USAF F-8P and EA-5D

[Keith Diamond]

really liking the F-8 here.  Great loadout btw too!  

[NARSES2]

It's amazing how similar ideas crop up independently. I was planning on using my old Airfix Vigilante (via Nick) to do an interceptor varient for the RAF. Going to keep it as a two seater though for those over the North Sea patrols. Then I discover a photo of what looks like a twin tailed one, unfortunately it's side on so you can't see if the tails are canted, anyone know of 3-views of this version ?

Chris

[elmayerle]

I don't kow of any three-views, but I do know that the Aerofax Minigraph on the Vigilante had a nice 3/4-front view of that mockup that showed the vertical tails nicely.  As I remember, they are not canted (yet another reason some claim the MiG-25 layout was copied from the Vigi mockup ).  I'm thinking of doing one using a couple verticals from the old Revell 1/100 Vigi on the Monogram A-5A kit (it's o basic that it's easy to work) as a starting point.  If you're going to do the three-engiend variant, a split F-107 inlet will make a good start for the third engine's inlets.

[NARSES2]

Thanks yet again Evan. I'll go for the twin tails for now. I can get the relative size from the photo I've got. I'd planned for the the now redundant bombay to hold fuel, but maybe I could resurrect UK 1960's thinking and stick a rocket motor in there ?

Chris

[Mike Wren]

I was looking in the wings of Fame that covers the Vigilante last night and off the top of my head I think the twin tails were canted outwards, I'll check tonight though & do you a couple of scans Chris

[elmayerle]

Thanks yet again Evan. I'll go for the twin tails for now. I can get the relative size from the photo I've got. I'd planned for the the now redundant bombay to hold fuel, but maybe I could resurrect UK 1960's thinking and stick a rocket motor in there ?

Chris

Well, the NAR-349 three-engined derivative stuck a J79 htere, so a rocket moter (most likely a liquid-fueled one by Rocketdyne, a sister NAA division of NAA-Columbus) wouldn't be improbable.

I can't remember precisely, but given that the Vigi had all-moving tail surfaces, I'd expect the twin tails to be vertical to simplify a  lot of matters, including the massive forged fram that carries all the spindles for the tail surfaces.

[NARSES2]

I had another good look at the one photo I have last night, and they do look un-canted to me, but a scan would be great Mike.

And Evan rocket motor it is, thanks

Chris

[Mike Wren]

here are the 2 pics from Wings of Fame (volume 18 or 19 I think?)

[elmayerle]

I can't say for certain, they look vertical or, at most, canted only a few degrees outboard.  If I was doing this in 1/72, I'd scrounge up a couple verticals from the old Revell 1/100 (roughly) A-5A kit.  If I was building this from the Monogram 1/.76(?) kit, basic as it is, I'd likely use the second canopy windows from the Revell kit and the variable inlets from an Airfix or Hasegawa kit.

[NARSES2]

Thanks Mike

I think I'll go with them very slightly canted for the aesthetics as much as anything else and a rocket motor in the redundant bomb- bay.

RAF NA Vigilant (as opposed to Vigilante) F.1 in the multi greys the Lightnings used on "Bear" patrol's over the N. Sea

Chris

[elmayerle]

Thanks Mike

I think I'll go with them very slightly canted for the aesthetics as much as anything else and a rocket motor in the redundant bomb- bay.

RAF NA Vigilant (as opposed to Vigilante) F.1 in the multi greys the Lightnings used on "Bear" patrol's over the N. Sea

Chris

Just a couple thoughts, Nev.  If you're canting them, there's, of necessity, going to be a small fixed portion of the verticals below the all-moving part.  It's easy enough to scribe and is one of those "little things" that improves the realism.

Personally, I like the twin-taild version since it removes the necessity to fold the top of the vertical that the single-fin one had.  *thoughtful look* You might want to look at how canted the MiG-25's verticals are since it seems to have come, by whatever means, to very similar aerodynamic considerations.

[NARSES2]

Thanks for the advice on the necessity for a fixed portion on the canted tail's Evan. Not something I would have thought of. As the tails are basically all-moving I think I can probably use plasticard.

This one is being moved up the list - so target Telford

Chris

[tigercat2]

Hi,

just finished the new Academy F-8 as a USAF F-8M (sorry, I don't have a digi camera, so no pickies).

It's overall light neutral gray (Humbrol light grey 64), with a sandy coloured topside countershade (for desert ops over North Africa) and a light grey nose cone. 4 x AIM-9Ds (it's 1965) and those oversized drop tanks from the Airfix Harrier GR.1 kit (has anyone actually seen Crusader real drop tanks?). The plane has ""kinky skin dog" girlie art on the side and 5 red star kill markings, with WP tail codes and the Wolf Pack's wolf logo on either side of the nose. It's a nice looker.

The story goes that the USAF just had to go with the Crusader when their F-100s were being cut down by the MiGs of the Socialist Union (SU) during fighting over North Africa. The first USAF combat variant was the F-108A (F-108 was available after the North American F-108 Rapier was dropped), though re-styled as the F-8F in 1962. Whereas the F-8F was a urgent minimum change Navy F-8C, the F-8M was based on the Navy's F-8E, with (among other internal changes) the nose mounted infrared detector deleted and replaced by a RWR. The USAF retained the Crusader in production until the F-16 came along, producing a series of fighter/bomber (maybe some with A-7 wings and pylons - Spey engines?), recce, wild weasel and trainer variants.

The final fling for the USAF F-8 was the F-8Y, a modernised variant flown in 1972 with an F-100 engine, but this did not enter production.

gh
aka comrade harps

If there is any way you can get a photo or two posted, please do so.  Your F-8 sounds fantastic!!!

IMHO, a more likely designation (under the pre-1962 designation) would have been F-110 or F-111; I beleive that once a designation is used for a project, even if it gets cancelled in the mock-up stage (as did the F-108), that designation is no longer used.


Wes W.

[elmayerle]

I'll agree with TIgercat2, the most likely designation would've been F-110 if this choice predates USAF interest (somewhat forced) in the Phantom II.  I can see later USAF Crusader variants replacing/supplementing the probe and drogue refueling provisions with provisions for using a flying boom (perhasp even both, it didn't seem to hurt the F-105).  I can see later USAF variants going to a different engine, the US Spey, the TF41, sounds like a good choice since it's got a dry thrust rating that's real close to the J57's wet thrust rating.  Add an afterburner and you're cooking (a bit heavier engine than the F100 but with the same, or a tad more, thrust).  I wouldn't expect the USAF to delete the wing pitch mechanism, though I'd rather expect they'd beef up the wing structure to add more pylons and stores capability.

If I can put together the nexessary drawings, I do intend to work up a conversion for the F-8 to twin-F404's ala' the V-529 varaition on the A-7.

[elmayerle]

Thanks for the advice on the necessity for a fixed portion on the canted tail's Evan. Not something I would have thought of. As the tails are basically all-moving I think I can probably use plasticard.

This one is being moved up the list - so target Telford

Chris

Well, it's not something you'd naturally think of unless you've lived with aircraft a good bit, espcially in taking designs from what the AD/PD community turns out and developing producable, affordable aircraft.

I'll proably use a couple verticals from the Revell kit because I have a few kicking around in the "offsite stash".