It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Super Crusader could goes 3M?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:41 AM
Yesterday, I read an article that originally was written by Peter Mersky in which said that XF8U-3 could go 3 March.
That's unbelievable! An fixed intake, which I mean the geometrical section of intake is unmovable will leading huge drag causing by shockwave while the aircraft do supersonic at such high speed, evetually crash the constructure of the aircraft. Everyone here know this, why the pilot said that can go such high speed?
Otherwise, the ventral fin on SuperCrusader is large enough to absurd. I believe it will be broken while the speed beyond 2.5M

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:43 AM
A couple of things. First, depending on alititude and whether the aircraft is dirty or clean,(flight profile) it may be possible to attain a higher velocity than what is commonly known as operational speeds, but in NO WAY was there ever an F8 that could achieve Mach 3. As you pointed out, the geometry of the inlet would be counterproductive at that velocity. You mention the extremely large tailfin, good point but really a stabilization effort in this case.
Great aircraft and gunfighter but whoever told you this has been going fast for too long and it has messed up their head in my opinion.

Also, I noticed amid your avatar your mood and location?? I hope you are no longer sad and I pray that you are not in hell....seriously, I like your threads but you seem unhappy and need to perk up man

Peace, Mondo

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:03 AM
It officially operated at mach 2.6, and its designers thought it could go mach 2.9. It was never tested at that speed.

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
It officially operated at mach 2.6, and its designers thought it could go mach 2.9. It was never tested at that speed.

Max speed was never determined, as
the canopy would overheat and begin turning opaque at
about 2.6 mach; test pilots felt that mach 3.0 was easily
attainable, based on the acceleration still evident at 2.6.
The Super Crusader lost out in a flyoff with the
F-4, which had 2 engines and a crew of 2. Pilots
who flew both thought the F-8U-3 was a delight to
fly, while the F-4B was "trucky".

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:49 PM
i wouldn't be too suprised if it's true

Mig 25 could fly up to 3.2M

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:33 PM

Originally posted by warset
Mig 25 could fly up to 3.2M

Yeah but only if you feel like getting brand new engines and some repairs to the airframe. Many fighters are capable of reaching temporary high speeds but it usually causes damage to the A/C. So while the Super Crusader could probably reach those speed temporarily under certain conditions it would likely suffer structural and engine damage.

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:30 AM
We've discussed max speed, next question is, where is the airbrake on XF8U-3?
The picture below just show F-8's airbraker where on XFU-3 is a place for load missile.

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:25 AM
The F8U-3, was powered by a Pratt & Whitney J75-P-6 engine that provided over 26,000 pounds of thrust, it could attain speeds in the Mach 2 range. There was a scoop on the lower lip of the inlet to properly align the shock wave at high speed. There were also manual-control bypass doors to bleed excess air overboard so as to prevent inlet choking at supersonic speeds. Although the J58-P-2 was the intended powerplant for an operational version of the plane, I think structural limitations would have prohibited Mach 3 flight.

After the 1957/1958 fly-off competition was lost to the F4H, two Super Crusaders were made available to NASA for research purposes. These airplanes had speed and altitude performance that made them ideal for investigating sonic booms effects at altitudes up to 60,000 feet.

Bill Alford and Don Mallick shared flying duty in the NASA F8U-3 program at Langley Research Center, Virginia. Training was provided by Vought chief test pilot John Conrad. The first aircraft arrived at Langley on 26 May 1959. It served as the primary flight-test aircraft. The second arrived a month later and was mostly used for spare parts.

Mallick descibed his first flight in the F8U-3 as follows:
"On my first takeoff, I rotated the nose and was immediately airborne. As per the briefing, I quickly moved the landing gear handle up and rotated the nose even higher in pitch attitude to keep from exceeding the maximum gear-extended speed. As the gear went up and the movable rear ventrals went down, the aircraft wallowed a little. I had discussed this anomalous motion with John Conrad prior to flight and it came as no surprise. I was surprised, however, that the aircraft had a distinct sideslip. A post-flight discussion with John later revealed that the afterburner nozzle on this aircraft actually distorted from a circle to a slight oval when the afterburner was lit, and the thrust vector was slightly misaligned with the aircraft's center of gravity. This undesirable characteristic only manifested at lower speeds, such as takeoff with the afterburner engaged. At higher speeds, the effect was scarcely noticeable. The F8U-3 had excellent handling qualities. It had light and comfortable control forces, as a fighter should, and there was no tendency to over-control or cause pilot-induced oscillation (PIO) in any of the three axes of control."

The inlet was manually controlled and adjusted with regard to Mach number. The bypass doors opened at about Mach 1.4, accompanied by an increase in thrust. They bled excess air overboard to allow the engine and inlet to operate more efficiently by converting the inlet air's velocity to pressure. The pilot, however, could not adjust the thrust during afterburner operation. It was either in full afterburner or no afterburner, with no setting in between. The F8U-3 also had a problem with compressor stalls.

The pilot’s windscreen was made of Plexiglas like the rest of the canopy. This limited cruise time at Mach 2. High-speed airflow easily heated the thin plastic material, structurally weakening it. After 10 minutes, its reduced strength left it vulnerable to catastrophic failure. The NASA test conductors therefore set a five-minute limit on cruise at Mach 2.

new topics

top topics


log in