Since I can't seem to find a model of one (big surprise), I'm designing a model of the XF8U-3 to 3D-print at 1:48 scale. Got the idea because I have a spare F-8 canopy laying around with nothing better to do, along with some other odds and ends. Backstory is still a work in progress, but I'm going for a what-if improved variant of the Crusader III circa either late '80s or mid-'90s. Gonna have to stretch things a bit to get it to fly for that long ;D
Anyway, here's what I've got so far. Just need the wings and tail. Also I think I'm going to dispense with those HUGE ventral fins and replace them with more low-profile ones like the Crusader III's little brother (regular F-8) had.
Went ahead and did the wings too.
I could never see how the folding ventral fin or fins on any aircraft would be an advantage. Just some extra complications that would go wrong at the worst possible time (like landing). Maybe that's why everyone has gone to twin tails now days.
Your 3D drawing is looking good!
I always saw it that way too, the first time I found out about those ventral fins on the Crusader III, my first thought was something like "how do you land without ripping the tail off if the retraction mechanism fails?". I know they were a stability measure, but I suspect that it might have been a bit overdone.
Anyway I should start printing the model soon, once I get the tail surfaces modeled and Sparrow troughs cut in. I'm sort of conflicted about the weapons fit for this one. It's definitely getting a gun of some kind (but I suspect I'll get rid of the Mk-12s in favor of a single Vulcan), and I fully intend to carry over the Sidewinder Y-pylons from the Crusader, but I'm not sure if I want to give it AIM-7s or AMRAAMs. Hence the late-'80s to mid-'90s timeframe. As much as I feel that a full load of 3x AIM-7Ps and 4x AIM-9Ms is fitting for such a plane, I can't shake the temptation to give it fire-and-forget radar missiles and/or high-off-boresight heat seekers. Unless I REALLY stretch the backstory such that it stays in service (and gets upgrades) through the mid-2000s, my only high-off-boresight option is AIM-95 Agile (which means more 3D modeling and printing). Would love to hear the opinion of others on this. Usually I'm pretty good at deciding what I want when I do a build like this, but right now I'm stymied. Also I'm curious to hear opinions on the idea of wing pylons. I know the F-8E/J had them, and that would allow for more fuel or missiles, but the plane would probably look a bit cleaner without them.
I've got AIM-7s and AIM-9Ms left over from my F-15X build (which I still need to finish :banghead: ), but I'm also tempted to print up some AIM-152s instead of the AIM-7s. Again that sticks me in the mid-'90s at least though...
I'm planning to go for a dirty low-viz paint scheme typical of the late '80s, like this.
vfp-206-rf-8g-crusader-769aff-1024.jpg
Not sure about squadron markings yet. I had it in my head that I was going to use leftover decals from a Super Tomcat build, but those are already earmarked for a facelift of the first model airplane I ever had (a Revell F-14D incidentally). I'll come up with something though...
Quote from: kerick on April 06, 2025, 04:36:26 PMI could never see how the folding ventral fin or fins on any aircraft would be an advantage. Just some extra complications that would go wrong at the worst possible time (like landing). Maybe that's why everyone has gone to twin tails now days.
Your 3D drawing is looking good!
Most of those twin tails are on twin engine aircraft. The F-35 is the only current twin tail single engine type.
;)
Quote from: kerick on April 06, 2025, 04:36:26 PMI could never see how the folding ventral fin or fins on any aircraft would be an advantage. Just some extra complications that would go wrong at the worst possible time (like landing). Maybe that's why everyone has gone to twin tails now days.
Same process as folding wings on naval aircraft &, in many ways, the fold joins are stronger than the rest of the structure ... But they do add a bit of extra weight.
I was thinking of coming in for a landing and having the fin fail to fold. That would probably wreck half an aircraft.
Quote from: kerick on April 06, 2025, 09:59:15 PMI was thinking of coming in for a landing and having the fin fail to fold. That would probably wreck half an aircraft.
As they wouldn't be needed during the relatively low speed landing, why not just jettison them if they failed to fold? Explosive bolts were invented for that purpose. Two fins would be LOTS cheaper than even half a Super Crusader.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 07, 2025, 04:10:12 AMQuote from: kerick on April 06, 2025, 09:59:15 PMI was thinking of coming in for a landing and having the fin fail to fold. That would probably wreck half an aircraft.
As they wouldn't be needed during the relatively low speed landing, why not just jettison them if they failed to fold? Explosive bolts were invented for that purpose. Two fins would be LOTS cheaper than even half a Super Crusader.
True, that could be done. I wonder if the Crusader III actually had a system like that. Surely they would have had to incorporate that kind of thing into a production version.
Horizontal tail and ventral fins done. They are a bit bigger than the ones on the regular Crusader, but I think that makes sense given this is a much bigger airplane.
Crusader III 3.png
Crusader III 2.png
Still need to add the gun and intake bleed doors. Once I get that sorted out, it'll be time to separate the wings and model the variable incidence mechanism (if I can...).
I decided I'd keep the 7-degree incidence angle from the F-8, since that's the best information I can find. I'm test-printing the nose section now.
This is looking so good!
The cockpit may have to be redone, it's a bit on the wide side, but the rest of it is coming along well. Here's another couple of photos of the model with more detail. Sparrow troughs, intake bleed doors, and gun bulge added. I also filleted the wing, tail, and ventral fin tips.
Crusader III 5.png
Crusader III 4.png
Also wondering about powerplant. The J75 is a good engine, but it would be very long in the tooth by the late '80s and totally obsolete by the '90s. Much as I'd love an F101, it's just too big (I checked). F110 would be available in the late '80s though, and it would be smaller and lighter. Might be a little too big around though, will have to check.
That looks good, I was thinking about building the two seater version in 1/72 scale as I remember seeing the vacform kit and two seater conversion set for the F-8 and A-7. One step further would have been the RF variant. The Super Crusader was the alternative to the F-4K/M for use by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
If I'm going to do this with HOBS missiles, the pilot will need a VTAS helmet-mounted sight. Probably going to have to design that myself. I've got a pilot model that I've been using for some of my modern builds (he's wearing a Scorpion HMS or something like it), but that's probably not going to pass here. Something more like this is probably in order:
VTAS 2.jpgVTAS.jpg
Quote from: kerick on April 06, 2025, 09:59:15 PMI was thinking of coming in for a landing and having the fin fail to fold. That would probably wreck half an aircraft.
You increase stability in yaw by enlarging the vertical stabilizer, stabilizer and rudder or adding more vertical surfaces. In the case of the F8U-3 (just a "derivative" doncha know) Vought added the folding ventral fin. The only other option was greatly enlarged vertical surfaces, which wouldn't have been a great choice for a carrier based aircraft.
Hmm, the "Fin Mk.1"?
:unsure:
The need for more vertical area for
stability in yaw is why you often see ventral fins added to landbased aircraft that have been put on floats. Aircraft that have been built from the start to be convertible have the needed area included from the beginning. The neatest conversion from land to float is probably the A6M2-N, when Nakajima designed it they added the necessary area with an enlarged fin and rudder that blended almost seamlessly into the Zero. So cleanly that some model companies missed the differences.
Got the fuselage sections printed and glued together. Unfortunately my 3D printer isn't the greatest, so this is definitely going to need some PSR, but I'll sort that out.
IMG_20250407_184943212.jpg
Quote from: jcf on April 07, 2025, 03:30:44 PMQuote from: kerick on April 06, 2025, 09:59:15 PMI was thinking of coming in for a landing and having the fin fail to fold. That would probably wreck half an aircraft.
You increase stability in yaw by enlarging the vertical stabilizer, stabilizer and rudder or adding more vertical surfaces. In the case of the F8U-3 (just a "derivative" doncha know) Vought added the folding ventral fin. The only other option was greatly enlarged vertical surfaces, which wouldn't have been a great choice for a carrier based aircraft.
Hmm, the "Fin Mk.1"?
:unsure:
The need for more vertical area for
stability in yaw is why you often see ventral fins added to landbased aircraft that have been put on floats. Aircraft that have been built from the start to be convertible have the needed area included from the beginning. The neatest conversion from land to float is probably the A6M2-N, when Nakajima designed it they added the necessary area with an enlarged fin and rudder that blended almost seamlessly into the Zero. So cleanly that some model companies missed the differences.
The reason for that had something to do with stability at high speeds as I recall. Apparently the Crusader III's profile was considered unstable in the Mach 2+ range or something like that. I'm gonna probably just pretend the Navy realized that while being able to do Mach 2.35 is nice, in the real world it wouldn't be operating at speeds that high, so the folding ventral fins were removed in later versions of the design.
I did a quick and dirty model of a pilot with the VTAS helmet sight, any imperfections will be less noticeable when it's printed.
VTAS Pilot.png
Wow. This is gonna be so cool ! Love the Crusader. Never seen that pic before of the low viz R jobs. Just gorgeous. Thanks for sharing that ! Looking forward to seeing more of this build.
What software are you using to make the pilot figure?
Quote from: frank2056 on April 07, 2025, 06:31:18 PMWhat software are you using to make the pilot figure?
I took an existing pilot model and imported it into blender. Then I made modifications to the helmet.
Quote from: jcf on April 06, 2025, 05:45:52 PMMost of those twin tails are on twin engine aircraft. The F-35 is the only current twin tail single engine type.
;)
Not quite true, there is the T-7 Redhawk (though it's in development currently).
That's coming along nicely.
Well my printer messed up on the wings, so badly that I probably can't fix them without a TON of PSR, so I'm re-printing them on a much more expensive printer that I happen to have access to. We'll see how those turn out.
I'm open to suggestions for engine, weapons fit, and wing pylons. Right now I'm thinking the most likely engine option is the original J75 turbojet, though an F110 GE-100 would theoretically fit. It might even be possible to cram in an F401. The VTAS helmet is non-negotiable, but I have six AIM-9Ms and four AIM-7s on hand. Adding AIM-152s or AIM-95s means more 3D printing, and 152s puts the plane firmly in the '90s. I can also fit drop tanks or have up to nine AAMs if I include the wing pylons. Let me know what you guys think!
So I ended up having to thicken the trailing edge of the wings to get them to print correctly, but they turned out okay.
Okay with you is okay with us lol
I'm just fascinated by the whole 3D process
Quote from: NARSES2 on April 09, 2025, 05:30:23 AMI'm just fascinated by the whole 3D process
Something I'd love to get into, but holding off for now.
So watching this with great interest. :thumbsup:
Ok I've used my 3D printer to print out some parts here and there but this is awesome. :thumbsup: :bow:
Yeah my M.O. is becoming something like "if I can't buy it, I'll print it!". ;D
Speaking of printing, I've got some decal paper and clear-coat, so this build may get custom decals. I'm also probably going to have to re-print the nose section - it's a bit too wide for the F-8 canopy. I suspect the cross-section of the XF8U-3 is tapered a bit more near the top rear of the cockpit, but I should be able to sort that out.
Well the wings finally finished. Nose still needs to be either re-printed or modified so that the canopy will fit. But this is the basic look (and no, the wings are not going to stay black).
IMG_20250414_181658607.jpgIMG_20250414_181636332.jpg
Elegant! :thumbsup:
Very sharp looking, figuratively and literally too! :thumbsup:
That's looking so sleak it could slice butter and not leave a mark ;D
I was honestly worried that it would look a little fat compared to the regular F-8, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Makes sense it would be pretty sleek, being a Mach 2.35 airplane. Once I get that nose fixed it'll be time to fill in the gaps and start painting. The gun fairing position I currently have makes absolutely no sense, it's way too close to the starboard upper AIM-7 trough. Didn't really want the gun on the left side, but it looks like that's what I'm stuck with from an internal arrangement perspective. Ah well, that's where it is on the Tomcat. I'm also going to have to figure out how to print the Y-pylons. Those have very specific geometry and may be hard to get right. The good news is that thanks to computers and geometry, all I have to do is get one side right and then I can mirror it to get the other one.
It turns out the Crusader III is not actually all that much bigger than the F-8E, just three feet longer. The internal volume of the fuselage is presumably greater to keep that big hungry J-75 engine fed, and house the electronics for the AIM-7s, but presumably Vought was going for the same "smallest and lightest airplane around the biggest engine we can get" approach that they took with the original Crusader.
IIRC, one of the original F8U designs had a 20 mm gun in the lower intake lip, and one on each flank of the duct. Not certain if that's an option with the different sugar scoop arrangement, though.
Earlier on, you mentioned putting a Vulcan gun on it. I guess that would take some space.
Quote from: perttime on April 16, 2025, 01:32:38 AMEarlier on, you mentioned putting a Vulcan gun on it. I guess that would take some space.
Yeah the A-7s eventually went to Vulcans, I figure this probably would too. I'm presuming that this is the third letter designation for the Crusader III, so starting at F-8F, then F-8M, then F-8S or something like that, so I figure by that point they probably would have been considering a Vulcan instead of the Mk-12s given all the issues those seem to have had.
I see now that I've gone from "Kitbasher" to "Makes own decals". That's definitely about to be the case lol ;D
This plane is gonna need some!
Quote from: perttime on April 16, 2025, 01:32:38 AMEarlier on, you mentioned putting a Vulcan gun on it. I guess that would take some space.
But you're also losing 4x Mk12 revolver cannons and their ammo handling.
Quote from: scooter on April 21, 2025, 07:27:24 AMQuote from: perttime on April 16, 2025, 01:32:38 AMEarlier on, you mentioned putting a Vulcan gun on it. I guess that would take some space.
But you're also losing 4x Mk12 revolver cannons and their ammo handling.
And their mass (OK, so the Vulcan will make that up plus a little but the better fire power is worth it!)
After some more consideration and review of the design, I think I'll put the Vulcan low on the starboard side, directly in front of the nose gear bay. The ammunition feed should be able to go up around the side of the intake duct to a drum behind the cockpit that way.
New nose is printed and glued in place, now it's time to make the y-pylons, drill the cannon port, and PSR the gaps.
IMG_20250421_181015207.jpg IMG_20250421_181007952.jpg
Unfortunately my pilot figure with the VTAS helmet failed to print, so I'll have to tweak the settings and see if that corrects the issue.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
That's very cool matey 👍 👌
Will there also be a bulge at the gun port, like on F-14?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg/1200px-Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)
(Wikimedia image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)
Quote from: perttime on April 22, 2025, 01:31:00 AMWill there also be a bulge at the gun port, like on F-14?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg/1200px-Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)
(Wikimedia image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)
That's the plan. I actually have a spare gun fairing from a Revell F-14D kit that I can probably use. That may be my best option for getting something that looks right, was having trouble with that part printing correctly.
Quote from: Spino on April 22, 2025, 07:20:30 AMQuote from: perttime on April 22, 2025, 01:31:00 AMWill there also be a bulge at the gun port, like on F-14?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg/1200px-Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)
(Wikimedia image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)
That's the plan. I actually have a spare gun fairing from a Revell F-14D kit that I can probably use. That may be my best option for getting something that looks right, was having trouble with that part printing correctly.
Make UV casting. Simples!
Quote from: Spino on April 22, 2025, 07:20:30 AMQuote from: perttime on April 22, 2025, 01:31:00 AMWill there also be a bulge at the gun port, like on F-14?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg/1200px-Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)
(Wikimedia image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)
That's the plan. I actually have a spare gun fairing from a Revell F-14D kit that I can probably use. That may be my best option for getting something that looks right, was having trouble with that part printing correctly.
If that's the easiest and simplest way to get great results mate then that's the best way forward 👍
Quote from: Wardukw on April 22, 2025, 11:58:21 AMIf that's the easiest and simplest way to get great results mate then that's the best way forward 👍
My thoughts exactly.
Still undecided about the wing pylons. But I think the armament will be AIM-7Ps and AIM-9Ms.
Also, does anyone have a good putty recommendation? I've been using Testors contour putty and found it a bit difficult to work with. It likes to stick to my gloved hands more than to the model I'm working on!
After cutting it to size and cutting a corresponding hole in the side of the fuselage, the F-14 gun bulge is added. Now for the PSR...
IMG_20250430_211313594.jpg
Quote from: kerick on April 06, 2025, 04:36:26 PMI could never see how the folding ventral fin or fins on any aircraft would be an advantage. Just some extra complications that would go wrong at the worst possible time (like landing). Maybe that's why everyone has gone to twin tails now days.
Your 3D drawing is looking good!
Twin tails have to be a certain distance apart in order not to mutually interfere with each other, which makes them a more natural fit on twin-engined aircraft - note that most of the folding-tail types (the MiG-23 is probably the most widespread example). Making the dorsal tail fin bigger and bigger gets into diminishing returns past a certain point in terms of the weight-penalty per unit of "fin effect". Adding height adds bending moment at the root and hence needs more weight. Addding a fillet to the leading edge works up to a point, but you get into the more-weight-for-less-effect spiral as you extend it further forwards. There's also the problem that dorsal tail fins are far more vulnerable to disrupted airflow at high angles of attack, whereas that's when ventral fins really come into their own, since they drop into clean air at the same time.
Well the two main situations that a Crusader would encounter high AoA in didn't seem to be the reason that Vought included those long folding ventrals. One is dogfighting, and the other is carrier landing. The latter was partially taken care of by the variable incidence wing (at least in terms of pilot visibility), but the real issue seemed to be some sort of high speed stability problem. Maybe an FBW system could have fixed that, but those wouldn't become operational for another decade and a half. So big ventrals it was. Anyway I'm making the assumption that these were deleted from the "F-8S" based on experience in Vietnam (how many aircraft other than the SR-71 actually ever flew faster than Mach 1.6 during that war?). And who knows, maybe a late '80s version of the Crusader III gets a flight control system similar to the F-16 or F/A-18?
I honestly find the traditional cheek-mounted Y-pylons a bit of a challenge since the Crusader III has intake bleed doors located right about where the mounting points for those Sidewinder pylons would be, and the port and starboard AIM-7 wells are also potentially in the way. As much as I hate to, I may end up mounting at least two of the Sidewinders on the wings for this reason. I wonder, maybe I could add wingtip rails for them? That would certainly ruin the classic Crusader look though, maybe twin Sidewinder rails on the wing pylons would be better, or singles on the wings and single cheek rails.
PSR has started on the gun fairing, and all the gaps left by warps in the 3D-printed pieces (better printers than mine don't have this issue, but I can't afford one :banghead: ). Printed up some rails for the Sidewinders while I was at it.
I find with my prints that warping of a part tends to be due to less-than-ideal orientation on the print bed and/or insufficient supports to constrain it.
Well these fuselage sections were printed in about the best orientation possible. I literally just cut sections out of the model so each one of them had a flat end to sit on the print bed. This is mostly an edge warping issue, some of them warped more than others though. I suspect part of the problem was that I used lightning infill to reduce weight (and also make it easier to cut holes if I needed to :lol: ).
Figured that since I'm doing a hypothetical development of the XF8U3 from the late '80s to early '90s, the plane would have a few extra lumps and bumps for enhanced RHAW gear and such, so I'm adding those with stuff from the spare parts boxes and some PSR. I also added Harrier-style upper flank countermeasure dispensers right behind the wings in addition to the main underfuselage dispenser, and since I totally forgot about the all-important refueling probe, I added a portside bulge in the forward fuselage for that. I'm considering adding some sort of long range television camera or IRST system since the F-8s, F-14, and some models of the F-4 had that sort of thing. But where to put it? The Crusader had it on top of the nose, but there's a much bigger radar in the nose of the Crusader III, so I'm not sure it would fit. Also due to the different nose geometry it wouldn't have much look-down angle, although that doesn't necessarily matter for a plane that's intended to be feet-wet most of the time. Could do a Tomcat-style chin bulge under the intake I suppose, but I was thinking of putting an ALQ-100 bulge under there and having an IRST there too might look a bit weird. I'll sort something out.
A bigger concern for me right now is the very inconvenient positioning of the intake bleed doors. I'll have to mount the Sidewinder rails pretty far back to clear those, and even then the Sidewinders could block the ejection of the side-mounted AIM-7s! I really don't know how Vought was planning on getting more than two Sidewinders on this thing without adding wing pylons. Maybe they weren't, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the intended armament was to include the F-8's quartet of Mk-12 cannons and four AIM-9s in addition to the three AIM-7s. Might have that wrong though.
I mounted the starboard Sidewinder rail, and as I suspected there is no way to fit two of them with the AIM-7 in place, otherwise one of the 'winders will be in the way of the AIM-7 ejecting from its trough. That's okay though, my supply of Sidewinders doesn't seem to be quite as extensive as I originally thought. Here you can see what I'm dealing with.
IMG_20250502_180457971.jpg
And here's some photos of the bulge for the refueling probe, countermeasure dispensers, and a random centerline bump that I thought was appropriate.
IMG_20250502_180531547.jpg
IMG_20250502_180611205.jpg
IMG_20250502_180618832.jpg
So as of right now the armament for this build is going to be two AIM-9Ms, three AIM-7Ps, and of course the 20mm Vulcan. If I decide to add wing pylons, another pair of Sidewinders may get added if I can scrape them up, or maybe a fourth AIM-7 on one side and a pair of Sidewinders on the other. Could also do drop tanks in theory, maybe since this bird is bigger it gets a pair of Aero 1Ds and an extra pair of wing pylons (for a total of four) that can carry AIM-7s or AIM-9s. Not sure though, that would be a lot of weight for the VI wing system to handle. As cool as it would be, this isn't an A-7 after all, so keeping things light makes the most sense I think.
Nothing like a 'random centreline bump' to confuse the JMNs. ;) ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 02, 2025, 03:27:32 PMNothing like a 'random centreline bump' to confuse the JMNs. ;) ;D
Can always chalk it up to either a RHAW antenna or something radio-related...
Speaking of RHAW gear, this thing is now all decked out with five antennas. The centerline bulge on top of course, along with receivers in the tail, wingtips, and now under the fuselage with an ALQ-100 (which by the way is paired with an F-14A/B style TCS). Backstory on this one is gonna be complicated!
Quote from: Spino on May 02, 2025, 05:12:21 PMQuote from: PR19_Kit on May 02, 2025, 03:27:32 PMNothing like a 'random centreline bump' to confuse the JMNs. ;) ;D
Can always chalk it up to either a RHAW antenna or something radio-related...
...
It might be something so secret that you cannot go into details about it ;D
Quote from: perttime on May 03, 2025, 12:13:09 PMIt might be something so secret that you cannot go into details about it ;D
That too ;D
Working on the backstory for this thing is getting interesting. It's gonna go something along the lines of "USN gets the F-4 but also needs a fleet defender for the Essex carriers, so they pull a Super Hornet-style stunt by convincing McNamara that the Crusader III is just an improved variant of the existing Crusader, it goes into production, sees combat in Vietnam, and a couple of improved versions get produced due to superior results against MiGs, the F-8S being the last of these". I think I'm also going to assume that the F401 gets through development and the F-8S gets that in addition to the other changes I'm making, so it'll be flying alongside F401-powered F-14s and Convair 201s, of course being a real handful for those aircraft to beat in a dogfight and maybe even getting to see Desert Storm.
An armored unobstructed 360 degree bubble canopy would improve visibility
especially on the approach on landing especially on an aircraft carrier.
Quote from: thundereagle1997 on May 03, 2025, 09:20:44 PMAn armored unobstructed 360 degree bubble canopy would improve visibility
especially on the approach on landing especially on an aircraft carrier.
No can do lol. Besides, the closest we have to that is the DAS on the F-35, and that's far newer than the time period I'm setting this plane in. Improved view over the nose will come in the form of that TCS chin pod if I decide to keep it.
Going to have another go at printing the pilot with the VTAS helmet today, we'll see how that works out for me.
F-8S "Super Crusader" Backstory
While the F-4H-1 Phantom was the US Navy's preferred option for fleet defense in the early 1960s, it was considered too large and too heavy for the WWII-era Essex class carriers that were still in service in some numbers. The Navy recognized that these ships also needed better defensive capabilities against Soviet bombers than what the existing F-8 Crusader could provide. Fortunately, the F-4H-1's competitor, the XF8U-3 "Crusader III" was based on the existing F-8 design (albeit scaled up and sharing few parts), so it was pitched to Congress and SECDEF McNamara as merely an improved variant of an existing aircraft. Although reluctant, the go-ahead for production was given due to the extended service life of the Essex class carriers. Thus, the F8U-3 (later F-8F) Crusader III was born.
Getting the Crusader III approved by "Mac the Knife" was only half the battle though, the other half was figuring out how to reduce pilot workload to an acceptable level for employing the AIM-7 missiles that were its primary armament. The initial production version was essentially an XF8U-3 with all combat systems installed and included the Crusader's armament of four Mk-12 cannon and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles in addition to the three AIM-7s. With a single crew member having to manage three independent weapons systems through 1950s-era interfaces, flying and fighting in the Crusader III was considerably more difficult than its predecessor. Vought was able to partially mitigate this by installing an autopilot that could be engaged when the pilot steadied the aircraft on an intercept course and needed to focus on the AIM-7 weapons system, but the high pilot workload meant that only one or possibly two AIM-7s could realistically be fired under real-world conditions before minimum range was reached on a target closing head-on. However, this was considerably better than the smaller Crusader, which needed to close to visual range and a tail-chase position to effectively use its weapons.
F-8Fs deployed on Essex class carriers in May 1962, replacing F-8As and F-8Bs in their air wings. Some aircraft flew missions in support of the naval blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis, though the lack of strike capability made them of limited use should war break out. Their baptism of fire came in 1965 when F-8Fs flying escort for a strike package from USS Hancock downed a pair of VPAF MiG-17s. One of the Crusader IIIs scored a hit on the lead MiG with an AIM-7, causing the VPAF wingman to lose his nerve and attempt to turn and escape at low altitude. This however put the second MiG in a perfect tail-chase with another Crusader III. This aircraft fired two AIM-9B Sidewinders without a hit (due to poor seeker performance in look-down situations), but the pilot lit his afterburner and rapidly overhauled the subsonic MiG before destroying it with cannon fire.
As the conflict progressed, reliability issues with both the AIM-7 Sparrow and the Mk-12 cannon manifested, but this played into the F-8F's flexibility. Initially, combat missions were flown with a full load of three AIM-7s and two AIM-9s, but as the Sparrow's limitations became all too apparent, the F-8F's loadout began to evolve. By 1967, a typical combat load for the Crusader III was a single AIM-7 under the fuselage and four improved AIM-9Ds. These missiles were mounted on the Y-pylons carried over from the F-8D/E and precluded the carriage of AIM-7s on the dedicated fuselage cheek stations. This loadout flexibility, combined with the F-8F's high performance, smokeless engine, and the ACM training inherent in the F-8 community made the Crusader III the best air superiority fighter of the conflict. It was in fact so effective that an improved variant was developed instead of upgrading older Crusaders. This aircraft, the F-8H, featured an improved radar and missile control system (designated AWG-7B, but was essentially an AWG-10/APG-59 combination with a smaller antenna to fit in the Crusader III's nosecone) and a pair of wing pylons capable of carrying 4000lbs of stores. The folding ventral fins were also replaced with smaller, fixed fins since the fin folding system added weight and was one of the first things to fail when the aircraft sustained damage. The large fins on the F-8F had resulted in many fins being jettisoned to allow safe landing and, occasionally, an aircraft written off due to the fins not retracting before landing and going unnoticed by an unsuspecting pilot. While many F-8Hs were new-build aircraft, some 100 F-8Fs were upgraded to F-8H standard. The F-8H entered fleet service in 1968, partially as a response to the growing threat of VPAF MiG-21s. These aircraft saw combat in Linebacker and Linebacker II, flying both escort and ground attack missions along with the occasional MiGCAP. In combat against VPAF MiG-21s, the F-8H won handily thanks to its combination of high performance, dogfight-optimized weapons, and pilots who knew how to properly use it. Although some 23 aircraft were lost to ground fire and SAMs, only one Crusader III was downed by a MiG-21.
The end of the Vietnam conflict and the retirement of the Essex class carriers nearly spelled the end of the F-8 community, but the Crusader III still had one trick up its sleeve. Unlike the outdated F-8Es and F-8Js, the F-8H was still a relatively new aircraft with significant capabilities. This was recognized by the French, who ordered their own version of the aircraft to replace their existing Crusader fleet. Meanwhile, the Crusader III continued in limited service in the US. Its high performance and relatively capable radar made it a good stand-in for the brand-new MiG-23 in US Navy aggressor squadrons (though the MiG proved to be significantly less maneuverable). Some USMC squadrons also adopted the type as a replacement for their outdated F-8Js when it became clear that the F-14 would not include air-to-ground stores management systems. The VTAS helmet-mounted sight was also integrated with improved versions of the AIM-9 Sidewinder. However, the type seemed to have very little room for further improvement, and by the early 1980s, the end seemed near once again for the Crusader III.
Issues with the adoption of the Convair Model 201 as the Navy's new lightweight fighter/strike aircraft resulted in the revival of the F-8 one final time. Vought had pitched an improved version of the F-8H as a competitor to the Convair aircraft, and had even gotten as far as rebuilding one F-8H with an F401 engine, APG-65 radar, a revised cockpit with multifunction displays and an advanced HUD replacing many analog gauges, ALQ-100 electronic warfare system, an AAX-1 TCS under the intake, support for more modern air-to-ground weapons, and a single M61 Vulcan cannon in place of the four Mk-12s. Designated YF-8S, this aircraft demonstrated significant improvements in both air-to-air and air-to-ground capability. The avionics improvements particularly improved the BVR capabilities of the aircraft. No longer did F-8 pilots have just one chance to shoot an AIM-7 in a head-on engagement – now they could lock a target and engage it easily without ever even seeing it. The TCS also improved pilot visibility during carrier landings, which had been a significant issue for the Crusader III in spite of its variable incidence wing. With all the teething issues of the Convair F/A-17 (Model 201), the Navy was interested enough to order conversion of all new-built F-8Hs to F-8S standard. Many of these aircraft were pulled out of the boneyard for refurbishment with the new engine and systems. Dubbed "Super Crusader", the F-8S served on US Navy carriers and in the hands of the USMC until 1995, when it was finally replaced by a combination of F/A-17s and F-14Ds. Super Crusaders were responsible for two of the Navy's four MiG kills during Desert Storm, downing one MiG-23 with an AIM-7 and a MiG-21 with a Sidewinder. Although officially retired from US Navy service in 1995 and USMC service in 1997, some aircraft continued in USN aggressor roles until the mid-2000s.
After having written that backstory I now feel like doing two more of these things - one as an F-8H and one as a two-seat version or maybe a recon bird!
PSR is nearly done, just need to fine tune the bulge for the refueling probe and add a blade antenna or two. Also started working on the cockpit a bit, got to find myself an ejector seat model to print though.
A BLINDINGLY goof backstory there. :thumbsup:
This is a superb piece of backstory writing................and the model's looking good too.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 04, 2025, 12:54:40 PMA BLINDINGLY goof backstory there. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Rheged on May 04, 2025, 01:34:53 PMThis is a superb piece of backstory writing................and the model's looking good too.
Thanks! It's looking even better now with all the extra bits fitted. Just have to PSR the tailhook attachment point a bit and add the wing pylons and then she'll be ready for painting. But what to put on them? I only have two Sidewinders, and I really hate to put drop tanks or air-to-ground weapons of any kind on a plane like this. Maybe I can print a couple more Sidewinders. Or maybe I'll just leave off the wing pylons, there are plenty of photos out there of Crusaders without them.
I have a bigger issue though. The cockpit floor is too high! But if I try to cut it out I'll probably end up going right through the intake duct (geometry on that is probably a little off too!) Guess it'll have to be shortened...
Well, after some careful work with a Dremel and a spiral bit, the cockpit floor has been lowered sufficiently, and the resulting hole in the intake duct has been plugged. Printed a Martin Baker seat using a model I found online, and glued that into position along with the instrument panel cover. Painted the seat and the cockpit interior as well, though it still needs a HUD and instrument panel. Those are both going to be relatively basic, but enough for a scratchbuild like this. Weapons are fitted, I think I'm going to omit the wing pylons on this one. The model is also now its intended color. Just have to add the pilot, instrument panel/HUD, canopy, and decals, then it'll be time for weathering...
IMG_20250504_192139063.jpg
IMG_20250504_192204271.jpg
IMG_20250504_192241430.jpg
Quote from: Spino on May 03, 2025, 08:06:34 PMQuote from: perttime on May 03, 2025, 12:13:09 PMIt might be something so secret that you cannot go into details about it ;D
That too ;D
Working on the backstory for this thing is getting interesting. It's gonna go something along the lines of "USN gets the F-4 but also needs a fleet defender for the Essex carriers, so they pull a Super Hornet-style stunt by convincing McNamara that the Crusader III is just an improved variant of the existing Crusader, it goes into production, sees combat in Vietnam, and a couple of improved versions get produced due to superior results against MiGs, the F-8S being the last of these". I think I'm also going to assume that the F401 gets through development and the F-8S gets that in addition to the other changes I'm making, so it'll be flying alongside F401-powered F-14s and Convair 201s, of course being a real handful for those aircraft to beat in a dogfight and maybe even getting to see Desert Storm.
That's really interesting !
Depending on the timeline of the first operational Crusader III in your story, we can easily imagine it selected by the French Navy, and even the Royal Navy.
With such a high performance light fighter in its hands, the British may even chose to replace the cancelled CVA-01 project with a light CATOBAR carrier around 35000t, instead of the 22000t Invincible class.
Then, why not imagining it in operational service with the Royal Australian Navy too, and maybe other countries than needed something more than the F-5, but less than the F-4 for their air forces ?
With a larger customer base, the aircraft may stay in operational service far longer (just look at the French Crusader IRL !!), allowing it to receive more comprehensive modernisation I suppose.
Only point that I would change from your story: maybe just erase the Convair 201 ? I love the Convair 200/201, but if it entered service, it would probably have eaten all the Crusader III market shares, and be used in US service to replace the Super Crusader (as there is probably not enough place for two supersonic light fighters in the US Navy)
Quote from: Spino on May 04, 2025, 02:39:51 PMQuote from: PR19_Kit on May 04, 2025, 12:54:40 PMA BLINDINGLY goof backstory there. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Rheged on May 04, 2025, 01:34:53 PMThis is a superb piece of backstory writing................and the model's looking good too.
Thanks! It's looking even better now with all the extra bits fitted. Just have to PSR the tailhook attachment point a bit and add the wing pylons and then she'll be ready for painting. But what to put on them? I only have two Sidewinders, and I really hate to put drop tanks or air-to-ground weapons of any kind on a plane like this. Maybe I can print a couple more Sidewinders. Or maybe I'll just leave off the wing pylons, there are plenty of photos out there of Crusaders without them.
I have a bigger issue though. The cockpit floor is too high! But if I try to cut it out I'll probably end up going right through the intake duct (geometry on that is probably a little off too!) Guess it'll have to be shortened...
This beast is an interceptor, so go intercept !!
Meaning either 3 Sparrow + 2 Sidewinder only, for less drag, better speed and climbing capability.
Or the same configuration but with an extra couple of Sparrow under the wings for better punch.
(Couple of drop tanks for loitering before interception could also be an option, but I understand why you want to avoid "breaking" the beautiful lines of the plane)
But I don't thing it needs more Sidewinders. It still got two of them + a mighty Vulcan guns for the targets it can't destroy at longer range, and for me it's enough for such a plane.
Yes it's got 3x Sparrow and 2x Sidewinder, I see no need to add the wing pylons. Besides, I'm out of Sidewinders for the moment. I can understand where you're coming from with erasing the Convair, but that airplane gave me the excuse I needed to get rid of the F/A-18 Hornet. I know this is what-if and I can pretty much do what I like here, but I feel compelled to try to keep it somewhat realistic. I suppose it's not out of the question to erase both the Convair and the Hornet, maybe I'll rework the backstory a little. Although, then I might be tempted to print another one and build it as an ultra-modernized variant with AIM-120s or something!
Quote from: Spino on May 05, 2025, 05:53:44 AMYes it's got 3x Sparrow and 2x Sidewinder, I see no need to add the wing pylons. Besides, I'm out of Sidewinders for the moment. I can understand where you're coming from with erasing the Convair, but that airplane gave me the excuse I needed to get rid of the F/A-18 Hornet. I know this is what-if and I can pretty much do what I like here, but I feel compelled to try to keep it somewhat realistic. I suppose it's not out of the question to erase both the Convair and the Hornet, maybe I'll rework the backstory a little. Although, then I might be tempted to print another one and build it as an ultra-modernized variant with AIM-120s or something!
How, if you erase the Hornet, it does make sense. The Convair could enter service slowly in the early 80s, maybe first in the STOVL configuration, so the Crusader III still has "room to live", moreover if the Convair program suffers some delays, pushing the Crusader III into longer service life time. And then later the CATOBAR Convair could partially replace the Super Crusader I suppose ?
Honestly, it's not easy to imagine the 80s and 90s US Navy without the Hornet, giving the fact that it replace so many types of aircraft ! If you get rid of F-18, you may have room for two or three different light aircraft, I suppose.
Quote from: PolluxDeltaSeven on May 05, 2025, 04:11:43 PMQuote from: Spino on May 05, 2025, 05:53:44 AMYes it's got 3x Sparrow and 2x Sidewinder, I see no need to add the wing pylons. Besides, I'm out of Sidewinders for the moment. I can understand where you're coming from with erasing the Convair, but that airplane gave me the excuse I needed to get rid of the F/A-18 Hornet. I know this is what-if and I can pretty much do what I like here, but I feel compelled to try to keep it somewhat realistic. I suppose it's not out of the question to erase both the Convair and the Hornet, maybe I'll rework the backstory a little. Although, then I might be tempted to print another one and build it as an ultra-modernized variant with AIM-120s or something!
How, if you erase the Hornet, it does make sense. The Convair could enter service slowly in the early 80s, maybe first in the STOVL configuration, so the Crusader III still has "room to live", moreover if the Convair program suffers some delays, pushing the Crusader III into longer service life time. And then later the CATOBAR Convair could partially replace the Super Crusader I suppose ?
Honestly, it's not easy to imagine the 80s and 90s US Navy without the Hornet, giving the fact that it replace so many types of aircraft ! If you get rid of F-18, you may have room for two or three different light aircraft, I suppose.
That was my thinking originally, and honestly the more I think about it the more inclined I am to stick with it.
I've got an extra AIM-7 left over from the F-15X build (only needed three for this Super Crusader), so if I can figure a way to make a canopy for another one I'll probably do an F-8H at some point.
Beautiful. Love the way she looks with the missiles !
I know this is sort of like putting the cart before the horse, but I really wanted to see what it looked like with decals on. All that's left now is the canopy and instrument panel.
IMG_20250506_083020840.jpg
My VTAS pilot model still has issues printing, so for now I substituted one of my modern pilot figures with the Scorpion HMS (or something similar). I'm either going to use him or a leftover pilot figure from a Revell F-14.
IMG_20250506_082947024.jpg
IMG_20250506_082955083.jpg
That is turning out awesome. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Canopy is on now, just waiting for the paint to dry and then I'm calling this one done.
Awesome! Lots of work putting this together.
Quote from: HarryPhishnuts on May 07, 2025, 12:45:09 PMThat is turning out awesome. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: kerick on May 07, 2025, 02:23:28 PMAwesome! Lots of work putting this together.
Thank you both! I'm not the greatest modeler by any means, but this is probably one of the best I've done so far. I'm extremely pleased with how it turned out!
All right gents, I'm calling this one done. Here are the photos.
IMG_20250507_215506083.jpg
IMG_20250507_215609930.jpg
IMG_20250507_215648190.jpg
IMG_20250507_215721221.jpg
IMG_20250507_215803479.jpg
Looks like it'd doing M 3.0+ just standing still! :thumbsup:
Cool stuff! :mellow: :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 08, 2025, 03:11:07 AMLooks like it'd doing M 3.0+ just standing still! :thumbsup:
Supposedly the Vought engineers projected a theoretical top speed of Mach 2.9, but they would have had to use a lot more titanium (and a different material for the windscreen/canopy) to avoid running into thermal limits. Also I'm fairly sure they would have needed the rocket booster that the Crusader III had provision for to get anywhere near that speed.
Nice ! She sure does look fast and sharp. Great stuff.
:thumbsup:
Excellent stuff :mellow:
When I get the F/A-17 (Convair 201) finished, I may do an F-8H Crusader III as mentioned in the backstory. It's going to be hard to resist, especially after how well this one turned out.
That turned out so good matey ..she's sleak as glass :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Wardukw on May 12, 2025, 02:19:53 AMThat turned out so good matey ..she's sleak as glass :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Thanks! Honestly it's probably one of the best models I've ever done, how ironic that it's a what-if and it's almost entirely 3D-printed ;D
Outstanding. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I've got a plan for a F-8 derivative based on the Vought Super F-1000 proposal which is going to require a fair amount of 3D printing. After seeing this I'm feeling much better that it can be done now.
Quote from: Spino on May 07, 2025, 02:05:52 PMCanopy is on now, just waiting for the paint to dry and then I'm calling this one done.
And very well you have done too.
Quote from: Spino on May 12, 2025, 05:47:03 AMQuote from: Wardukw on May 12, 2025, 02:19:53 AMThat turned out so good matey ..she's sleak as glass :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Thanks! Honestly it's probably one of the best models I've ever done, how ironic that it's a what-if and it's almost entirely 3D-printed ;D
;D ;)
We've all got one of those builds bud ...mine was a AMT 1950 Mercury coupe ..best model I think I ever made and one I really want to repeat .
Ya did great with this one matey ..wonder what the future holds 😆
Quote from: Wardukw on May 13, 2025, 01:49:08 AMYa did great with this one matey ..wonder what the future holds 😆
Hopefully more stuff that turns out as good as this or even better ;D
I've got the Super Tomcat 21 to finish, along with the Kestrel, the superprops, and hopefully an F-8H at some point. I also have some kits in the stash and another 3D printed model that shall remain classified for the time being. I really enjoy this stuff, especially when it turns out well. It's a far cry from the sloppy modeling I did as a youngster (though most of you folks would probably consider me one now :lol: ). That reminds me, I've got another Tomcat model that is getting a facelift, because it has a special place for me. It's the first model plane I ever had. Surprisingly it has survived this long, so as I am working on the ST21 I'll also be trying to make this one look more presentable.
Quote from: Spino on May 13, 2025, 05:29:32 PMQuote from: Wardukw on May 13, 2025, 01:49:08 AMYa did great with this one matey ..wonder what the future holds 😆
Hopefully more stuff that turns out as good as this or even better ;D
I've got the Super Tomcat 21 to finish, along with the Kestrel, the superprops, and hopefully an F-8H at some point. I also have some kits in the stash and another 3D printed model that shall remain classified for the time being. I really enjoy this stuff, especially when it turns out well. It's a far cry from the sloppy modeling I did as a youngster (though most of you folks would probably consider me one now :lol: ). That reminds me, I've got another Tomcat model that is getting a facelift, because it has a special place for me. It's the first model plane I ever had. Surprisingly it has survived this long, so as I am working on the ST21 I'll also be trying to make this one look more presentable.
I got I think 3 48th Tomcats even tho one is missing it's cockpit..so make that 2.5 Tomcats 😆
Well cockpit..entire front fuselage..so yeah ..2.5 :thumbsup:
These I have zero ideas for presently as they very large in 48th and large is not the space I've got left and also ..zero ideas in general..I did however come up with an idea for my Revell Sterman today and I'm liking it ..that's definitely on the cards now 😂
I'm gonna be rather interested in your Super Tomcat matey ...not saying ..but it might give me some ideas ;)
Quote from: Wardukw on May 13, 2025, 11:12:39 PMI got I think 3 48th Tomcats even tho one is missing it's cockpit..so make that 2.5 Tomcats 😆
Well cockpit..entire front fuselage..so yeah ..2.5 :thumbsup:
These I have zero ideas for presently as they very large in 48th and large is not the space I've got left and also ..zero ideas in general..I did however come up with an idea for my Revell Sterman today and I'm liking it ..that's definitely on the cards now 😂
I'm gonna be rather interested in your Super Tomcat matey ...not saying ..but it might give me some ideas ;)
My Super Tomcat is getting near done, needs decals and a complete weapons fit but that's about it. That Tomcat you have that is missing an entire front fuselage - wonder if you could put the front end of an F-15 on it. Like this:
F-14 Single Seat.png