Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III

boxkite

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
818
Reaction score
25
Two magazines („The Aeroplane“ and „Flugwelt“) mention a Chance Vought XF9U as an further development of the F8U with big radar in the nose and air intakes similar to the F-105. Is it a hoax or a secret project?

Who is able to help?
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
28
Can you give dates for this project, might be we can try to get a design number from Bernard Millot's list
 

boxkite

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
818
Reaction score
25
Antonio,

Unfortunately, I have nothing more :(.
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
1
My first thought is that the description isn't that far off from the XF8U-3.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
17
There was a V-400 from 1955-6, an all-weather missile-launching fighter. But AFAIK never reached the XF designation stage.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
I agree with Evan - the intake on the XF8U-3 is similar to the F-105 intake (forward swept lip) and it carried a larger radar.
 

wyvernhawk

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
It is not the F8U-3 crusader III.
I had looked it also.
This project maybe in 1957 or 1958, air intake forward swept,design speed mach 2.5.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
17
If it's not an interceptor, could be V-440, a penetration airplane for USAF (but no XF9U...) - 1959 timeframe.
There is a V-416, low-altitude attack airplane for the USN.
Then there is the V-386 V-391 V-394 series of LRI proposals for the USAF, but the timeframe is earlier 1952-1954.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
3
If the Chance-Vought 'F9U-1' is a hoax then it is a good one.
Besides a three view in Flugwelt heft 2 (issue 2 ) of 1958 - page 109
there is also a list with dimensions and performences compared
with the F8U-1... But F9U-1 is not in the US Navy designations list as mentioned, while the projected Grumman XF12F is..
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Would like to see that three view!

Paul.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
3
I'll send a photocopy of the page to Overscan.
Maybe he will put it on this thread...
 

boxkite

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
818
Reaction score
25
I don’t want to spoil the discussion, but I’ve got an answer from Tony Buttler:

I think this question came up earlier this year and I contacted the chap who looks after the Vought archive - Dick Atkins. I think he said there was no such thing. There is certainly no reference to this type of aircraft or designation in the Vought project index and I have not mentioned it in my book.
Sorry, folks.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
3
I've read somewhere (lost the source)that the designation XF9U originally was given to the XF8U-3 Crusader III since this was almost
a new design instead of a simple development of the FU-8.
Maybe the design with the swept forward air intakes was
an early proposal in the XF8-3 development ?
But of course this is speculation...
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,221
Reaction score
38
I browse Google yesterday and I found that

http://groups.google.mn/group/rec.aviation.military/tree/browse_frm/month/1994-10/376a4d7347b5a1ce?rnum=211&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.aviation.military%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1994-10%3F

From Joe baugher...
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
17
Ok, but even if it was not the XF9U, somehow the 3-view was leaked out... So, it existed. Now, just find a project number...
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Well, thanks to lark, here's the beastie in question.

Chance Vought F9U-1 "Super Crusader"

Rolls-Royce Conway RCo.11 with 7700kgp thrust, 13,600kgp with afterburning, or Rolls-Royce C-133.

Length: 16.6m
Height: 4.5m
Span: 8.4m
Wing area: 20 sq m
Speed: Mach 2.4-2.5
Landing speed: 220km/h
Ceiling: 19800m
Range: 1800km

Flugwelt 1958
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,637
Reaction score
127
Looks like a pregnant F-105 :D I wonder why they've only got RR engines listed whereas the Crusader III had the J-75 and J-58 as possiblities. Interesting. Anybody know if this design came before or after the XF8U-3?
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
5
overscan said:
Well, thanks to lark, here's the beastie in question.

Chance Vought F9U-1 "Super Crusader"

Rolls-Royce Conway RCo.11 with 7700kgp thrust, 13,600kgp with afterburning, or Rolls-Royce C-133.

Length: 16.6m
Height: 4.5m
Span: 8.4m
Wing area: 20 sq m
Speed: Mach 2.4-2.5
Landing speed: 220km/h
Ceiling: 19800m
Range: 1800km

Flugwelt 1958
An approach speed of 220km/h or 119 knots is quite respectable with an aircraft with such high wing loading. This design has a far shorter span than the F-8, with a dramatically decreased wing area, so I can only assume that some form boundary layer control was envisioned.

The choice of a Conway variant is also peculiar, and not only because it would represent a British powerplant in an American designed airframe? By 1958, the Medway would have offered lighter weight, comparable power and superior SFC over the older Conway.

I am left to wonder if this "Super Crusader" was conceived as an unsolicited proposal to the Royal Navy?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
I emailed Jay Miller, who has researched extensively in the Vought archives, and he also could not find any traces of this design. Perhaps it never actually existed?
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
1
overscan said:
Well, thanks to lark, here's the beastie in question.

Chance Vought F9U-1 "Super Crusader"

Rolls-Royce Conway RCo.11 with 7700kgp thrust, 13,600kgp with afterburning, or Rolls-Royce C-133.

Length: 16.6m
Height: 4.5m
Span: 8.4m
Wing area: 20 sq m
Speed: Mach 2.4-2.5
Landing speed: 220km/h
Ceiling: 19800m
Range: 1800km

Flugwelt 1958
That wing looks very much like a F-105 wing. I keep wondering if this was inspired by a verbal description of early concepts of the XF8U-3.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
As Tommy has the Vought F8U-3 as his winter project, I think this might be an interesting topic for senior members to consider. Obviously the Vought Heritage Association is the first port of call, but what else is out there?

http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/F8U.html

Has the following report for sale:

Chance Vought Manufacturers "Flight Guide for Navy Model F8U-3 Bu No 147085, Report E8R-11546 dated 14-11-58, approx 160 pages.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,637
Reaction score
127
The article on the F8U-3 in Airtime's Wings of Fame had a bit of interview with some of the test pilots. Perhaps they might be available for further interview?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Donald W. Mallick flew the F8U-3 at NASA from 1959, he has a chapter about it in his autobiography here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88797main_kerosene.pdf
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
687
Reaction score
2
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Been looking at the Mallick "book", thanks. The Vought test pilot I'm in contact with had some corrections to make on Mallick's account. He said that the compressor stall issue wasn't overstated, however.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Presume you've visited the Russell Clark Collection already? No specific F8U-3 references but looks potentially interesting.

http://www.utdallas.edu/library/collections/speccoll/hacpdf/Clark.pdf
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
687
Reaction score
2
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Thanks very much for that reference. Visiting UT Dallas has been on my list of things to do for a couple of years but I am disappointed to see that there was no F8U-3 stuff listed in Russell Clark's papers.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Cool!!!!

Summary of Navy Study Program for F4H-1 and F8U-3 Weapon Systems. Volume III.
MR-754-Vol-3
http://torpedo.nrl.navy.mil/tu/ps/doc.html?dsn=11090596
or http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD368048

Summary of Navy Study Program for F4H-1 and F8U-3 Weapon Systems. (Parameter Plots for Co-Altitude Attacks). Volume VII.
MR-754-Vol-7
http://torpedo.nrl.navy.mil/tu/ps/doc.html?dsn=3071051
or http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD368357

Summary of Navy Study Program for F4H-1 and F8U-3 Weapon Systems. Parameter Plots for Pull-Up Attacks. Volume VIII.
MR-754-Vol-8
http://torpedo.nrl.navy.mil/tu/ps/doc.html?dsn=9151612
or http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD368358

Summary of Navy Study Program for F4H-1 and F8U-3 Weapon Systems. Volume IV. Appendices 1-8.
http://torpedo.nrl.navy.mil/tu/ps/doc.html?dsn=9141215
or http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD368356

Theres more on F4H-1 alone, but thats not really relevant to topic.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Stinet has these plus:

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR F4H-1 AND F8U-3 WEAPON SYSTEMS
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD367910

SUMMARY OF NAVY STUDY PROGRAM FOR F4H-1 AND F8U-3 WEAPON SYSTEMS. VOLUME II. APPENDICES
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD367907
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Secondary sources:

Was the Vought F8U-3 Crusader III crucified by an unworkable Fighter Bomber Concept? Airpower Vol.7 Number 4
Vought's Third Crusader by Jay Miller, Air Enthusiast 31, July-November 1986 [great article]
Crusader III: 'The Best They Ever Cancelled!' by Mike Badrocke, Air Enthusiast 58, July-August 1995
Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III by Peter B. Mersky, Wings Of Fame, Volume 9 1997
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
687
Reaction score
2
Website
www.tommythomason.com
overscan said:
Secondary sources:

Was the Vought F8U-3 Crusader III crucified by an unworkable Fighter Bomber Concept? Airpower Vol.7 Number 4
Vought's Third Crusader by Jay Miller, Air Enthusiast 31, July-November 1986 [great article]
Crusader III: 'The Best They Ever Cancelled!' by Mike Badrocke, Air Enthusiast 58, July-August 1995
Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III by Peter B. Mersky, Wings Of Fame, Volume 9 1997
For sure I've got the first three. I may have that Wings of Fame back in Connecticut. Thanks for reminding me. Also, there's a good article on the fly-off in Flight Journal December 1977 by Adm Gillcrist and Bob Kress. That may be on line.

Thanks for the study references. I think I've skimmed them all but I'm double checking.

Specific questions at the moment are:

First flight date for the first production F8U-3

Date of transfer of the first XF8U-3 to Edwards on and under a C-124.

Whether there were two XF4Hs at Edwards for the fly-off (there were two XF8U-3s)

The change(s) made to the -3 inlet/exhaust system midway through the fly-off to reduce the incidence/severity of compressor stalling

The configuration and problems with the XF4H during the fly off (I have before and after pictures, but not one of the XF4H during the fly-off.)
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
The Corsair and others - Aeroplanes Vought, 1917-1977 G.P.Moran, 1978
I checked this, doesn't seem to have anything very interesting to add.

On 20 April 1958 the first of two XF8U-3 Crusader III missile fighter prototypes rolled-out at CVA's Grand Prairie, Texas, facility. On 1 May it was transported to Edwards AFB via a Douglas C-124 Globemaster. On 24 May, after reassembly, Konrad initiated low-speed taxi runs. High-speed taxi runs were finished on 30 May and, during one of them, a lift-off occurred at 122 knots. The airplane actually 'flew" about the length of a football field, about 5 feet above the runway. Then on 2 June, Konrad made the first flight of XF8U-3 No.1. He
took-off at 8:27 a.m. and landed early 48 minutes later at 9:15 a.m.
Source:
Steve Pace, Naval Fighters 16: Vought F-8 Crusader (1): Development and Testing, Foreign Users and F8U-3
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
A NASA photo of the XF8U-3 was published in A New Dimension; Wallops Island Flight Test Range: The First Fifteen Years by Joseph Shortal, in connection with the sonic boom tests there in July/August 1959. No idea if there's useful info in the book as I can't do the 230mb download until later this month.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790011995_1979011995.pdf
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
687
Reaction score
2
Website
www.tommythomason.com
overscan said:
The Corsair and others - Aeroplanes Vought, 1917-1977 G.P.Moran, 1978
I checked this, doesn't seem to have anything very interesting to add.

On 20 April 1958 the first of two XF8U-3 Crusader III missile fighter prototypes rolled-out at CVA's Grand Prairie, Texas, facility. On 1 May it was transported to Edwards AFB via a Douglas C-124 Globemaster. On 24 May, after reassembly, Konrad initiated low-speed taxi runs. High-speed taxi runs were finished on 30 May and, during one of them, a lift-off occurred at 122 knots. The airplane actually 'flew" about the length of a football field, about 5 feet above the runway. Then on 2 June, Konrad made the first flight of XF8U-3 No.1. He
took-off at 8:27 a.m. and landed early 48 minutes later at 9:15 a.m.
Source:
Steve Pace, Naval Fighters 16: Vought F-8 Crusader (1): Development and Testing, Foreign Users and F8U-3
Thanks - so now the rollout is 24 April or 20 April and the first flight is 20-something minutes (cut short by suspected ventral fin flutter)or 48 minutes, landing "early". One step forward, two steps back.

I'll try to get in touch with Steve Pace again...
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
The premier flight was aborted because of throttle interference at 350 knots and 20,000 feet. This malfunction caused enough vibration to shake loose and seperate the left ventral stabilizing fin from the aircraft. The aircraft was able to return safely however. Incidentally, this first Dash III was powered by the J75-P-5A engine, and did not exceed Mach 1 until its 6th flight test on 11 June.
These are the next few sentences, so they agree on the cause of abort, just not on duration.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
687
Reaction score
2
Website
www.tommythomason.com
overscan said:
A NASA photo of the XF8U-3 was published in A New Dimension; Wallops Island Flight Test Range: The First Fifteen Years by Joseph Shortal, in connection with the sonic boom tests there in July/August 1959. No idea if there's useful info in the book as I can't do the 230mb download until later this month.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790011995_1979011995.pdf
Good Find:

Page 670 (!): In 1958, a program was initiated by H. H. Hubbard and D. J. Maglieri of the Dynamic Loads Division of Langley, to measure actual ground pressures accompanying sonic booms. Again, Wallops was selected for the tests because of its relative isolation. One measuring station was installed on the island proper, and two on the mainland between Wallops and Chesapeake Bay. The Langley Flight Division handled the flight operations, and Langley pilots were used in all the tests except one for a Convair B-58 flight in 1959.

The program at Wallops was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, between September 23, 1958, and October 9, 1958, six passes were made over the ground stations with a McDonnell F-101 airplane piloted by J. B. Whitten, and a single pass was made with a North American F-100 airplane piloted by J. P. Reeder. The passes were made at Mach numbers between 1.13 and 1.40 and at altitudes between 25,000 and 40,000 feet. In the second phase, between July 23, 1959, and August 6, 1959, two passes were made with a Convair B-58 airplane flown by an Air Force crew, and sixteen passes with a Chance Vought F8U-3 airplane with W. C. Alford as the pilot. In this phase, the passes were made at altitudes between 30,000 feet and 60,000 feet and at Mach numbers from 1.2 to 2.0.

Page 672: The interest in sonic booms was intensified with the proposal to build a supersonic transport to operate at Mach 3. It was possible to calculate a flight pattern from takeoff to landing, for which the overpressure at the ground would not exceed 1.5 pounds per square foot. Such a pattern involved a variable Mach number during the climb and descent phases. In order to obtain experimental data closer to the conditions than the data just discussed, the second series of flight tests at Wallops was made between June and August, 1959. These tests were made with the F8U-3 airplane at altitudes up to 60,008 feet and a Mach number of 2.0. In addition, to obtain data on the effect of airplane size, two passes were made with the B-58 airplane. In order to prevent further disturbance to the local communities, these passes were made over the ocean, parallel to the coast near Wallops. Instruments were placed both at Wallops and on two Navy ships stationed some 10 miles away.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
687
Reaction score
2
Website
www.tommythomason.com
overscan said:
The premier flight was aborted because of throttle interference at 350 knots and 20,000 feet. This malfunction caused enough vibration to shake loose and seperate the left ventral stabilizing fin from the aircraft. The aircraft was able to return safely however. Incidentally, this first Dash III was powered by the J75-P-5A engine, and did not exceed Mach 1 until its 6th flight test on 11 June.
These are the next few sentences, so they agree on the cause of abort, just not on duration.
I'm all but certain that's bogus. One of the Vought guys I'm in touch with was an F8U-3 test pilot for a time. He reports: John's first flight in #1 was not cut short due to vibration. The throttle movement was somewhat restricted due to tightness in the throttle control passage through the cabin pressure seal. We had this same design problem in the first flight of the F8U-1 Crusader.

Also,a ventral fin did not come off on this particular flight; this same pilot had one hang up in the down position on one of his flights and landed with it down, knocking it off. Jack Walton later had a utility hydraulic failure and had to knock both fins off.

My time of flight (38 minutes, not 20-something minutes) and vertical fin vibration problem come from a contemporaneous P&W log. The difference in the time of flight could be a typo in the P&W log since Steve has the actual start and stop time.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Came across while researching 1121 a 1957 Flight International reference to Bristol and de Havilland pushing for Olympus and Gyron to be installed on the F8U-3.
 
Top