Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:34 am

-Which is faster? (Maximum Mach)
-Which is more maneuverable? (Turning arc, maximum instantaneous/sustained-G's, roll-rate, etc)
-Which has the longest range (I'm pretty sure the F-100 would come up on top here, but I'm not sure)


Blackbird
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:56 am

Faster = F-100
Maneuverable = F-100
Range = F-100

The F-8 was a very good airplane, but, because of the heavier carrier capability (landing gear, bulkheads, and the weird pop-up wing system), was a very heavy airplane. But, the F-8 was the USN's last true gunfighter.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:17 pm

KC135TopBoom,

I would have never thought the F-100 would have been more maneuverable than the F-8 Crusader.


Blackbird
BTW: What did you mean when you said "bulkheads" in regards to the plane being heavier for carrier based operations?
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1427
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:47 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):

BTW: What did you mean when you said "bulkheads" in regards to the plane being heavier for carrier based operations?

The bulkheads needs to be stronger to anticipate the stronger forces from a carrier landing.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:02 pm

Understood.

Blackbird
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:28 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
KC135TopBoom,

I would have never thought the F-100 would have been more maneuverable than the F-8 Crusader.

I agree. When the F-100A came in to service, the Air Force evaluated it and found that it lacked a lot when it came to air-to-air combat and that was the main reason the later F-100C and F-100D Super Sabres became fighter-bombers rather than air superiority fighters. That's not to say the F-100 couldn't mix it up with enemy fighters, but it wasn't well suited to doing that.

Ragarding the F-8 manueverability, I would have thought it had a lower wing loading than the F-100, hence better manueverability. Does anyone have the wing loading figures for these two fighters?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:34 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 5):
Ragarding the F-8 manueverability,

The F-8 had enough manueverablity to once shoot its self down.

F8U/F8 top speed mach 1.7.

F-100D top speed mach 1.3.
 
timz
Posts: 6101
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:11 pm

You remember the F-100 set a (US?) speed record at 822 mph-- the F8U moved it up to 1015 mph or some such thing. Those were both at altitude, as I recall.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:34 am

EBJ1248650,

F-100A Wing Area: 385 square-feet (later models go to 400 square feet)
F-100A Gross-Weight: 24,996 lbs
F-100A Maximum-Weight: 32,500 lbs

F-8E Wing-Area: 350 to 375 square feet
F-8E Gross-Weight: 28,000 lbs or 29,000 lbs
F-8E Fully-Loaded: 34,100 lbs


474218,

Are you serious? How the hell did it shoot itself down?


Blackbird
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:15 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 8):
Are you serious? How the hell did it shoot itself down?

Sorry it wasn't the F8U that shot its self down but the F11F Tiger.

See the last paragraph under Design and Develoment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/f-11_Tiger
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:34 am

474218,

So he dove and fired while flying supersonic... the bullets flew a few miles while going at a downward angle, ran out of speed then fell even faster... the plane kept going and eventually the bullets fell into the plane?


Blackbird
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:43 am

Why was the F-11 only in service for 6 years?!?
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:23 am



Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 11):
Why was the F-11 only in service for 6 years?!?

Up until the 1970s, it was pretty common for aircraft (fighters and bombers, in particular) to only be in service for a decade or less.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 4:10 am



Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 11):
Why was the F-11 only in service for 6 years?!?

Same thing that killed a lot of early jets... a cranky engine. Grumman tried re-engining it with a J79, but by then the superior F8U was in production and the Navy didn't order it.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:30 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 10):
he dove and fired while flying supersonic

I remember this when it happened. The wiki description is not real clear. If I remember right he had been on a climbing line - perhaps more or less parabolic. He began to push but when the burst was fired he was nearly level or perhaps still in a slight climb. The bullets arced according to their trajectory but he pushed the nose down farther and accelerated straight ahead, overtaking the burst from below as they fell on their arc. They met up only a few seconds after being fired.

Throughout their path the bullets were slowing and responding to gravity. The plane, with the wings unweighted in the pushover probably accelerated quicker than you'd expect for a jet of that vintage.

I also believe that the F-8U was the plane that flew formation with a 16" shell from a battleship and got film of it in flight. Anyone got a link to that?

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 11):
Why was the F-11 only in service for 6 years?!?

As N328KF said that was pretty common. The first jets were flown in the 40s and were outperfomed in many ways by prop fighters. The research on supersonic flight was begun after the war with Mach 1 being reached in 1947, Mach 2 in 1953 and Mach 3 in 1956. But those were research aircraft. Fighter design lagged behind that. So a jet would be designed for current operational needs but by the time its acceptance program was finished there had been so many advances in high speed aircraft design that it entered service already somewhat obsolete.

Add the Korean War where debriefings indicated that the Soviet MiGs outperformed our jets in important ways and the fact that the war in Korea was just a hot spot in the wider "cold war" and you can see that the US defense establishment had a lot of emphasis on finding and keeping an advantage.

When the X-15 program started flying in 1959 it had the effect of defining realistic limits for airplanes intended to fly in the earth's atmosphere. By the time of its last flight in 1968 it had broken Mach 4, 5, and 6 and flown above the sensible earth's atmosphere and returned safely. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that data the X-15 collected was still being analyzed. Anyway, from shortly after that program, fighter and bomber designs all over the world more or less stablized - most of them below Mach 2. New research tended to go toward weapon and countermeasure systems which did not require whole new airframes, and later, on stealth capabilities.

It did have the effect, though, of making airshows of the 1950s really interesting. Lots of different aircraft as opposed to just a few today.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
RaginMav
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 4:37 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
I also believe that the F-8U was the plane that flew formation with a 16" shell from a battleship and got film of it in flight. Anyone got a link to that?

No way!!! I have got to see that!
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:24 pm



Quoting RaginMav (Reply 15):
No way!!! I have got to see that!

It has been many years [long before the internet] since this happened and I don't really remember whether I saw movie or stills of it.

I have seen artillery shells in flight a couple of times. Looking from above and behind the battery, along the gun-target line, and knowing where to look when you hear "Shot! Over!" helps, still it was a rare sight.

As kids we used to shoot our .22s along a curving, concrete bridge surface and see the ricochets if not the actual bullets.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:04 am

A 16-inch shell! Wow that's fast...

What altitude was the plane flying alongside the shell at (if you don't know exact figures, would you guess, high, medium, or low-altitude?)?

Also, what model Crusader was used -- the F8U-1, or F8U-2 (The latter has a pointier nose a slightly wider intake and an intake just in front of the engine nozzle while the former does not)?


Blackbird
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:20 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
What

Well, you are asking for unaided memory from more than thirty years ago concerning an event I didn't even take part in. Don't know any particulars.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
Wow that's fast...

Don't know much about the 16" guns but I'm pretty sure they are subsonic.
As for the altitude, well an artilleryman could tell you that better than I. There are formulas for that but I skipped that day of training. In fact I skipped the whole course. In fact, in those days, before pocket calculators I believed the math to be better left to others. Anyway they will shoot somewhere around 26 miles so there's the starting point.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:58 pm

Slam Click,

Nah, those shells are definetly supersonic...


Blackbird
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:01 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 18):
Don't know much about the 16" guns but I'm pretty sure they are subsonic.



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 19):
Nah, those shells are definetly supersonic...

There are lots of variables (charge size, elevation, etc). However, when shot a 40 degree angle the projectile would travel 40,000 yards (22.75 miles) in 80 seconds. That works out to a little over 1000 miles per hour.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader

Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:16 pm

That's it's distance it traversed over the ground... however if you counted the fact that it was climbing at a 40-degree angle, it's true-airspeed would be way higher than 1,000 mph (If I knew math a bit better I probably could have given you an exact speed). And the figure you derived was an average speed... which means it's TAS and Ground Speed was faster the instant it left the barrel, and slower when it struck it's target.

I'm not sure exactly at what point the Crusader intercepted and flew along the projectile...

Additionally, to the best of my knowledge those guns had a range of at least 32 miles (maybe nm since the Navy rarely measured in statute miles to my knowledge), at least that's what my father told me (who was obsessed with guns) told me.


Blackbird

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests