F-8 versus F-4

"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!"

R / John

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

On 5/11/05 3:27 PM, in article , "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!"

R / John

An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs on
Tomcats...

--Woody

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!"

R / John

An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs
on
Tomcats...

Yes. F-14 community stupidity was the third component of the trinity that
killed what could have been the premier strike fighter of the age.

R / John

I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
on aircraft of this era.

Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
(only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader
or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.

I recognize this is off topic for a naval group, but similarly what
radar did the F-101B Voodoo carry? I've heard it was a Hughes set,
but it seems as though it must have been a low capability one, since
the only Falcons I can find reference to it using are IR. Did it ever
carry one that could actually illuminate a target? On that note, what
did the backseater on an F-101B actually _do_ if radar was mostly a
ground guided effort, and engagements were with Falcon at short range?
And for that matter, did the F-101 ever get liberated from its
Falcon's and given the ability to carry a more capable missile (other
than Genie!).

Thx

Ian

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:18:07 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 5/11/05 3:27 PM, in article , "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!"

R / John

An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs on
Tomcats...

--Woody

"IRBusch" wrote in message
...
I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
on aircraft of this era.

Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
(only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader
or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.

Nope. There was a capability to carry and launch the AIM-9C (radar
sidewinder), but I don't think the missile ever made it to operational
status. There was never a provision to carry Sparrow on the operational
F-8. The F-8U3 Crusader III (three prototypes built) was Sparrow capable.
The Crusader III lost a fly-off to the lower performance F-4 Phantom in
1958. No examples survive.

SNIP

R / John

John Carrier wrote:

"IRBusch" wrote in message
...
I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
on aircraft of this era.

Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
(only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader
or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.

Nope. There was a capability to carry and launch the AIM-9C (radar
sidewinder), but I don't think the missile ever made it to operational
status.

Apparently it was carried for a time in Vietnam, typically one -9C and
three-9Ds. AFAIK, no shots were taken. Later, the marines were talking about
modifying them into AGM-122 Sidearm ARMs for the Harrier, but I don't remember
if that ever went operational.

Guy

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:44:43 +0000, Guy Alcala wrote:
three-9Ds. AFAIK, no shots were taken. Later, the marines were talking about
modifying them into AGM-122 Sidearm ARMs for the Harrier, but I don't remember
if that ever went operational.

I don't think they were used on Harriers, but I believe Cobra's and maybe
Bronco's used them.

Rob

IRBusch wrote:

I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
on aircraft of this era.

Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
(only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader
or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.

BTW, the Matra 530 had interchangeable heads, IR and SARH.

I recognize this is off topic for a naval group, but similarly what
radar did the F-101B Voodoo carry?

The whole fire-control system was designated the MG-13. I don't know if the radar
had a separate AN/APG- or APQ- designation, but I've never seen one attributed to
it. Hughes own primer, "Introduction to Airborne Radar", just refers to the
MG-13.

I've heard it was a Hughes set,
but it seems as though it must have been a low capability one, since
the only Falcons I can find reference to it using are IR. Did it ever
carry one that could actually illuminate a target? On that note, what
did the backseater on an F-101B actually _do_ if radar was mostly a
ground guided effort, and engagements were with Falcon at short range?

Okay, since you asked. From R.F. Dorr's book on the 101, describing a typical
F-101B intercept:

"At midnight, a blip appears on the SAGE surveillance radar screen. It is
declared an unknown. The SAGE computer, using target position input information
from various radars throughout the air defense early warning system, quickly
computes the logical scramble force as being the 60th FIS at Otis AFB on Cape Cod
since the 60th can make a minimum-time intercept. The computer automatically
sounds the scramble horn at the 60th alert hangar. . . [crews run to a/c, don
poopy suits, get in].

"As the pilot of each a/c starts engines, the RO [Radar Operator] calls the tower
for scramble instructions.

"'Uh, Roger, RED 1. Callsigns X-RAY KILO zero-one and zero-two. Buster angels
three-zero. Heading zero-nine-zero after Otis scramble corridor. Contact Otis
departure control on three-zero-two-point-seven when airborne. Cleared to taxi.'

"While taxiing, the RO calls off the taxi checklist tothe pilot and sets his
datalink set to his callsign suffix number.This establishes a link between the
SAGE computer and the a/c. 'Otis tower, X-RAY KILO zero-one flight number one
for the active.'

"'Roger, zero-one, you are cleared for immediate takeoff. Contact departure when
airborne.'

[both a/c take off]

"'Zero-two, let's go to departure frequency'. 02 acknowledges and both ROs tune
in the [dep. freq, contact departure control and get further instructions].

"'Roger, Otis. As the climb continues at military power ('buster'),the RO is
finishing the climb checklist call-out to the pilot and adjusting the MG-13
fire-control radar for best performance and display [. . . They change
frequencies from dep. control to the GCI station, Grayfish].

"'Roger, zero-one flight', the ground controller responds. 'We need altitude,
heading, a/c type, speed and tail numbers on this guy. Follow dolly'. Zero-one
flight knows from the last instruction to follow the commands and information
provided on the datalink cockpit displays and to observe radio silence until the
identification is complete.

"The command attitude indicatiors in both Voodoos indicate 35,000 ft. and the
command mach meter 0.9 Mach. The datalink steering dot on the pilot's radar
display and the target marker circle on the RO's scope indicate dead-ahead. The
climb is continued to 35,000ft. and both a/c level off and set their speeds at
the command Mach number. The RO's target marker circle indicates that the target
is dead-ahead at 45 miles. O2 breaks away from 01 when the target marker
indicates 30 miles and the pilot's steering dot shows a sudden deflection. (In
the ADC tactics scenario, one of the RED a/c makes the [ID] pass while the other
stands off for a firing pass if needed. In this case, the SAGE computer is
transmitting information to 02 that will result in his being positioned at the
standoff location. The pilot-RO cockpit exchange continues as 01 presses in for
the [ID]pass . . .

"'Target dead-ahead at 25miles. Confirm viz-ident mode selected.' The pilot
checks his armament control panel and confirms that the mode selector switch is
positioned for an [ID] pass. Suddenly, the target marker circle deflects to the
left and centers at a range of 20miles. The RO continues to search the area of
the target marker circle for his assigned target.

"'Contact forty-five degrees port at 20 miles. Port. Disregard dolly.' The SAGE
computer has fulfilled its function of getting the interceptor grossly positioned
in the target area. The intercept control is now in the hands of the RO and he
instructs the pilot to disregard the datalink indications. The RO quickly
analyses the target blip drift characteristics on his screen and determines that
the gross geometry is one of reciprocal headings with lateral displacement; his
first action is to instruct the pilot to turn left using twenty degreesof bank
('port' command). He continues to watch the drift characteristicsof the blip
while reporting range and azimuth to the pilot. The pilot continuously scans for
a visual sightingof the target. Luckily, tonight is a clear night. However,
with weather present or the target 'blacked out' (nav. lights turned off), the
pilot must depend on the RO to keep him informed of target position and to
accurately and safely bring the a/c into final visual [ID] position.

"In the port turn, the RO notices that the blip is sliding out in azimuth on his
scope, so he instructs the pilot to increase his rate-of-turn to maximum. 'Port
hard as possible.' The RO notices that the drift has stopped and he watches his
scope for the first indicating that the blip is starting to drift towards the
center of his scope. Here,safety is of paramount importance because should the
target hold at one azimuth on the RO's B-scan type display, a collision is
certain if something in the geometry is not changed.

"'Target 45 degrees port at15 miles, overtake 780 knots.' At 14 miles, the blip
starts to move rapidly across the scope toward zero azimuth. 'Ease off. Hold.'
The RO has the drift he is looking for and he now begins to 'fine-tune' the
geometry so that the target is placed on the nose at 10 miles with ninety degrees
of heading difference, commonly called the 'ninety-ten' tactic in ADC. The pilot
increases or decreases his bank angle and holds as the RO instructs. 'Target
dead-ahead at 10 miles.'

"The RO begins to look for the blip to start drifting to port as the target
passes the nose. He sees the drift starting to develop and instructs the pilot
'Port'. The pilot establishes 20 degrees of bank. This turn rate stops the drift
and the target is staying dead-ahead in azimuth. The Voodoo is in a turn that
will eventually result in a roll-out dead-astern of the target at about 5 miles.
The range-rate meter starts to show a fall-off in overtake. The RO continues to
fine-tune the geometry through instructions to the pilot to ensure that an
excessively long roll-out range does not occur that will result in more time for
the intercept; likewise, he must assure that a dangerous situation is not set up
by rolling out too close to the target. 'Target dead-ahead at 5 miles. Overtake
50knots.' An optimum roll-out has resulted.

"'Re-chec viz-ident and armament safety switch off and safety-wired.' 'Roger,'
the pilot confirms.

"'Fly the dot,' instructs the RO. He has locked his radar onto the target and
released the intercept control back to the pilot. He continues to give the pilot
geometry and overtake information as the range is closed towards the final
intercept point. The pilot flies the MG-13 FCS computer-generated steering dot;
it will take the a/c to a position that is two hundred feet right of thetargetand
twohundredyardsslantrange, at which point hewillgeta pull-out signal that
indicates that the final position has been reached. From that point, the pilot
controls the intercept to a position that is optimum for ID purposes.

"'Target 3 degrees port, 700 yards. Overtake is holding at 50 kts.'

"'Roger. Tally-ho,' the pilot replies as he confirms a visual on the target.

"'Target 5 degrees port, 200 yds. Overtake 10 kts.'

"'Roger. I have a pull-out signal.' Stand-by for ID light.'

"'Roger. Ready with ID light. Overtake slightly positive. Good position.' The
pilot adjusts the throttles so that he is at the same speed as the target.

"'ID light on.' The RO switches on the 8-inch sealed beam light on the fuselage
near his cockpit. A commercial airliner is readily identified as window shades
begin to open and passengers gawk out at the Voodoo stalking them in the night [.
.. .]

"As the pilot flies formation with the target, the RO calls in the required
information to Ground Control Intercept control. 'Grayfish, X-RAY KILO zero-one.'

"'Roger, zero-one. Ready to copy.'[the RO gives the info]

"'Roger,zero-one. Clear target and follow dolly. Zero-two will be joining up in
approximately five minutes.'

"The SAGE computer transmits datalink information that will result in their
rejoining and returning to base. They are handed off to Otis approach control and
brought in for a GCA and landing. . ."

Note that this was a radar intercept, the IRSTS wasn't used.

And for that matter, did the F-101 ever get liberated from its
Falcon's and given the ability to carry a more capable missile (other
than Genie!).

No.

Guy

AFIK the 101-wonder's MG13 was essentially the same as the 102's MG10
with the addition of guidance comps to launch the AIR2 Genie unguided
nuke. Never heard of one carrying radar Falcons - Pk of which was such
that the minimum number to be launched was 3, although I did kill a
Firebee drone with a singleton. BTW our 104As couldn't handle an F8 -
until we got the Dash 19 engine and then it was a different story. With
that added thrust we could take an F4 or a 106 by working the vertical.
As for the F4, I had flown the T6 (SNJ to y'all) in training so the
F4's quirks were like old home week in recalibrating my yaw-sensing
butt, to where I was using a tad of adverse aileron to increase the
roll rate in high AOA, plus asymmetrical thrust in zero-AOA vertical
reverses. Now, if that bird had just had a canopy like the Sabre or T33
.. . . but I guess you weren't supposed to look out when flying
interceptors. Engineers must listen to pilots!
Walt BJ