F-16 vs. F-8 Crusader/Super Crusader

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

RedFive

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 21:53
  • Location: S. California

Unread post27 Feb 2008, 22:18

How would the Viper go up against the MiG Master in these three scenarios:

1. vs. latest block F-8, equal pilot skills, WVR fight - guns/Sidewinders only

2a. In theory: vs. F-8U-3 Super Crusader (Crusader III) had it gone into production, same above criteria

2b. same as above with AMRAAM equipped F-16 vs. Sparrow equipped Crusader III
Offline

F16guy

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 366
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004, 14:08

Unread post28 Feb 2008, 09:46

Tough Questions. This whole F-16 vs. anything thread is usually based upon opinion and lacks a lot of reality. No one fights one v one in war (or has a death wish if they do).

1. Don't know. Don't have any experience flying against one. It retired way before I could fight it. Gums anything?
2. Don't know. Tough to say how something that was never built would fly.

3. Don't know. Most likely the launch and leave AMRAAM. The Sparrow shooter would die trying to keep the target illuminated or have to run away trashing the shot.
Offline

RedFive

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 21:53
  • Location: S. California

Unread post28 Feb 2008, 22:32

Completely agree F16guy. It's all theoritical as I mentioned above. But then again, not too many F-16 pilots have had actual combat experience with MiGs, Su's or what not either, so yeah, this vs. XYZ thing is usually either opinion-,theoritical (or technical)-,or in some cases, if we're lucky enough, experience-based. I also arranged them in more specific scenarios to avoid the "what if...", "other pilot is better", "..more than one jet" debates that usually come up on this section, and to try to make the fight more fair (we all know the F-8 is a generation or two older). In other words, how would the F-16 do given these handicaps? It's all for fun and imagination as we all know these two fine aircraft will never see the same sky :D Here's some proposed specs for the Crusader III taken from...dare i say...wiki:

General characteristics
* Crew: 1 pilot
* Length: 58 ft 8 in (17.88 m)
* Wingspan: 39 ft 11 in (12.16 m)
* Height: 16 ft 4 in (4.98 m)
* Wing area: 450 ft² (41.8 m²)
* Empty weight: 21,860 lb (9,915 kg)
* Loaded weight: 32,320 lb (14,660 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 38,770 lb (17,590 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney J75-P-5A afterburning turbojet
o Dry thrust: 16,500 lbf (73.4 kN)
o Thrust with afterburner: 29,500 lbf (131.2 kN)
* * Fuel capacity: 2,000 US gal (7,700 L)
Performance
* Maximum speed: 2.9 Mach (estimated) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m)[1]
* Cruise speed: 500 knots (575 mph, 925 km/h)
* Range: 560 NM, (645 mi, 1,040) with external fuel
* Ferry range: 1,777 NM (2,045 mi, 3,290 km)
* Service ceiling 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
* Rate of climb: 32,500 ft/min (165 m/s)
* Wing loading: 72 lb/ft² (350 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.74
Armament
* Guns: 4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (planned; never installed)[4]
* Missiles:
o 3× AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missiles
o 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles (planned for production)
Avionics
* Raytheon Aero 1B weapons control system, including:
* Autotechnicas AN/AWG-7 missile control system
* AN/APQ-50 radar (planned for production)
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post29 Feb 2008, 01:36

The J75 in the Super Crusader would have given the F100/F110 of the Viper a good match. At high MACH the Crusader would have walked away from a Viper... Turbojets are cool! :twisted:

From: http://gator.crouze.com/chapter5page.html

On August 14 (1958), on its 38th flight, the prototype reached Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound) for the first time. Highest speed attained was Mach 2,39, but remarkably even at this speed the aircraft continued to accelerate, going Mach 0.1 faster every 17 seconds! Only a seemingly small detail kept the F8U-3 from going faster: the cockpit glazing fitted, and especially the frontal part, was not designed for speeds faster than Mach 2.2. Going faster than that and the windscreen would soon turn opaque and melt, all due to the friction and subsequent heat generated by the onrushing air. Of course developing new cockpit glazing that would eliminate this restriction was a high priority item, but was never implemented. Otherwise the true potential of the Crusader III would have been revealed. Experience gained from the flight test program predicted a (rather pessimistic) maximum speed of Mach 2.6 at an altitude of 35,000 ft (10,700 m), but near Mach 2.9 was more likely. With some modifications Mach 3 would have been within easy reach, but even without the Crusader III would have become the fastest fighter aircraft in the world. Not only the maximum speed was remarkable, the acceleration too was simply breathtaking, even without the proposed rocket engine. At an altitude of 35,000 ft (10,700 m) at Mach 0.98 the first prototype needed only 3 minutes and 54 seconds to accelerate to Mach 2.2. Only a few fighters of today can match that! The second prototype with its slightly lower powered engine however needed no less than 9 minutes, and it was predicted that the production aircraft's figure would lie somewhat in the middle. Maximum altitude was also not bad, the F8U-3 could sustain 60,000 to 65,000 ft (almost 20,000 m). With a ballistic "zoom climb" trajectory the aircraft could top 90,000 ft (more than 27 kilometers).


Ahh the mighty J75/JT4, what a turbojet! :inlove:

Super Crusaders were to be engined with the P-8 model producing 28,000lbs of thrust!

Not bad for 1958! 8)
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1760
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post02 Mar 2008, 07:12

Dang! Why did Super Crusader never come to fruition?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-Project Engineer
Offline

Spartan-120

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 05:27

Unread post08 Mar 2008, 20:53

Because the Navy felt that the F-4 Phantom was better suited to the fleet air defense mission.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1760
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post09 Mar 2008, 12:46

Oh yeah. In hindsight the Phantom II did a fine job, but we will never know which was truely better will we?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-Project Engineer
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post09 Mar 2008, 14:37

The F-4/F-8 debate had a lot do due with the RIO in the back seat of the Phantom. The radar/missile systems at the time were not very automated, and the workload for a single person was too high.
Attachments
f-110.jpg
F-110 Spectre later known as the F-4C Phantom II
Offline

dannytoro

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:17
  • Location: georgia

Unread post17 Jan 2010, 01:37

How would the Viper go up against the MiG Master in these three scenarios:

1. vs. latest block F-8, equal pilot skills, WVR fight - guns/Sidewinders only

2a. In theory: vs. F-8U-3 Super Crusader (Crusader III) had it gone into production, same above criteria

2b. same as above with AMRAAM equipped F-16 vs. Sparrow equipped Crusader III


On point one that would be tough to say. One would have to assume the progression to the last blocks of sparrow and sidewinder. Also I'd believe had the Super Crusader had succeeded, a gun was sure to be a fixture. Although which one is a bit speculative. I'd guess they stick to 4 M39 20mm based on experience and ease of integration.

On point two, I'd suggest the Super Crusader would be roughly analogous to the F-106 in performance. Both would have a big speed advantage, the ability to maintain it, but both would be limited in a close in dogfight. Probably needing to score a kill on it's initial turn, or the game is up.

On point three, AMRAAM naturally trumps the sparrow in many areas, but some of the later post "E" Sparrows could snap off some extremely long 60+ mile shots. So you'd need to respect that chance. The key word being chance as Sparrows where a bit squirrely. But I'd say they were not as bad as their reputation.

In all, I'd think a smart Super Cru driver could drive the initiation game, stay at a distance and take pot shots. Maybe even snap in for a diving turning fight. But beyond that, he's toast......Really, it would be much like engaging a Mig-25 in a number of ways, especially had the USN followed Voughts experience and upgraded the canopy to take advantage of the Super Cru's amazing power and acceleration. Remember, they got it to Mach 2.83, and thought 3.2 was possible with a better windscreen!
Offline

dannytoro

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:17
  • Location: georgia

Unread post17 Jan 2010, 01:40

The F-4/F-8 debate had a lot do due with the RIO in the back seat of the Phantom. The radar/missile systems at the time were not very automated, and the workload for a single person was too high.


I never knew why Vought did point out the F-106 was far more complex then either an F-4 or F-8U-3, yet was easily flown by a single pilot.
Offline

Kryptid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 343
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 01:16

Unread post17 Jan 2010, 02:50

The F-4/F-8 debate had a lot do due with the RIO in the back seat of the Phantom. The radar/missile systems at the time were not very automated, and the workload for a single person was too high.

Couldn't the military have requested a 2-seater version of the Crusader III if they thought it was that important?
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.
Offline

StolichnayaStrafer

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 16:50
  • Location: Dodge City, Moscowchusetts

Unread post17 Jan 2010, 17:51

What with the variable angle wing and such, would it even have had room for another seat? That baby was already stretched out pretty long as is!
Why is the vodka gone?
Why is the vodka always gone... oh- that's why!
Hide the vodka!!!
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post17 Jan 2010, 20:23

:shrug: not sure?

In the A-7 the ammo drum was aft of the cockpit, it was evident in the fact the single seat SLUF had 1000 rounds of ammo where the family model only carried 500. Not sure what the Super Corsair carried aft of the cockpit but at 58ft I don't know how much longer you'd like to make her to accommodate a RIO.

Shame the radar technology wasn't up to the challenge at the time. The Super Corsair would have made an awesome fighter/interceptor.

:2c: TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post17 Jan 2010, 21:41

I love Google.... :inlove:

http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/ ... l/f8u.html

There was a tandem trainer version of the F-8, the TF-8A or F8U-1T.... So I guess there could have been space in the Super Corsair III for the same rear cockpit?

:shrug: TEG
Attachments
1532_020_22.gif
1532_046_22.gif
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

StolichnayaStrafer

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 16:50
  • Location: Dodge City, Moscowchusetts

Unread post18 Jan 2010, 01:25

I don't know if the Super Crusader had the same configuration but the others had a brace of 4 20mm cannons. Ammo to feed all of those puppies must have taken up a bit of room as well.
Why is the vodka gone?
Why is the vodka always gone... oh- that's why!
Hide the vodka!!!
Next

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests