F-8 Crusader vs MiG-17 in Vietnam

[+streakeagle 864]

I verified the contents of the F-8D/F-8E NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVAIR 01-45HHD-1 (Change 1 March 1968) and its performance supplement, NAVWEPS 01-45HHD-1A. I found one extremely useful chart that can be directly applied to the game to get CL correct: Angle-of-Attack Relationship figure 4-8 (Sheet 3) which plots CL vs AoA for several different Mach numbers including 0.2, 0.6, and 0.8 (the latter two representing combat speeds). The AoA range is capped off at 20 degrees and there is no indication of the usable limits, but by the scale at the bottome of the graph, it looks like 18 degrees/320 mils was the practical limit. At 20 degrees, the CLmax tops off at 0.89 for Mach 0.8, 0.9 for Mach 0.6, and 0.96 for Mach 0.2, these numbers may be unattainable, but give an upper limit of what the number actually is.

 

I have data for the F-4 that shows the usuable CLmax not only varies with Mach, but also decreases with altitude (this explains why the F-4 can beat the MiG-21 down low but loses up high). At sea level, the usuable CLmax is about 1.02 over the entire subsonic speed range until it is limited by max load, the lowest co-efficient of 0.90 is at Mach 0.8 at 30,000 ft.

 

For a fixed speed, the aircraft which can pull more g will turn tighter. Mach 0.6 is about 396 kts, which is a good speed that both aircraft would want to use in combat. The g load is = CL * q * S / W, since both aircraft are at the same speed and altitude, the only variables that matter are CL (lift coefficient), S (wing area), and W (weight), so to compare the two aircraft, lets ratio the F-8 to the F-4 and if the resulting number is 1.0, the aircraft turn the same. If it is greater than 1, then the F-8 is pulling more g (number - 1 x 100 to get percent advantage), otherwise, the F-4 will pull more g.

 

Using S and W from above and using the sea level number for the F-4: ( 0.9 * 385 / 25,000 ) / ( 1.02 * 530 / 38,000 ) = 0.974

Keep in mind, this does not affirm that the aircraft can sustain this many g's, this is max instantaneous. But note, that at sea level, the F-4B actually has a 2.6% victory over the F-8E. Factor in the F-4s thrust advantage, and I think you will find that the F-4 will not only be capable of pulling more g, but also of sustaining it. Also note, that engine thrust has not been included in the thrust equation. Both aircraft are pulling about 20 degrees of AoA, which means 34% of the thrust can be added to the lift and gives the F-4 another edge. If g's being pulled are around 7, the F-4 might be pulling 7.30 including thrust while the F-8 would be pulling 7.06 including thrust. At best, a negligible 3.4% advantage for the F-4. This isn't speculation or some kind of wild ass guess. These numbers are real. If you want to do the math, you can actually figure out exactly how many g's each aircraft is pulling. Per the F-4 manual, it should be pulling 7.6 g at that speed and altitude at CLmax, so my approximation was close enough to make my point.

 

Now, let's put the F-4 up high, where it does the worst: (0.9 * 385 / 25,000 ) / (0.9 * 530 / 38,000 ) = 1.104

Notice that since the CLmax numbers are the same, this is really just a ratio of wing loadings. This is why wing loading is used to predict relative performance. But it only works well when both aircraft have similar planforms that result in similar aerodynamic coefficients. At this altitude, thrust will be about 30% of what it was at sea level, so it will contribute less than 1/3 of what it did at sea level. This leaves the F-8 pulling at best a 10% g advantage. At this altitude and speed (about 344 kts), the F-4 will be pulling 4.4 g, which cannot be sustained. That puts the F-8 at about 4.875 g.

 

At medium altitudes, the performance should be close enough, that neither pilot would be able to tell which aircraft has the advantage. But, the F-4 pilot has to be alot more careful about using his max lift, if he overshoots too far, he will depart controlled flight and probably lose the aircraft. The F-8 will do a nasty roll and stall if pushed to hard, but is far less likely to end up in a non-recoverable flat spin. Aside from stability differences, it would seem the two aircraft are aerodynamically very similar. Not surprising since they were built by two companies that had been continuously offering competing designs to meet the same types of specifications.

 

Now all of this is based on that one simple AoA chart in the F-8 manual. If someone can produce a V-n diagram similar to the one in the F-4, I will gladly overlay the two for direct comparison. But I have never seen such a thing for the F-8. If you want to prove that the F-8 was better, "show me the money". I am sure there is some sort of manual that has the data I want, but good luck finding it.

Edited April 28, 2010 by streakeagle

[DaSpungie 1]

Carry on Streak I find this very interesting .

Cuz you know I am a sader fan.

from what I have read in my limited pile of books on the developement of f-4 and f-8 what your raying is unfortunately true.

I'll go wash out my mouth with soap now.

[+streakeagle 864]

The missing component for sustained turn performance is drag. The best I can do on short notice is take the two readily available CD0 numbers:

F-4: 0.0175 for the F-4B/C, 0.0224 for the slatted F-4E (slats came with a heavy price)

F-8: 0.0133

 

I have no precise way of comparing induced drag. Tons of info on the F-4, almost nothing on the F-8. But the F-4 has a terrible zero-lift drag.

0.175 / 0.0133 = 1.316 or 31.6% worse drag with no induced drag.

 

Aspect ratio is the best relative indicator:

A = b^2/S, where b = wing span and S = wing area

 

For F-4: 38.3^2 / 530 = 2.77

For F-8: 35.2^2 / 385 = 3.22

 

3.22 / 2.77 = 1.162, or possibly 16% more drag for the F-4.

Of course, both of these aspect ratios are reasonably close to the typical 3.0 for supersonic jet fighters.

If there really is a 16% diffence in induced drag, the the F-4 should be able to compete at sea level with its 24% thrust advantage more than compensating for the drag penalty. But up high, the F-4 will lose in both instaneous and sustained turn performance by about a 10% margin.

[+Gocad 26]

Seriously, all the numbers aside, I do think we're debating a non-issue here. All that number crunching is pretty pointless, since I still haven't seen ANY reference where someone actually claimed that the F-8 was a better aircraft than the F-4 due to its design.

 

Not to mention, and I do feel like beating a dead horse here, all the superiority of the F-4 is pretty useless when the pilots flying them are unable to utilize since their training focused on other aspects.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Gocad

[+streakeagle 864]

Carry on Streak I find this very interesting .

Cuz you know I am a sader fan.

from what I have read in my limited pile of books on the developement of f-4 and f-8 what your raying is unfortunately true.

I'll go wash out my mouth with soap now.

 

I am a Crusader fan as well, have one hanging right next to my F-4J and MiG-21PF on my ceiling. TK's sims are a blessing as they focus on the the aircraft and time frame I love the most. Third party addons cover the gaps really well too... complete set of Century fighters and MiG-21 cockpits, plus 1950s aircraft. I just wish the flight models could be tuned to be as close to dead on as possible within this engine so that I could better enjoy the subtle differences between types. If you look at the F-8, it was a total dog when WoV first came out, then it replaced the MiG-19 (back around SP1/SP2a) as the unbeatable UFO in online multiplayer. The F-4 flight model has always been too generous, especially in the drag department. Just tuning the Cd0 and CDL tables will give you a very credible F-4 experience minus the nasty departure behavior. I have tons of data on the F-4 on XB-70 that I have yet to translate into FM tables.

 

NASA data could help me do detailed F-104, A-7, A-4, F-106, T-38, F-5, F-105, and B-58 exceeding the quality of my original F-4B FM. It just takes more time and focus than I have to convert all those charts into Excel graphs and then derive co-efficient tables from the graphs, then extrapolate the missing points and fill any remaining gaps with DATCOM estimates or faired in values from similar aircraft. Now if someone were paying me good money to do that for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, that would be great. But why am I going to spend 8 to 10 hours a day at work on computers and control systems and then come home to do what is the equivalent to boring college theoretical engineering homework. I am at the point now where I would rather just play the game as it is.

[+streakeagle 864]

The number crunching is actually the most important part. If the right nubmers show up, they can be used to "calibrate" the stock flight models. I don't even need an FM editor, just an Excel spreadsheet to dial in the lift, drag, and thrust curves. This technique will never get exactly the right numbers on the indiviudal components, but the sum total will behave almost identically to the performance charts. If the numbers don't matter, TK should just use one flight model for all of the aircraft. Screenshots would look just as good and it would make TK's job much easier. Graphics are nice to have, but having unique detailed realistic flight models is what makes a FLIGHT sim fun for me. Of course, it used to be more important to me when I played online multiplayer all the time.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

If the numbers don't matter, TK should just use one flight model for all of the aircraft. Screenshots would look just as good and it would make TK's job much easier. Graphics are nice to have, but having unique detailed realistic flight models is what makes a FLIGHT sim fun for me. Of course, it used to be more important to me when I played online multiplayer all the time.

 

Man well said. But for offline, and online with AI components, the AI has to be programmed to use the FM, and it never is in any of TheSims I've heard of. That's why I gut the FMs I use for my campaign development, strip out most of the variables, or the player gets game crippling advantages, as far as I've seen in the game anyways.

 

My focus on air war environment grafix is player oriented but the AI is not programmed for it. I guess my "skyterrain" mods are a wish that developers would treat it like ground combat games treat the ground environment, programming AI to use the objects and features of terrain and buildings. Recall Saburo getting the best of a Brewster Buffalo but the Buff pilot manages to get to a cumulonimbus cloud to escape -- a 3 dimensional as in "3D" cumulonimbus cloud not just "texture."

[JediMaster 451]

Did Kurt Plummer start posting under some people's accounts here??

[column5 62]

Wow, all of that to get all the way back around to what I and others suggested in the first place: the F-8 should have a slight advantage over the F-4 when engaged in ACM. Hmmm.

[ShrikeHawk 384]

Yeah, it does seem that SE's computations just prove what many (including me) are saying. Though it looks like the F-4 has the turning advantage at sea-level, the F-8 has the advantage at middle and high altitudes.

 

But now I have a question. Is the TMF F-8C flight model modeled close to correct?

I love flying that one, but it's performance is waaay superior to TK's F-8E. So which is closer to the real deal?

[column5 62]

But now I have a question. Is the TMF F-8C flight model modeled close to correct?

I love flying that one, but it's performance is waaay superior to TK's F-8E. So which is closer to the real deal?

 

Personally, I feel that the TW Crusader was a little undermodeled and built the TMF version with that in mind. I would have to re-evaluate it in the current version of the game to make any sort of judgement. I will say that it was designed for Hard flight model mode, so if you are playing on Normal it will very likely be overdone.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I will say that it was designed for Hard flight model mode

 

TY! (for making it for hard mode)

[ShrikeHawk 384]

Okay, that would explain it. I fly in normal. I'll have to give it a try in hard just to see what your true vision was.

[+Dave 2,318]

But now I have a question. Is the TMF F-8C flight model modeled close to correct?

I love flying that one, but it's performance is waaay superior to TK's F-8E. So which is closer to the real deal?

 

C5 did the FM based on the manual, so I can venture to say he got it as close as the sim would allow.

[MigBuster 2,861]

My argument is that the F-8 was not a very agile fighter. It was probably marginally more agile than the F-4 in the same way that the F-4 was marginally more agile than the F-104.

 

Great so you agree with us

 

The MiG-21 and MiG-17 were both more maneuverable than the F-4, yet the F-4 could and did beat both with whatever weapon the pilots could get to work. Agility makes it easier to convert angles, but does not win dogfights, otherwise, how would the much less maneuverable F-8 consistently beat the MiG-17 that could clearly out turn it and get out of AIM-9 parameters at will.

 

Well in SEA it used its superior energy, better trained pilots, and agility (which is now only 'slightly' better than the F-4s ) to get into a good position on its foe - then used the AIM-9 or Gun.

Agilty does kinda help you know - this is not only the ability to turn at lower or corner speeds - but the ability to turn at any speed and get the nose on the target which is where you need it - otherwise you may as well be stating they would be better off in B-58's.

 

 

The key to the F-8's success was neither its guns nor its "agility".

 

Right - you will see in the old thread I chose the F-8 because it could use both Energy and agility.

 

It was flown by pilots that utilized its strengths. Now, if the F-8 can beat the MiG-17 because it is a better enegry fighter, why wouldn't the F-4 beat the F-8 for the same reason? Is the F-4's energy margin large enough to overcome its turn rate disadvantage against the F-8. The answer lies with the MiG-21 and F-5E. The MiG-21 is smaller and faster than the F-8, but suffers sustained turn performance disadvantages due to its delta wing. The F-5E has about the same speed capability as the F-8, but is much lighter and far more agile. F-4 pilots were trained to smoke A-4s and F-5s as proxies for the MiG-17s and MiG-21s they would actually face. So how is the F-8 going to consistently beat the F-4 with agility if the pilots are equal and the F-4 has already proven that it will win most of the time against aircraft that are far smaller, lighter, and more agile than the F-8?

 

This is an interesting point - not really in line at what I was getting at but since you have brought it up - how much of an energy advantage did the F-4B/C/D have in reality over the F-8x?

 

Case in point MiG-17F Vs F-4J with 2 Top Gun Grads (Cunningham Driscoll) - you know the one May 1972 - described in US Navy F-4 Phantom II Mig Killers 1972 - 1973 (p42-p43).

 

Each time the F-4J zoom climbs the MiG-17F just stays with it, and its ony a miracle the MiG misses with its guns during this engagement. Cunningham has to almost commit suicide in the end by slamming on the brakes and hanging there in mid air to get the MiG in front of him - of course he cant do JS even after the MiG pilot makes a mistake - because no gun.

 

This is not to be used as an example of how the F-4 scrapped by whatever means (even though it was taken apart in the first 2 zoom climbs and should have lost) What I am saying is did the F-4B/C/D have a big enough advantage to avoid a situation like this with the F-8x?

[+streakeagle 864]

So everyone agreed with me from the start that the F-8 is not an angles fighter at all and does not clearly outclass the F-4 in horizontal performance? With a 10% advantage and a sustained turn rate of say 8 deg/sec (perhaps generous for the 30,000 feet altituded needed to get the 10% advantage), that means the F-8 could do 8.8 deg/sec. So, if the F-4 started on the F-8's tail, the F-8 would have to turn for 450 seconds to get all the way around back on the F-4's tail, or 11 full circles. To put it in perspective, under very similar conditions, the F-16 gains 90 degrees on a slatted F-4E in 1 circle and would only take 3 more circles to get the job done. The upengined late MiG-21bis was within 10% of F-16A turn performance. So, in an F-4 vs F-8 match, the pilots' skills outweigh the the performance differences and if the pilots are perfectly matched, the odds of victory are about 50/50 in a close in dogfight. If either the F-4 or F-8 had to face a MiG-21bis, they had better hope they MiG pilot sucks or doesn't ever see them.

 

Funny, I never programmed my F-4B flight model based on how it felt. Having never flown an F-4, how could I ever know what it really felt like anyway? FMs are lists of aerodynamic coefficients. To be accurate, the numbers must either be calculated or tweaked until the in-game performance matches some known standard. The F-8 manual doesn't quantify very much of the performance in ways that help out with calculating the FM or even provide very many perfomrance curves that you can try to tweak the FM to match. The lift curves I found last night were part of the section on how to pull out of a dive without hitting the ground. There is a 1g level flight envelope for max speed that can be matched, but should drag be increased or thrust decreased to avoid crossing the Mach limit for a given altitude? Or is the limit a self imposed one to protect the engine? It takes tons of data to get the performance curves to match, not just min and max speeds at 1g and the sea level static thrust of the engine. The F-8 manual mainly has a lot of data used for planning missions: fuel-burn rates, time-to-altitude, etc. In the above posts, I made the best estimates I could with what little info was available. Actual flight data will probably be +/-10% of what I guessed if I interpreted the table correctly, but could be off by +/-50% because of other variables not reflected in a simple CL versus Mach table. I even have some problems with the F-4 tables as they have some conflicts with the NASA data. One of the two sources is using less accurate data, both are using measured data mixed with wind tunnel results and faired in data points, so how do I decided which one is based more on measured data and which one was cheating by using basic equations to fair in points? So, even with charts in hand, there is room for errors even if you do all the math without any mistakes. I prefer detailed flight manual charts--these had to be as correct as possible because pilots lived and died by them. NASA data is usually gathered by some engineer type doing a study. Some of these studies are very focused and detailed perhaps even better than the flight manuals, but many are done using the same methods I used above: simple linear equations with extrapolated data to fill in the blanks. I may criticize TK's stock flight models in many posts, but TK made all of his flight models from scratch. I merely used his FM as a foundation and tweaked it to fit the curves I have derived from the flight manuals and NASA data. So, I have the utmost respect for TK's aerospace engineering expertise. But he has to divide his time between programming tasks and an entire catalog of aicraft. Whereas I can afford to pick one aircraft and build a massive library of data on it.

 

Duke's problem vs. the MiG-17 was that when he pulled into the vertical, the F-4 pulled out in front of the MiG-17, who would then start to pepper him with gunfire, forcing him to evade and disengage. Energy tactics are not to zoom up in front of guns. They are to get above your opponent while not in his gunsight and force him to stall trying to reach your altitude. An angles fighter's only defense against a high energy fighter is to pull a tight circle every time the energy fighter tries to make a pass, which could result in a stalemate. But the energy fighter can leave at will. Whereas, if the angles fighter has to leave first, he gets an IRM up the tailpipe. First, Duke assumed the MiG-17 pilot was typical and would either go into a flat turn or disengage when he zoomed. Then, he entered into a vertical rolling scissors at point blank range. The object of a scissors is to force the target to overshoot, not zoom past him. I think Duke was lucky that the pilot was not a better shot. After the first time the MiG-17 flew so agressively in the vertical, Duke should have extended, climbed, then come back rather than keep repeating co-altitude head-on passes followed by more vertical scissoring. Fortunately for Duke, he avoided the gunfire and forced the MiG-17 to disengage first. If you fly an F-105 vs the MiG-17 in SF2, you get an idea about how difficult it is for an energy fighter to beat and angles fighter, but if the energy fighter is flown correctly it will never lose, only win or draw. When you fly an energy fighter and try to use only tail-aspect heat-seeking missiles (such as the F-8 or F-4), the job gets even harder since you not only need to be on the target's tail, but the target needs to ease off his rate of turn a bit to helpt he missile track and hit. It sounds really hard to do and in SF2 where the AI can see you even in its blindspot it is even harder, but with a little patience and luck, the enemy will make a mistake. This is the "Iceman" school of dogfighting. It is tedious and boring but reduces your risk to near zero. Attempting to scissor with the angles fighter and relying on the enemy to be surprised and overshoot when you chop your throttlles is the "Maverick" school of dogfighting. It worked out for Duke, but most people who chop their throttles while in front of a gun armed opponent find out that the gun solution is much easier to solve when the target stops and fills your windscreen.

[+Dave 2,318]

I don't agree. I think the F-8 was a much better fighter. Talking to Adm. Paul Gilcrist at length about the F-8 made me think that as well as the years of buying books and researching the F-8. Great thread but we will agree to disagree.

[UnknownPilot 33]

The F-8 IS an angles fighter vs the F-4, and it does outclass it in that arena. In the same way that the FW-190 was an angles fighter when going up against P-47s, yet nobody would expect it to hang with a Zero in a turn at low speeds.

 

And the gun is also a huge benefit close in in that period when you consider just what was needed for a Sidewinder hit. If you truly flew to your aircraft's strengths, you'd end up gun opportunities that weren't even close to AIM-9B opportunities.

 

And compared to the F-4B/C.... this is even more-so.

 

 

But this is about a very specific point in a very specific scenario - ie, close in, either against each other, or against their common enemy of the day. If you factor in any of the other aspects the F-4 was able to do - high bomb payload, BVR, etc, then there is no question it's the better (even only) choice.

Edited April 29, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[+streakeagle 864]

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.

Edited April 29, 2010 by streakeagle

[+Dave 2,318]

That is impossible to answer SE and you know it. It will ALWAYS boil down to what a person thinks. No matter what data says what. One person will always dispute it. F-4 pilots had a hell of a time in Top Gun against F-8 drivers, that is a fact. (Per ADM Gilcrist himself) I mean seriously what do you want, no one is going to throw their hands in the air and say "Yes SE you are right, the F-4 was the better fighter, you win." Not going to happen. You can throw all the data, facts and figures at me with 14 paragraphs of dictation and I will NEVER change my mind. The F-8 was the Mig Master and when you were out of F-8's, you were out of fighters. Nuff said.

[UnknownPilot 33]

That is impossible to answer SE and you know it. It will ALWAYS boil down to what a person thinks. No matter what data says what. One person will always dispute it. F-4 pilots had a hell of a time in Top Gun against F-8 drivers, that is a fact. (Per ADM Gilcrist himself) I mean seriously what do you want, no one is going to throw their hands in the air and say "Yes SE you are right, the F-4 was the better fighter, you win." Not going to happen. You can throw all the data, facts and figures at me with 14 paragraphs of dictation and I will NEVER change my mind. The F-8 was the Mig Master and when you were out of F-8's, you were out of fighters. Nuff said.

 

It would certainly be interesting to see C5's info if he finds time to post it (and wants to).

 

But you provided the proof right there. They had a hell of a time against F-8s in T-G. What more is there? That's the situation being talked about here. The trouble is just a resonating resentment against the F-8 and it's rep. It's even been stated, proven, and accepted here that the F-8 was a better turning fighter. That obviously makes it the angles fighter in an engagement against an inferior turning fighter. What other explanation or description is even possible there, ya know? But despite it all, the bitterness is still ringing clear.

 

They're both great. But in the end, it was determined that more turning ability was needed, and globally, the gun was deemed the desirable feature, even when all aspect and reliable IRMs came online. But, at the same time, the greater payload and BVR capability made the F-4 the better long term aircraft. (but that has nothing to do with the hotly debated subject here - and despite that keeps getting brought back up as F-4 advantages even though they are written off in this circumstance. lol)

 

I'm with you and C5 and any rate.

Edited April 29, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[+Dave 2,318]

Right on UP, both of them planes caused a lot of Mig pilots to either die in a loud grotesque military manner or ride the silk elevator.

[ShrikeHawk 384]

I cannot offer more "facts", but I will offer a point of logic.

 

I agree with SE's points above and one of the F-8 strengths strikes me as most poignant:

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

 

Imagine you're tangling with a Mig-17 and the Mig pilot is good. As SE pointed out, a properly flown energy fighter either wins or gets a draw against an angles fighter. So the fight has gone on for a while and inevitably the average altitude has dropped below Angels 5. You are now in a very dangerous place. If you push the flight envelope too hard, you'll stall. In fact, whether in the F-8 or F-4, you'll stall out sooner than the Mig will. Below 5K, you may or may not have enough altitude to recover. Your confidence can't be high because one wrong move and you're likely to end up as a big hole in the ground or a guest at the Hanoi Hilton. So you back off a bit. You have to. It's do that or die. If you're an F-4 pilot you're safe flight envelope is smaller so you back off more. If you're in an F-8, you have "more confidence" (though you still gotta be sweatin' bullets) and you're able to push your machine a little harder in the turns than your counterpart in the F-4. Let's face it, even in energy fighting you still gotta turn sometimes; it's not all up and down maneuvering. So the F-8's slight advantage in turning is now MULTIPLIED by the psychological advantage the F-8 gives it's pilot. Let's not only consider the great pilots who knew how to push their mount to within an inch of maximum performance. Let's consider the average pilot in any particular flying corps. The bulk of pilots would fit in this realm and thus more shooters to bring their guns/missiles to bear.

 

The "fact" that the F-8 allows the pilot to become more aggressive is a distinct advantage. From Boelke all the way to Ritchie and Cunningham, it's always stated that the more aggressive pilot is the more successful pilot. So if a plane, like the Spitfire for instance, gives the pilot the confidence to "be" aggressive, then it only makes that plane a "better" plane, doesn't it?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yea its all "feeling" and I share it about the trekkie aerodynamics, especially Streak's #5 point on high AoA handling. The second seat and larger missile load is the winner for me. But that comes with a cost and if all you had is a small carrier the single seat F-8 is infinitely better than F-0 nothing.

 

The thing to do is get F-4 crews as trained as F-8 pilots in close dogfighting.

 

 

server::

Can someone summarize that for me... I'm too drunk to read all of that right now.

lol hehe :good:

 

SUMMARY ~> F-4 pwn F-8

 

Don't worry he's hungover now he'll read that as F-8 pwn F-4 so everybody happy

[column5 62]

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.

 

I'm glad we agree that the F-8 had a slight advantage over the F-4 in ACM then, which is what I and others have been saying since the start of this thread and the other one, and what you just described above. Basically an advantage in maneuverability (probably including turn performance as you have described, but also roll rate and other factors) as well as weapons system better optimized for close-combat (guns and IRMs, rather than IRMs and medium-range SAHMs). Smaller, less visible, etc. which again lend an advantage in close-combat as Top Gun A-4s demonstrated for years. Better overall handling qualities and safety margins in maneuvering flight.

 

Anyway, since we agree, I'd like to throw in some historical perspective for the benefit of the thread showing why this came to be. Many of you already know this and I'm not trying to be pedantic, just throwing the info out for those that don't know.

 

As jet aircraft took over the carrier decks, the Navy defined three types of fighter: the day fighter which was primarily intended to counter enemy fighters while escorting attack aircraft, performing fighter sweep type missions and to a limited degree, defending the fleet. The F-8 is the penultimate example of this type of aircraft, with the F11F falling into the same category. The general-purpose fighter was a broader category encompasing aircraft like the F9F which while technically fighters, were more adept in the attack role. Finally the all-weather fighter was intended primarily as an interceptor and fleet-defense aircraft, as represented by the F3D, F4D and F3H among others. The reason for these various types all under the "fighter" umbrella was the fact that technology simply had not advanced to the point where a single aircraft could reasonably fullfil all three mission requirements, which were significantly different. Until the Phantom. The aircraft that became the F-4 started as the F3H-4 (IIRC), an improved version of the F3H Demon around 1955. The program would morph into the AH for a time, which was proposed to fulfill a Navy requirement for an attack aircraft, and then finally to the F4H. Many design iterations occurred, and at one point the aircraft was to have removable nose sections from the cockpit forward that could be changed out to reconfigure the aircraft for several different missions. Multi-mission capability was clearly one of McDonnell's goals, but the Navy eventually chose to build the aircraft as the all-missile armed fleet defense fighter it had been seeking since the F6D studies. As we all know, in the late 1950s the dogfight was declared a thing of the past, and so the F4H was designed without consideration for the old day fighter mission. So, as costs and complexity rose, the Navy whittled its fighter programs down from at least half a dozen in the mid 1950s to just two: the F8U day-fighter, and the F4H all-weather interceptor with nuclear and conventional attack capabilities. Training in the two fighter communities was very different: F-8 pilots were trained at the Fleet Air Gunnery Unit and concentrated on close-combat, while the F-4 crews foces almost entirely on intercepts and medium-range missile engagements. The rest of the story is well-known, with the experience in Vietnam highlighting the need for a renaissance in ACM training resulting in the establishment of Top Gun, which taught pilots how to use the F-4, and later the F-14, to best advantage over smaller, lighter, more maneuverable opponents...like the F-8.