a twin-sticker (although not in the Twosader mould
I am pretty certain our very own Sentinel Chicken did a VG Crusader a few years ago. Maybe he will repost it here.
Certainly looks like it would work as a kit bash between a Tomcat and Crusader. Or a Flogger and Crusader.Either a scaleorama between a smaller scale Tomcat and a Crusader or a same-scale bash between a later-model Flogger and a Crusader. My only concern is that the wing looks to be a bit too far aft for proper stability.
I can see the engine getting replaced by a J79 (lighter and smaller engine with same thrust as J57) with the TF41 following on to keep pace with the A-7 in USAF usage (though a full multi-role F-8 with several wing hardpoints might obviate the need for the A-7 - be "amusing" if the improved wing for the USAF fed back into the Navy's aircraft). Personally, I'd keep the wing variable in incidence rather than locking it down, but that's me wanting to give pilots as many options as possible.
There was a real-life proposal for a J-79 engined Crusader. IIRC, it was offered for the export fighter requirement that was eventually met by the F-5E.
I am pretty certain our very own Sentinel Chicken did a VG Crusader a few years ago. Maybe he will repost it here.
Found it:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Artic/VG_Crusader.jpg[/url])
Several years ago, I did up a Luftwaffe Crusader in a splinter version of the wraparound camo their Tornados used to have back in the 80s.
I didn't do any real radical changes to it, but stuck an LRMTS type blister under the fuselage between the intake lip and forward gear bay and hung a smaller Paveway laser bomb under each wing.
John also did a USN F-8 with AIM-54s but I cannot find it.
Several years ago, I did up a Luftwaffe Crusader in a splinter version of the wraparound camo their Tornados used to have back in the 80s.
I didn't do any real radical changes to it, but stuck an LRMTS type blister under the fuselage between the intake lip and forward gear bay and hung a smaller Paveway laser bomb under each wing.
Any pics?
John also did a USN F-8 with AIM-54s but I cannot find it.
WHAT!!!!
Wow I must have missed that :icon_crap:
Wow what a payload for the Crusader!!
Did he put a big radome on it to fit the AWG-9 radar?
Or was it intended to simply be a delivery-truck of sorts - so as to get the missiles into the air, whence the F-14 Tomcat's of the fleet would illuminate and track the targets?
One thing is for sure - the pilot would not afford to carry his toothbrush!! For it would brake the Camels back ;)
M.A.D
A Spey powered Twosader?
I had heard of it but never heard the Shorts bit nor had I seen any art work for it, would have been able to fly from a Centaur or Victorious? (or even a Majestic)
Interesting, particularly from the whif point of view, unbuilt Crusader variants from the new Specialty Press book:
VFA Crusader with more attack capability and a second hard point under each wing
All-weather F8U-2 with slightly larger radome, no guns, and carrying Sparrow III's
How about an F/A-8 Crusader instead of the A-7, a true F-8 derivative instead of virtually a new aircraft of the same configuration? This likely would have sold quite well, imagine it with all the A-7 operators, as well as a number of countries that opted for supersonic fighter attack types.The Crusader really didn't have a lot of spare lifting capability with a max payload, including fuel, of 7 ton. The Phantom's, by comparison was double that at over 14 tons. It's also instructive that the primary stores points were on the side of the fuselage (even though the wings could take 2000 lb each) which suggests that the wing hinge and elevation mechanism wasn't terribly happy with extra wing loads during landing and take off.
Apart from thinking those bombs aren't big enough :P :P :P what are those pods mounted on the Sidewinder rails ?
Crusaders with wing stores:Exactly. There's not much actually hanging on those wings. 2000 lb per wing I think was the max. according to Wiki.
How about an F/A-8 Crusader instead of the A-7, a true F-8 derivative instead of virtually a new aircraft of the same configuration? This likely would have sold quite well, imagine it with all the A-7 operators, as well as a number of countries that opted for supersonic fighter attack types.According to the recent Specialty Press book on the F-8, there was a study, V-456, that added another hardpoint to each wing of the F-8. This ended up being a waypoint in the evolution of the "Attack Crusader"/Corsair II from the Crusader. Might be worth modeling in USMC markings.
Crusaders with wing stores:Exactly. There's not much actually hanging on those wings. 2000 lb per wing I think was the max. according to Wiki.
Very likely, I suspect. Mind, the entire wing system may have been built lightly to limit weight, so having decided that the aircraft was primarily a dogfighter, they could have purposely decided to limit everything else in an effort to lower weight and increase speed/acceleration.Crusaders with wing stores:Exactly. There's not much actually hanging on those wings. 2000 lb per wing I think was the max. according to Wiki.
I wonder if that had more to do with the variable incidence jacking system the F-8 had. Maybe not able to handle too much weight on the wing.
Interesting!! That's not something I have ever heard of.
Looking through some old favorite books whilst doing my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT', when for the first time in decades I noticed the following:
M.A.D
No reference to the TF30 but I do recall that the Reagan years 600 ship navy proposed the reactivation of, I believe, four Essex class carriers, and the modernisation of F-8s to fly from them. I wonder if the two proposals could be linked?Would it have made sense to refurbish F-8's, or could the F-18 actually have operated off Essexes? The upgraded Essexes had the same catapults as the Midway class which could and did operate F-4''s and F-18's (but not F-14 or S-3). Wiki claims that an upgraded Essex could operate planes weighing up to 52 000 lbs which is conveniently the MTOW for legacy Hornet.
Looking through some old favorite books whilst doing my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT', when for the first time in decades I noticed the following:
M.A.D
What book is this from mate?
J57-P-20A (as used in F-8J) Length: 244 in (6197.6mm) Diameter: 39 in (990.6mm) Dry weight: 4,751 lb (2,155 kg) Maximum thrust: 10,700 lbf dry, 18,700 lbf with afterburner SFC: 0.77 il/h dry, 2.6 ib/h afterburner | TF30-P-100 (as used in F-111F) Length: 241.7 in (6139mm) - therefore, TF30 slightly shorter and should be able to fit Diameter: 49 in (1245mm) - therefore, TF30 fatter and therefore will require modified rear fuselage to fit Dry weight: 3,999 lb (1,814 kg) - therefore, TF30 lighter, though this will probably be balanced out by additional fuselage weight to accomodate Maximum thrust: 15,300 lbf dry, 25,100 lbf with afterburner - therefore, TF30 much more powerful in both dry and afterburner SFC: 0.67 il/h dry, 2.5 ib/h afterburner - therefore, TF30 also better fuel consumption, though will the drag effect of the larger fuselage impact here? |
Not sure just how much "fatter" the rear fuselage would have to be to accommodate a TF30. The J57 is a straight turbojet and would need cooling airflow around it while the TF30, as a turbofan, would now need that, save perhaps around the afterburner (could be accommodated by scoops on the rear fuselage as on other aircraft). You might need to use an A-7 intake as I am not certain of how the two engines differ in mass flow requirements. Depending on when you are doing the upgrade, an AN/APG-67 radar, as used on the F-20 and on the A-50 might well work within the existing mold lines.
BTW, here is a good snapshot of how to understand the various F-8 versions from Tommy H. Thomason's blog:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/SuhLH88oIxI/AAAAAAAAAYs/d7G_XsjiN64/s640/F8U+Variants+rgb.jpg)