F-8 Crusader

Yup, unfortunately it doesn't pertain to the Mig-21bis we have in game, so many of those conclusions have to be re-evaluated.

I haven't been able to check while at work, but maybe the aviation blogspot MiG-21bis manual has the info to compare the MiG to the F-8:

MiG-21bis manual: click here or here. The second one has the plots for sure but they used to be viewable without a sign-up to the site. I am told signing up is free though.

F-8E supplementary manual with sustained turn and stall envelopes: click here

Comparing sustained g at low altitude (the only two comparable charts I was able to find yet), the maximum is 6.7 for the F-8E vs. 6.6 of the MiG-21bis, BUT that 6.7 is above the structural limit of the F-8 (both max out roughly at mach 0.9).

EDIT: That is full AB for the MiG-21bis, not Emergency AB!

I believe it was confirmed that we are getting the best F-8J's with the more powerful J57-P-420.

That is literally what I said. Someone was refering to pilot reports from Nam, fighting in F-8's against 21's.

Maybe someone has a manual for the F-8J? It has does have a better engine, but is also 2300 pounds heavier than the E version.

I have Flight Manual and Tac Manual for F-8J. What do you need ? Keep in mind forum rules do not allow to post entire documents, but I think I can post a pic or two.

F-8J is heavier indeed. Thats why, to keep weight and drag low, pilots preferred to fly with two missiles only.

Maybe someone has a manual for the F-8J? It has does have a better engine, but is also 2300 pounds heavier than the E version.

I found an e-book you can run on any smartphone. https://www.amazon.com/NAVAIR-01-45HHE-1-NATOPS-Vought-Crusader-ebook/dp/B01FLHOW28

And this https://www.avialogs.com/reader.php?jid=55725#p=1

I have Flight Manual and Tac Manual for F-8J. What do you need ? Keep in mind forum rules do not allow to post entire documents, but I think I can post a pic or two.

F-8J is heavier indeed. Thats why, to keep weight and drag low, pilots preferred to fly with two missiles only.

Are they pre 1980? 1.16 is pre-1980 IIRC.

I have Flight Manual and Tac Manual for F-8J. What do you need ? Keep in mind forum rules do not allow to post entire documents, but I think I can post a pic or two.

F-8J is heavier indeed. Thats why, to keep weight and drag low, pilots preferred to fly with two missiles only.

I was looking for a chart of sustained g over speed. For best comparison, with a load of 2 missiles and at low altitude.

I have that chart for the MiG-21Bis at 1000m with two missiles and at 500m with undesignated stores, but propably clean due to the achieved acceleration, as well as for the F-8E clean at 5000 ft.

I went through 1973 Tac Manual, even that one refers to F-8E only so that will be the best I can give you. And I dont see anywhere graph with any external stores, only empty. Will that be ok ?

I went through 1973 Tac Manual, even that one refers to F-8E only so that will be the best I can give you. And I dont see anywhere graph with any external stores, only empty. Will that be ok ?

Looks like I already have that one.

With the data I have, this is a chart for comparison:

Alright. It's one of those things that annoys me. Tac Manual really was only updated with added stuff like RWR, but they didnt bother much with the rest. Still, the funniest is the APQ-124A Pulse Doppler radar with non functional Pulse Doppler mode.

Well if you read the reports of pilots, its not like the pulse mode worked too often either. Although I cannot think it was really failing that often, otherwise you could just spare the weight.

Radar was very maintenance dependent. I reached out to NHHC for various combat logs if possible to investigate scale of that but they arent particularly responsive.

That is literally what I said. Someone was refering to pilot reports from Nam, fighting in F-8's against 21's.

Apologies, I read your previous post incorrectly and thought you were asking. A bit dyslexic on my part.

Looks like I already have that one.

 

With the data I have, this is a chart for comparison:

I created a table below where the data came from manuals and the MiG-21 data you also showed. I linearly interpolated against altitude since the subsonic turn rates seems to vary linearly with altitude.

There could be a little error on my part of course, but it is meant to just be a quick and dirty comparison. The supersonic portions are mostly left out because interpolating there was clearly not valid. Also, the 6G line label is a little off. the line that says "6G" is actually 6.4 G and the one just under it is the actual 6 G line but I was having trouble with the labels.

Also I am not too sure where you found the MiG-21bis to pull more than 8G sustained on special burner. My diagram says at sea level, it only reaches around 7.25G with special burner at 7500 kg (best I could find). I can't imagine 2x R-3S's would make such a massive difference:

Are you sure the F8 could pull no more than 6.5Gs? Even the F-104 could do 7.5 (granted, only at Mach ~0.9, but still).

Structural limit stipulated in manual is 6.4 G symmetrical and 5.2 for rolling pullout. But this limit is only limit. I have a 1973 Field Technical Report from NAS Miramar related to F-8J cumulative accelerations and fatigue life, indicating a few dozens of accelerations of more than 7 Gs. Continuous high loads on the wings were having various effects, most often cracks or deformations. But no wing failure is recorded. I'm pretty sure ultimate load factor is quite a bit higher than 6.4 G.

Also I am not too sure where you found the MiG-21bis to pull more than 8G sustained on special burner. My diagram says at sea level, it only reaches around 7.25G with special burner at 7500 kg (best I could find). I can't imagine 2x R-3S's would make such a massive difference:

I have found the chart through google in an old post on this forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2679146&postcount=7

However you can also find it in other languages, but never the full document it belongs to.

What I find interesting is, that your chart is again different than the one from the English MiG-21bis manual, which I had used for my chart. Your German chart is showing higher g in full AB, than the English does for emergency AB.

This comes from Polish MiG-21bis Flight Characterics doc. It gives various characteristics such as max acceleration depending on ARU "arm", burner (either with 2nd stage called "CzR" or without), weight (amount of fuel left) and load (with two R-3S missiles).

This should give better comparison Jonne:

Thank you Hiromachi! That will give some data.

I have found the chart through google in an old post on this forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2679146&postcount=7

 

However you can also find it in other languages, but never the full document it belongs to.

 

What I find interesting is, that your chart is again different than the one from the English MiG-21bis manual, which I had used for my chart. Your German chart is showing higher g in full AB, than the English does for emergency AB.

Very strange indeed - the one the Hiromachi provided is another one that I have. Intuitively, I it seems more realistic given the other planes' performance figures at the time.

What do you guys think about all these plots? Which ones should we trust? I had not realized there was so much conflicting data.

What sort of condition can we expect the Crusader to come in? By this I mean the level of completion of the module; can expect something like the F-14 and JF-17? Or will it be closer to the F-18 and Harrier?

I'm pretty sure ultimate load factor is quite a bit higher than 6.4 G.

S!

So the sound on the F-8?

Is it going to be the same that Mig-21 has had for 5 years?

The default DCS sound? (SU-25, EXTERNAL! For those that like to battle!..)

And the cockpit is going to be "worked on" for.... 5 years? (Mig-21)

Because there are devs that do things another way... You should just have a look at that.......

So the sound on the F-8?

Is it going to be the same that Mig-21 has had for 5 years?

The default DCS sound? (SU-25, EXTERNAL! For those that like to battle!..)

 

And the cockpit is going to be "worked on" for.... 5 years? (Mig-21)

Because there are devs that do things another way... You should just have a look at that.......

Truly, the entirety of the development landscape will change for the better after this watershed moment of a post. My old college professors are dropping ice into their whiskey right now before placing the glass to their lips and realizing that their time of relevance is at an end. I only hope that they have the courage to face their looming obsolescence with dignity.

We're in a new age, gentleman. A new age brought about by this very thread. I can only thank my lucky stars I was here to witness such a pivotal moment in history. It's like watching the Berlin Wall come down all over again.

Are you sure the F8 could pull no more than 6.5Gs? Even the F-104 could do 7.5 (granted, only at Mach ~0.9, but still).

There's a difference between cleared g-loads and g-loads the aircraft can achieve. In fact, it can achieve a lot more (one RF-8 pulled 11gs during missile-evasion and barely made it back).

Then there's fatigue. Several F-8s had their wings pulled off during violent maneuvering. Busting g-limits several times for years did have a negative impact. That and the corrosive environment.

The F-8Js got an entirely new wing - good for a good 4000hrs of service life.

Same for all the other refurbished birds (e.g. F-8H, K, L).

Check out this Vn-diagram buried in the Have Doughnut report: