On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:27:59 -0500, "John Carrier"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
outperform the Crusader.

Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
for air-to-ground!"

But, air-to-air is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
from the target.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com