F-8S "Super Crusader" - Ultimate USN Dogfighter

[Spino]

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.

You cannot view this attachment.  You cannot view this attachment.

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.

[Wardukw]

  
That's very cool matey 👍 👌

[perttime]

Will there also be a bulge at the gun port, like on F-14?


(Wikimedia image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_nose_detail.jpg)

[Spino]

Will there also be a bulge at the gun port, like on F-14?


(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.

[kerick]

Will there also be a bulge at the gun port, like on F-14?


(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!

[Wardukw]

Will there also be a bulge at the gun port, like on F-14?


(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 👍

[Spino]

If that's the easiest and simplest way to get great results mate then that's the best way forward 👍

My thoughts exactly.

[Spino]

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!

[Spino]

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...

You cannot view this attachment.

[Weaver]

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!

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.

[Spino]

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.

[Spino]

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  ).  Printed up some rails for the Sidewinders while I was at it.

[scautomoton]

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.

[Spino]

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  ).

[Spino]

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.