with the F104.Maybe I am wrong. What was the highest speed achieved by the Crusader III?

[@Derek-je6vg]

Officially or unofficially lol - I can tell you it was capable of flying far faster than we tested it to… but I know of a pilot that supercooled his windshield before a sprint run that had ‘excellent results’

[@sealove79able]

@@Derek-je6vg Thank you. I missed the latter part of your reply.

[@richhoule3462]

How did the ventral fins retract?

[@donsharpe5786]

I would have thought that the benefit of having 2 engines over the sea would win over a single engine, with the risk of losing one engine.

[@Derek-je6vg]

Depends on failure modes - the way the j-79s are installed in phantom nearly guarantees if one engine goes it will take the other with it. I’ll take the j-75 with robust damage degradation over the j-79s any day. The f-105 basically showed how a crusader III would take damage. It was known to be a very robust airframe.

[@Nurhaal]

This is a typical reminder that building specialized aircraft doesn't work when one platform is capable of multiple roles. While the F-4 was never intended for multiple roles, it did perform them flawlessly when pressed. One of the most notable of which was the F-4 be placed in the Wild Weasel role for the USAF. There's no doubt that some of what the F-4 did, the F-8 C3 could probably have done as well; for example since both were designed with the same RADAR apertures in mind, that would've meant that like the F-4, the F-8 C3 could've also had a terrain following RADAR system for possible ground attack roles. However, the F-4s aerodynamics was very good at low level, making is one of the fastest aircraft ever made at low level flight. Only the later F-111 could beat it on the deck. However, it could be argued that the loiter time and extreme speed of the C3 might've made it a better recon platform than the RF-4C variant was. Who knows. All I know is that from the late 50s through the early 80s, some of the most nostalgic aircraft ever made flew. I love the lot of them.

[@Derek-je6vg]

Sorry but that’s a rather nonsensical statement in reality. Do you maintain a phantom was a better all weather bomb delivery platform than say an A-6? Multirole usually also implies ‘master of none’ and you better be willing to live with the consequences of mission failure. Done as well? The phantom could never hold a candle to a crusader III as a pure fighter. Not even it’s final form. Talking to the pilots that flew both, the question was often asked ‘are you willing to bet your carrier on this decision? Do you have the confidence in BVR technology given your own test data?’ The answer was always a resounding hell no, and history showed the pilots answer was in fact correct. There was nothing unique to the F-4 at low level beyond thrust. The f-105 and the British bucaneeer were both good at low level. You can ask any f-15 pilot that tried to intercept buccaneers at red flag. The phantom was a capable aircraft and served us well…but the correct answer given the missiles of the day was a hi lo mix. Exactly what was done with f-15/f-16.I remain on the side of the navy pilots on this question.

[@williamspencer1978]

Why an incredible gify

[@katana1430]

If this had gone into service, I give it less that 8 seconds before someone paints shark teeth on the nose and intake.

[@Kabayoth]

It's a fact the Phantom was an ugly plane. Truly, I suspect McDonnell would have gone under without the F-4. It wasn't a dogfighter. It wasn't a good interceptor, but the missiles of the time were largely to blame for that. It ended up being a better bomber, which is arguably what was needed. But like all planes not designed for the role they served, it struggled. Doctrine shaped the specification, and the doctrine was flawed. Yet the fact remains: the F-8 III would have been even worse at dropping bombs than the F-4. Had Vought taken that into consideration, things would likely be different. The Corsair II would seem to make this appraisal invalid, but if that were true, the Navy would have bought more F-8Es instead. I hate to speak against the Crusader III, but the decision at the time was likely a good one. Vietnam wasn't at all kind to the F-4, and it showed how air combat could not be done. We might not have the F-15 or F-14 without the absolute thrashing pre-Vietnam doctrine received at the hands of some brave Vietnamese pilots strapped into inferior aircraft. The Crusader III would have cleared the skies in Vietnam with Sidewinders and cannons (had the Navy insisted on the M61 being installed,) but to what result? Ultimately, AAA and SAMs killed the flower of 1950's technology. The Phantom could handle the SAM threat with the second crewman. Chances are the Crusader III needed tandem seating like the English Electric Lightning, and greater attention spent on ground attack. I believe the French would have savored the idea of Crusader III's sparring with F-4's in fleet exercises. Design changes would have to follow these rules to overcome the Phantom: two seats, move the air inlets to the shoulder like the F-105, use the added space for avionics, and knock it off with the variable incidence wing which only added weight and complexity.

[@donwyoming1936]

What's better? A jet that does one thing the best, or a jet that can do everything pretty well? The F-4 won for the right reason.

[@Derek-je6vg]

Don’t agree - armament and aerodynamic shortfalls insured it would never perform as advertised as a fighter - and there far better and cheaper bomb trucks available - never mind the additional maintenance burden of two engines vs one. That’s like saying you’ll take an me-110 over a spitfire simply because it was more multirole. Multirole is good but only to a point, especially when it comes to money. Somehow the US has gotten trapped into the loss rate tail spin. You’re going to lose aircraft - it’s a given. You have to have a force structure that can financially tolerate loss - not one that is over-optimized for multirole at the expense of cost and maintenance.

[@howardsix9708]

fascinatng upload, thank you.....i learned a lot..............h6