What if Germany did not go for the F-104

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
Would a split buy be possible? A Spey powered F-8 was offered to the UK around this time, Germany could go for a Spey F-8 for its fighter requirement and buy Buccaneers for low level strike, seems like an ideal and more capable option while also being more realistic than the orphaned Super Tiger getting bought.
That was a different plane from the one above. That was a version of the F-8E that swapped out the J57 for a Spey. If they want a plane that can flat out move, you want the F8U-3. Mach 2.39 and still accelerating when they pulled the throttles back to keep the windscreen from melting. Problem is, that plane uses the much larger and more powerful J75. The Spey wasn't big enough. But there are British engines that would work. The Gyron was a almost perfect match and the Medway and Bristol would also work.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
4,455
Would a split buy be possible? A Spey powered F-8 was offered to the UK around this time, Germany could go for a Spey F-8 for its fighter requirement and buy Buccaneers for low level strike, seems like an ideal and more capable option while also being more realistic than the orphaned Super Tiger getting bought.
That was a different plane from the one above. That was a version of the F-8E that swapped out the J57 for a Spey. If they want a plane that can flat out move, you want the F8U-3. Mach 2.39 and still accelerating when they pulled the throttles back to keep the windscreen from melting. Problem is, that plane uses the much larger and more powerful J75. The Spey wasn't big enough. But there are British engines that would work. The Gyron was a almost perfect match and the Medway and Bristol would also work.

How about Olympus, TSR-2 / Concorde style ? that one had nearly enough thrust to send a Crusader III in orbit LMAO. There was the Conway, too - if it ever got a reheated and supersonic variant, can't remember.

funnily enough, it would be possible to get
- Crusader III with Medway
- Crusader II with Spey
- earlier A-7F "Strikefighter" with a F-4K Phantom engine, that is: a mix of RB.168 Spey and Allison TF41

In a few words: The Crusader / Crusader III / A-7F extended family had tons of whatif potential all the way from 1955 to 1995.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,462
Reaction score
1,176
Hmmm...
A fixed wing F8 with Spey would start blurring the boundary with the later A7....
But then effectively that's roughly where the A7 begins as a concept.

However.....had a German order for F8 in a multirole configuration been successful in the late 50's to early 60’s. This imparts a potential for the RN and RAF to simply opt for this same solution.
Would not the pressure, economic and political have been immense if this multirole Crusader had swept the board instead of the Starfighter?
If anything Vought could have swept the board across Europe even more than Lockheed.

Alternatively....had Vought been successful with it's F8U-III variant to the UK. Which was clearly a strike system.......
Then pressure on the adoption of the F8U-III for fighter roles is significant.
But also a stronger contender for German nuclear strike as well.
But timing for that would be critical.and the Thunderchief would become it's significant rival.

But.....what about German domestic efforts?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
4,455
What is somewhat ironic with 100% hindsight is that Vought triumphed with the Crusader yet never put a J79 in that bird. By contrast Douglas and Grumman with the Skylancer and Super Tiger had plans to do so (the former) or very much did it; yet these aircraft ended orphans and went nowhere.

Another irony is related to vietnam. When the MiGs started making Phantom lives a misery, the USN was more than happy to have the Crusader guns and agility and smaller carrier abilities; to the point of remanufacturing hundreds of them;
- while USAF not so lucky not only struggled with the Phantoms
but also threw everything but the kitchen sink at air combat:
- F-111A and F-105 were for strike
- F-102 and F-104 were tried but found to be ill-suited
- F-101A /C /R were for reconnaissance, strike
- F-101B and F-106 were too few and for ADC in CONUS

It is pretty unnerving to think USAF couldn't find a decent fighter in its immense inventory to efficient tackle those freakkin' MIG-21 in A2A combat. In the end Phantoms did the job, TBH.

What else ?

Can't help thinking of Crusader III, Skylancer and Super Tiger fighting their way in Vietnam - some in place of Crusaders, some in place of Phantom.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
Alternatively....had Vought been successful with it's F8U-III variant to the UK. Which was clearly a strike system.......
Then pressure on the adoption of the F8U-III for fighter roles is significant.
Just to clarify something. The Crusader III was in no way, shape or form a strike system. It was designed as a fleet defense interceptor that also happened to be an outstanding dogfighter. To interest the Germans and the RAF, Vought would have had to do some very intensive design work to add hardpoints and ground attack avionics.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,462
Reaction score
1,176
Alternatively....had Vought been successful with it's F8U-III variant to the UK. Which was clearly a strike system.......
Then pressure on the adoption of the F8U-III for fighter roles is significant.
Just to clarify something. The Crusader III was in no way, shape or form a strike system. It was designed as a fleet defense interceptor that also happened to be an outstanding dogfighter. To interest the Germans and the RAF, Vought would have had to do some very intensive design work to add hardpoints and ground attack avionics.
To be clear there was a Vought proposal to the UK based on the F8U-III using Conway and remarkably Thunderchief style inlets. This apparently had a recess for a large bomb ventrally.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
Alternatively....had Vought been successful with it's F8U-III variant to the UK. Which was clearly a strike system.......
Then pressure on the adoption of the F8U-III for fighter roles is significant.
Just to clarify something. The Crusader III was in no way, shape or form a strike system. It was designed as a fleet defense interceptor that also happened to be an outstanding dogfighter. To interest the Germans and the RAF, Vought would have had to do some very intensive design work to add hardpoints and ground attack avionics.
To be clear there was a Vought proposal to the UK based on the F8U-III using Conway and remarkably Thunderchief style inlets. This apparently had a recess for a large bomb ventrally.
I'm familiar with that proposal. The drawings that show it with F-105 style inlets were not from Vought but from a third party who misunderstood the design description. Vought was referring to the forward sweep of the inlet when they referenced the Thud. The proposal was to modify the airframe to carry a single 2,000 bomb in a semisubmerged well between the main landing gear. You could add wing hardpoints as well, but that only allows for a maximum of 6,000 pounds of bombs, far short of the Phantom's 18,000 capacity. Though in practice, probably not far off of what would be actually be carried to maintain range.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
780
Reaction score
1,296
What is somewhat ironic with 100% hindsight is that Vought triumphed with the Crusader yet never put a J79 in that bird. By contrast Douglas and Grumman with the Skylancer and Super Tiger had plans to do so (the former) or very much did it; yet these aircraft ended orphans and went nowhere.

Another irony is related to vietnam. When the MiGs started making Phantom lives a misery, the USN was more than happy to have the Crusader guns and agility and smaller carrier abilities; to the point of remanufacturing hundreds of them;
- while USAF not so lucky not only struggled with the Phantoms
but also threw everything but the kitchen sink at air combat:
- F-111A and F-105 were for strike
- F-102 and F-104 were tried but found to be ill-suited
- F-101A /C /R were for reconnaissance, strike
- F-101B and F-106 were too few and for ADC in CONUS

It is pretty unnerving to think USAF couldn't find a decent fighter in its immense inventory to efficient tackle those freakkin' MIG-21 in A2A combat. In the end Phantoms did the job, TBH.

What else ?

Can't help thinking of Crusader III, Skylancer and Super Tiger fighting their way in Vietnam - some in place of Crusaders, some in place of Phantom.
I think the Crusader was a great aircraft, and an F-8, A-7 pair would have been sufficient for many air forces. I wonder if the best 2nd gen (or do you consider htis a 3rd gen) aircraft. but you still need that A-7 for dedicated ground attack.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
What is somewhat ironic with 100% hindsight is that Vought triumphed with the Crusader yet never put a J79 in that bird. By contrast Douglas and Grumman with the Skylancer and Super Tiger had plans to do so (the former) or very much did it; yet these aircraft ended orphans and went nowhere.

Another irony is related to vietnam. When the MiGs started making Phantom lives a misery, the USN was more than happy to have the Crusader guns and agility and smaller carrier abilities; to the point of remanufacturing hundreds of them;
- while USAF not so lucky not only struggled with the Phantoms
but also threw everything but the kitchen sink at air combat:
- F-111A and F-105 were for strike
- F-102 and F-104 were tried but found to be ill-suited
- F-101A /C /R were for reconnaissance, strike
- F-101B and F-106 were too few and for ADC in CONUS

It is pretty unnerving to think USAF couldn't find a decent fighter in its immense inventory to efficient tackle those freakkin' MIG-21 in A2A combat. In the end Phantoms did the job, TBH.

What else ?

Can't help thinking of Crusader III, Skylancer and Super Tiger fighting their way in Vietnam - some in place of Crusaders, some in place of Phantom.
I think the Crusader was a great aircraft, and an F-8, A-7 pair would have been sufficient for many air forces. I wonder if the best 2nd gen (or do you consider htis a 3rd gen) aircraft. but you still need that A-7 for dedicated ground attack.
The Crusader II kind of straddled the line between second and third generation (side note, this is why I HATE classifying planes into generations because so many of them don't clearly fit into one or the other). While the Crusader III was solidly in the third generation.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
2,713
What is somewhat ironic with 100% hindsight is that Vought triumphed with the Crusader yet never put a J79 in that bird. By contrast Douglas and Grumman with the Skylancer and Super Tiger had plans to do so (the former) or very much did it; yet these aircraft ended orphans and went nowhere.

Another irony is related to vietnam. When the MiGs started making Phantom lives a misery, the USN was more than happy to have the Crusader guns and agility and smaller carrier abilities; to the point of remanufacturing hundreds of them;
- while USAF not so lucky not only struggled with the Phantoms
but also threw everything but the kitchen sink at air combat:
- F-111A and F-105 were for strike
- F-102 and F-104 were tried but found to be ill-suited
- F-101A /C /R were for reconnaissance, strike
- F-101B and F-106 were too few and for ADC in CONUS

It is pretty unnerving to think USAF couldn't find a decent fighter in its immense inventory to efficient tackle those freakkin' MIG-21 in A2A combat. In the end Phantoms did the job, TBH.

What else ?

Can't help thinking of Crusader III, Skylancer and Super Tiger fighting their way in Vietnam - some in place of Crusaders, some in place of Phantom.
I think the Crusader was a great aircraft, and an F-8, A-7 pair would have been sufficient for many air forces. I wonder if the best 2nd gen (or do you consider htis a 3rd gen) aircraft. but you still need that A-7 for dedicated ground attack.
The Crusader II kind of straddled the line between second and third generation (side note, this is why I HATE classifying planes into generations because so many of them don't clearly fit into one or the other). While the Crusader III was solidly in the third generation.
The earlier stuff was particularly difficult to categorize. Was the F-100 the same gen as the F-86D or the F-102? Was the F-106 the same gen as the F-102 or the F-4? (rhetorical questions)
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,462
Reaction score
1,176
Alternatively....had Vought been successful with it's F8U-III variant to the UK. Which was clearly a strike system.......
Then pressure on the adoption of the F8U-III for fighter roles is significant.
Just to clarify something. The Crusader III was in no way, shape or form a strike system. It was designed as a fleet defense interceptor that also happened to be an outstanding dogfighter. To interest the Germans and the RAF, Vought would have had to do some very intensive design work to add hardpoints and ground attack avionics.
To be clear there was a Vought proposal to the UK based on the F8U-III using Conway and remarkably Thunderchief style inlets. This apparently had a recess for a large bomb ventrally.
I'm familiar with that proposal. The drawings that show it with F-105 style inlets were not from Vought but from a third party who misunderstood the design description. Vought was referring to the forward sweep of the inlet when they referenced the Thud. The proposal was to modify the airframe to carry a single 2,000 bomb in a semisubmerged well between the main landing gear. You could add wing hardpoints as well, but that only allows for a maximum of 6,000 pounds of bombs, far short of the Phantom's 18,000 capacity. Though in practice, probably not far off of what would be actually be carried to maintain range.
Well I didn't know that about the inlet, but it makes more sense.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
Well I didn't know that about the inlet, but it makes more sense.
Yeah, and it's an easy mistake to make too. If it was described to you or me as having an "F-105 style inlet" we would probably make the same assumption that they meant side mounted inlets. When what Vought actually meant was a single chin mounted swept forward inlet.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,462
Reaction score
1,176
Well I didn't know that about the inlet, but it makes more sense.
Yeah, and it's an easy mistake to make too. If it was described to you or me as having an "F-105 style inlet" we would probably make the same assumption that they meant side mounted inlets. When what Vought actually meant was a single chin mounted swept forward inlet.
I do also think that if say you wanted to fit engines like the J79 or RB.106 or BE.30, such an inlet allows you to more fully exploit the potential increases in power.
Such engines ought to drive the F8 well over Mach 2.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
Well I didn't know that about the inlet, but it makes more sense.
Yeah, and it's an easy mistake to make too. If it was described to you or me as having an "F-105 style inlet" we would probably make the same assumption that they meant side mounted inlets. When what Vought actually meant was a single chin mounted swept forward inlet.
I do also think that if say you wanted to fit engines like the J79 or RB.106 or BE.30, such an inlet allows you to more fully exploit the potential increases in power.
Such engines ought to drive the F8 well over Mach 2.
Actually, that proposal was for a modified version of the F8U-3, not the F-8E. The Crusader III used a J75 engine that put out almost as much thrust at military power as the J79 did in burner. Vought estimated that the Super Crusader would have a top speed of Mach 2.6 once a new windscreen was fitted.

As for the Crusader I & II, swapping out a J79 for the J57 would likely see a loss of performance. The J57-P-420 used in the F-8H put out 19,600 pounds of thrust, some 2,000 pounds more than the J79 did. Fitting a Spey, though? Yeah, that would almost certainly allow Mach 2-2.1 performance from the Crusader II. Though airframe modifications may be needed to allow that level of performance.
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,462
Reaction score
1,176
Well I didn't know that about the inlet, but it makes more sense.
Yeah, and it's an easy mistake to make too. If it was described to you or me as having an "F-105 style inlet" we would probably make the same assumption that they meant side mounted inlets. When what Vought actually meant was a single chin mounted swept forward inlet.
I do also think that if say you wanted to fit engines like the J79 or RB.106 or BE.30, such an inlet allows you to more fully exploit the potential increases in power.
Such engines ought to drive the F8 well over Mach 2.
Actually, that proposal was for a modified version of the F8U-3, not the F-8E. The Crusader III used a J75 engine that put out almost as much thrust at military power as the J79 did in burner. Vought estimated that the Super Crusader would have a top speed of Mach 2.6 once a new windscreen was fitted.

As for the Crusader I & II, swapping out a J79 for the J57 would likely see a loss of performance. The J79-P-420 used in the F-8H put out 19,600 pounds of thrust, some 2,000 pounds more than the J79 did. Fitting a Spey, though? Yeah, that would almost certainly allow Mach 2-2.1 performance from the Crusader II. Though airframe modifications may be needed to allow that level of performance.
Ok we're getting confused here, so clarification.
Fitting of J79, RB.106 or BE.30 is to F8-II.
Reference to F8U-III inlet is for replication at appropriate scale for F8-II to achieve improvement in speeds.
That is to say F8U-III 'like' inlet used on F8-II.
Fitting of engines such as Conway, Medway, Olympus and Gyron is to F8U-III.

Changes of propulsion plant cannot fully exploit increases in thrust of exhaust stream velocity/temperature without both appropriate variable convergent/divergent nozzle AND variable supersonic inlet.
F8 inlet is of fixed type and consequently has a limiting effect beyond Mach 1.8 if not sooner.

Changes to F8U-III 'type' inlet ought to produce a higher sustainable Mach No.
Ergo F8-II fitted with J79, RB.106, or BE.30 ought to achieve with appropriate inlet. Speeds upto thermal limits of the windscreen and fusilage.....presumably Mach 2.2 and with appropriate changes in materials, speeds above Mach 2.3 to limits of fuel or aerodynamics.

F8U-III with Conway or Medway variant ought, due to lower s.f.c, achieve longer duration for given fuel load/mission flight profile.
Similarly F8-II with Spey or alternative Bristol turbofan. Result in similar improvements in duration.

F8U-III with Gyron, Olympus or say RB.128 result in either equal to US turbojet powered results or negligible difference. Though RB.128 ought to achieve a higher figure.....as if that's needed.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
780
Reaction score
1,296
F-8 question.. the crusader III was that huge variant that was meant to compete with the F-4 yes
whats the main difference between Crusader I and II then?

on a related note, US Navy always had awesome aircraft. F-8, A-7, A-6, F-18A/C, F-14, F-4, etc
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
4,455
Autocorrect, how we hate you. Only you could be stupid enough to "correct" Airbus into abribus - "bus shelter".

Or George Walker Bush into "buisson marcheur de George" - "George's bush that walks" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Top