F-8 Crusader vs MiG-17 in Vietnam

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

I think that the warnings we can hear come from wingmen who have a tally on you, either you're flying a single- or a two-seater. I'd like the RIO's warnings as a bonus concerning your own angles you can't see by yourself as the front crewman, either you have valuable wingmen or not (if all of them are downed, for instance!) Concerning the sentences, I was just imaginating what a helpful RIO could tell you about a targetted bandit. Just imaginating. The hand gets to the modders.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I think that the warnings we can hear come from wingmen who have a tally on you, either you're flying a single- or a two-seater. I'd like the RIO's warnings as a bonus concerning your own angles you can't see by yourself as the front crewman, either you have valuable wingmen or not (if all of them are downed, for instance!) Concerning the sentences, I was just imaginating what a helpful RIO could tell you about a targetted bandit. Just imaginating. The hand gets to the modders.

 

Ah. Seems I misread then, it sounded like you were actually getting information on bandit behavior.

 

As far a the wingmen go, yeah, thought of that too. But the trouble is, often you split off or are the lone survivor, or even go out alone, and you still get the messages, just as if someone was in a backseat that in many cases, shouldn't be there.

 

Outside of that, the GIB is quite well done I think. As mentioned, the call outs, but also the fact that the radar has been simplified to a few button presses, which can even be thought of as requests made to the back seater, and it's all done for you. But that is also what prevents it from working too well for modern stuff too, you can't control it like you should be able to (like you can in LOMAC, for instance). But for the WWII Jet to Vietnam era, it works perfectly. (now if we could only get the call outs to go away when you are all alone in a single seater.....)

[MigBuster 2,865]

Thanks Migbuster for the F-15 usage info. I also need to look at acig's articles on Iran's Extensive F-4 operations.

 

 

 

Well for stats with weapons listed

 

from Iranian F-4 Phantom Units in Combat

(1980-1988)

 

F-4E

46 x AIM-9P-1

9 x Cannon

4 x AIM-7-E

 

F-4D

1 x AIM-7E-2

 

Note kills are mostly MiG-21/MiG-23/Su-20, no MiG-17/19 kills are listed

[MigBuster 2,865]

(now if we could only get the call outs to go away when you are all alone in a single seater.....)

 

 

Interestingly there are occasions where you get no calls at all - but not sure what criteria it works on - you have to be alone and the foe not picked up by Redcrown woman.

[Kyot54 2]

    Streak, you failed to take into account a very important engagement that, while it did not lead to the initial pilot getting a kill, it was the first half of the engagement in which Dick Wyman got his kill. You emphasize that it was 4 F-8s versus 1 MiG-17, but fail to mention, importantly in my opinion, that just minutes before it was 1 F-8 versus 4 MiG-17s, and quite unlike the later situation, the Crusader pilot (Lt. Cdr Dick Schaffert) was very much on the offensive during much of this, firing all of his Sidewinders (with one likely kill if not for a fusing malfunction) as well as momentary guns, which also failed due to a jam. While I'm not going to get into the maneuverability debate between F-4's and F-8's, it is easily verifiable that the success of the F-8 in Rolling Thunder greatly contributed to the success of the F-4 in Linebacker thanks to A. change in operational tactics (i.e. adopting "loose deuce" vs. Intercept formation), B. Infilitration of experienced Crusader pilots into F-4 cockpits (Teague, McKweon, Houston, to name a few), and most importantly C. Confident and aggressive flying. It doesn't matter if you are flying an Su-27 or F-15, if you don't have the confidence and aggressive attitude to take the fight to your enemy, even Snoopy could shot you down with his doghouse.

[Toryu 156]

I'll gladly resurrect this thread as opposed to opening a new one.

 

Streak, have you looked at the Have Doughnut documents? It doesn't really help, as it also doesn't feature E-M diagrams, but it has a V-n diagram for the Crusader (F-8J, no mention of the engine-type (P-20 or P-420)). It also gives a ballpark-figure for relative performance of the F-8 (and F-4) vs. the MiG-21F.

The F-4 comes out on top, with the F-8 and MiG-21 pretty evenly matched, all things considered.

 

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_50.PDF

 

Keep in mind, the MiG is flown clean in all engagements, the F-8 is always flown in combat configuration an F-4s are flying clean roughly 50% of the engagements.

 

 

On FB, I have asked a former F-8 pilot if there ever were E-M diagramms for the F-8 - he said he can't remember there ever were any.

Keep in mid that when E-M theory kikeck in, F-8s were going OUT.

 

Many people forget the most important advantage of the F-8:

It had gas. Lots of gas! More than 9000lbs on the F-8D (and later models).

Paired with a relatively fuel-economical J-57, the airplane could loiter for very long times and also could ettectively beat F-4 intercept-times, as the F-4s were constrained by having to take external fuel (thus being Mach-limited). The F-8s could haul a$$, and "saunter" back at low speed (and power setting), while the F-4s were busy, looking for a tanker.

 

Some F-8 drivers say, that only few F-4 pilots could fly their F-4 well enough to beat an old Gator-driver in an F-8.

When Top Gun started, many F-8 drivers either converted to F-4s (like Tooter Teague and Devil Houston, to name two later F-4 MiG-killers) or joined the reserves, keeping the expertise and walking all over people that didn't know how to fly their plane. It wasn't just a "person vs person"-thing, but also "communty vs community".

The MUTHA-trophy for 'Fighter Spirit' didn't go from F-8s to the F-14 squadrons right away for no reason 

[+streakeagle 865]

Pilot quality is everything. F-8 pilots had extensive dogfight/gunfight training. F-4 pilots had none, and in fact didn't even have good live fire training for the missiles they carried. Once Navy F-4 pilots got that training, their kill ratio reflected it. USAF F-15s not only lost to F-4s, but also F-104s. A good pilot will recognize a bad pilot's weakness and exploit it with tactics when aircraft performance can't get the job done.

 

On energy-maneuverability, if you search the internet, you can find quotes from F-8 pilots that converted to the F-4. One of my favorites basically stated that he couldn't understand how an F-4 could lose to an F-8 in a dogfight with all of the extra power available.

 

The F-4 wasn't the cleanest aircraft in terms of zero-lift drag. It also had a fairly high level of induced drag due to its nearly pure delta Mach 2 wing. Yet it was both faster in level flight and had higher sustained climb rates than any F-8 (the F-4 set climb records only broken by the MiG-25 and F-15).

 

That many pilots tasked with flying the F-4 weren't trained to fly it to its limits does not make the F-4 inferior to the F-8.

[Toryu 156]

I think most was down to tactics and attitude. Once they got some Crusader-guys in an F-4, everything changed - for the better. There are numerous anecdotes on that in "Grey Ghosts" by Peter Davies (certainly my favourite book on the F-4).

 

WRT to induced drag, while the the F-8 had an L/D_max of 12.8, the F-4 had an L/D_max of 8.6 - fun fact: The F-8's "engine-out/ RAT deployed/ cruise-droops" L/D_max is pretty much dead-on 9.0.

So the F-8 has a better L/D with a windmilling engine than the F-4 when alive and kicking.

That is one key to why the F-4 was such a gas-hog (fun-fact 2: the F-104 has a better L/D_max - about 9.2) compared to the F-8. That and the J-57 engine. And the F-8's fuel fraction.

 

If you look at the Vn-diagrams in the Have Doughnut pdf-file (they're both for 30000ft, so not exactly where the F-4 is shining*), one can see the F-8's instantaneous turn-advantage.

At the conditions depicted, the F-8 has a 2g instantaneous turn-advantage over the F-4 at 400KCAS at 30000ft. At 300KCAS, it's about 1g advantage in favour of the F-8.

 

So the F-8 does have an instantaneous turn advantage over the F-4, yet the F-4 has a lot of power to play with and can not only sustain the Gs above 400KIAS; it can also go supersonic at low altitude, which isn't exactly the F-8's strong point.

 

 

____

* Then again, the figures are KCAS, so except for Mach effects on the lift-coefficient over AoA, they represent the picture across the altitude-band.

[MAKO69 186]

The big advantage of the F-4 was its outstanding range and the multitask capability. A F-4 driver could act as bomber or Flak suppresser in a normal combat mission (what meant in Vietnam, that no MiG's were in the air), but if the MiG's came to play catch me if you can, then the F-4 could drop the bombs and could switch to fighter role. The Crusader was unable to do this.

The F-8 was a pure fighter in Vietnam, so that in most cases the flighttime and fuel were wasted, because no MiG's came.

 

And because Lexx qouted George Spangenberg with his words about the Israelis, i want to quote the israeli Test pilot who testet the MiG-21F13 1966. He said: With this bird we would have had shot down much more Arabs than with the planes we had.

Sorry Gep, your wrong the Crusader flew both missions as well, and did so with great success there was more bomb dropping than dog fighting going on in Vietnam. The number one rule when dogfighting MIGs during the Vietnam Conflict was not to get in a turning war with them. The F-8 if it had enough energy could turn a few times with a MIG, an F-4 had about one good hard turn if it had speed that's it, it would then have to run out climb or dive. As for an F-4 vs F-8 true dog fight the F-4 would have to fight it like a MIG because the Crusader was more maneuverable. Great read streakeagle.

[MAKO69 186]

Can anyone who believes that the "F-8 was a much better fighter" post even one FACT (not opinion) learned from talking to people or studying books that supports or better yet proves this belief other than quoting someone else who said the same thing? In F-14 versus F-15 discussions, all of the facts are there and the only problem is agreeing on what makes a better fighter. But with the F-8, the only facts readily available to favor the F-8 as a better fighter than the F-4 are:

1. It has an internal gun.

2. It is smaller and doesn't smoke, therefore somewhat harder to visually detect.

3. Its smaller size and lower weight allowed it to operate from the older, smaller carriers.

4. It turns slightly better than the F-4 (and per the above posts I can show reasonable estimates that the margin might be so small as to be irrelavant).

5. Safer and more predictable at the high AoAs required for ACM.

 

Compared to the F-4's advantages over the F-8:

1. Faster across the entire envelope.

2. Better rate of climb.

3. Better acceleration.

4. Heavier payload.

5. Much better radar.

6. Dedicated radar operator.

7. 2nd set of eyes when radar isn't needed.

8. All-aspect medium range missiles.

9. Safer during carrier landings.

 

Combat radius is hard to compare as it is very much affected by the loadout and mission profile, but the available data favors the F-8 for profiles using subsonic cruise at high altitude to get to and from mission objectives while the F-4 is better for supersonic intercepts.

 

"The F-8 IS and angles fighter vs the F-4, and it does outclass it in that arena"... back it up with a factual reference, not a quote or paraphrase of the same statement.

We all know your a Phantom lover, so am I, but its both fact and opinion that the Crusader was a better dog fighter. Numbers and stats on paper are just that. when the birds get up in the sky the truth comes out. if an F-4 and an F-8 were to have 10 dogfights the F-8 would come out on top probably 6 or 7 times weather the fight was 5k feet or 25k feet, a true furball. now add 20 miles to the fight and the Phantom would trump the F-8 99% of the time.

[Toryu 156]

 

 if an F-4 and an F-8 were to have 10 dogfights the F-8 would come out on top probably 6 or 7 times weather the fight was 5k feet or 25k feet, a true furball. 

 

That's not, what the numbers say. Read the document I linked above.

 

What made the Crusaders win in most training-fights was superior pilots.

[MAKO69 186]

Relax, take same pilots with same skills the F-8 will come out on top 60%+ of the time.

[Toryu 156]

Got any sources to back that claim up?

[MAKO69 186]

Your a fisherman trolling for an argument Toryu, you know the F-8 is a better fighter than the F-4, I'm not gonna get into it with you. I've talked to several guys who have piloted both. They loved the F-4, but if they were going to dogfight they would choose the F-8. The F-8 was designed to be a Dogfighter the F-4 was designed to be a missle fighter. Go fishing elsewhere.

[Toryu 156]

I'm presenting facts - that's not just my personal opinion, but what the USAF and USN thought at the time and what got Top Gun kicking. Mixed with a little plain physics.

If you can't be bothered reading an official tactical evaluation document, then that's your omission.

 

First off, there was not plane optimized for dogfighting before the F-16. What is a "dogfighter" anyway?

Maneuverability is the ability to change your speed-vector quickly in a short time. That includes the length of your speed vector (= speed/ kinetic energy), not just it's direction.

The F-8 was designed to achieve a maximum Mach number at the given thrust available.

An actual "dogfighter" would trade-off Mach performance for increased capability in the natural dogfighting arena, which is around Mach 0.7-0.8 and below 20000ft.

What *made* it a dogfighter was the attitude of it's pilots and a general lack of performance in the opposing team. That changed with the MiG-21.

 

The F-8 was designed as an interceptor, based on the experience in Korea, which put emphasis on good vertical performance. That's the same reason why the F-104 virtually didn't have any wings: They wanted to maximize vertical and Mach performance.

The F-8 carried four guns, fair enough. It's main armament (before the Sidewinder would go operational on a large scale) was thought to be the 32 Mighty Mouse rockets, though.

Interceptor genes right here.

 

The overall performance of the F-8 isn't that good anymore in the mid-60s: It can't reliably get above Mach 1 below 10000ft (that's right in the NATOPS) and it's vertical performance isn't all that great anymore, too. It's zoom is comparable to the MiG, but not on par with the F-4.

That indicates either a general thrust-limitation, or a drag problem in the transonic region. The latter is the case as the airplane was designed before Whitcomb's Area Rule could be applied. They tried, but the prototype was already lying and costs were prohibitive.

MRT excess-power is way below the F-4's, hence the much worse acceleration when compared to the F-4 and the MiG.

CRT excess-power is a little better but still not anywhere near the F-4 and about equal to the MiG when subsonic.

 

The F-8 has a turn-advantage between 300-400KIAS over the F-4, but that advantage can be countered by the F-4 by extending (or going vertical) and pitching back into the fight. The F-8 just doesn't have the power to counter that move. 

 

There seem to have been an awful lot of people that think different than your pilot-friends. Including those that have scored MiG-kills after transitioning to the F-4.

 

The F-8 was a great airplane, but there's no reason for sugarcoating it.