F8 Crusader Variable Incidence Wing

[[email protected]]

The Vought F8 Crusader was the only production military aircraft I
know of with a variable incidence wing. This feature was used to
improve pilot visibility on take off and landing, a critically
important thing for a carrier plane; several aircraft such as the
earlier Vought Cutlass and Douglas Skyray had the nose and cockpit
greatly revised in production versions for better visibility.

In operation off land bases, did the variable incidence wing have any
disadvantages? Did the approximately 7 degree wing incidence cause any
noticeable increase in drag during the take off run? In landing, did
the wing produce undesirable continued lift after touch down that
reduced braking action? Was it possible or practical to level the wing
after touch down to kill the lift, similar in effect to extending
spoilers on some aircraft?

Thank you,

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[theref]

Also, the A-7 had a variable incidence wing.

[Bill Shatzer[_2_]]

theref wrote:
> Also, the A-7 had a variable incidence wing.

No it didn't.

[theref]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...
> theref wrote:
>> Also, the A-7 had a variable incidence wing.
>
> No it didn't.
>
Damn. You are correct. I guess I stared at F-8s too long.

[[email protected][_2_]]

>> Was the V-I wing any better or worse than the F-14's swing wings?

Different purpose: F-8 "V-I" wing allowed higher angle of attack on
approach without requiring a longer landing gear and causing pilot
visibility problems. Wing itself didn't change (other than the usual
flaps, etc).

F-14 swing wings change their geometry to a slow-speed, high aspect
ratio, high lift configuration - which also reduces the fuselage
approach angle compared to a fixed, lower aspect ratio wing (think
F-4). The F-14 wing in high speed configutation is a completely
different beast than a Turkey's low speed approach-configured wing.

Kirk

[John Randolph]

I flew the F-8D out of Miramar in 1965 when Tooter Teague and I talked our
respective C.Os (VF-121 and VF-124) into cross training. The F-8 exceeded
the F-4 in one in-flight characteristic only. It had a superb roll rate. It
was a joy to fly when cleaned up. But with the gear down and the wing up, it
was a truck. It was terrible. And that explained the high F-8 accident rate
among carrier pilots in those days.

The problem in landing the F-8 wasn't so much due to the variable incidence
wing. It was the power plant. On my first touch-and-go everything was great
at the 180. Then passing the 90 I got slow so I added some power. I got
slower, so I added more power. At the 45 I was suddenly very, very fast. I
damn near pulled the power back to idle. I was driving an unstable truck. I
loved the F8 when the wing was down and the gear up. I hated it when the
gear was down and the wing was up.

I hate to contemplate what the a/c would have been like without the variable
incidence wing.

Cdr John Newlin, USN (Ret.)

> wrote in message
...
> The Vought F8 Crusader was the only production military aircraft I
> know of with a variable incidence wing. This feature was used to
> improve pilot visibility on take off and landing, a critically
> important thing for a carrier plane; several aircraft such as the
> earlier Vought Cutlass and Douglas Skyray had the nose and cockpit
> greatly revised in production versions for better visibility.
>
> In operation off land bases, did the variable incidence wing have any
> disadvantages? Did the approximately 7 degree wing incidence cause any
> noticeable increase in drag during the take off run? In landing, did
> the wing produce undesirable continued lift after touch down that
> reduced braking action? Was it possible or practical to level the wing
> after touch down to kill the lift, similar in effect to extending
> spoilers on some aircraft?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Peter Wezeman
> anti-social Darwinist

[guy]

On 14 July, 02:20, wrote:
> The Vought F8 Crusader was the only production military aircraft I
> know of with a variable incidence wing. This feature was used to
> improve pilot visibility on take off and landing, a critically
> important thing for a carrier plane; several aircraft such as the
> earlier Vought Cutlass and Douglas Skyray had the nose and cockpit
> greatly revised in production versions for better visibility.
>
> In operation off land bases, did the variable incidence wing have any
> disadvantages? Did the approximately 7 degree wing incidence cause any
> noticeable increase in drag during the take off run? In landing, did
> the wing produce undesirable continued lift after touch down that
> reduced braking action? Was it possible or practical to level the wing
> after touch down to kill the lift, similar in effect to extending
> spoilers on some aircraft?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Peter Wezeman
> anti-social Darwinist

The Supermarine Dumbo was built and flown with a variable incidence
wing but did not enter production.

Guy

[guy]

On 16 Aug, 18:03, guy > wrote:
> On 14 July, 02:20, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Vought F8 Crusader was the only production military aircraft I
> > know of with a variable incidence wing. This feature was used to
> > improve pilot visibility on take off and landing, a critically
> > important thing for a carrier plane; several aircraft such as the
> > earlier Vought Cutlass and Douglas Skyray had the nose and cockpit
> > greatly revised in production versions for better visibility.
>
> > In operation off land bases, did the variable incidence wing have any
> > disadvantages? Did the approximately 7 degree wing incidence cause any
> > noticeable increase in drag during the take off run? In landing, did
> > the wing produce undesirable continued lift after touch down that
> > reduced braking action? Was it possible or practical to level the wing
> > after touch down to kill the lift, similar in effect to extending
> > spoilers on some aircraft?
>
> > Thank you,
>
> > Peter Wezeman
> > anti-social Darwinist
>
> The Supermarine Dumbo was built and flown with a variable incidence
> wing but did not enter production.
>
> Guy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

link here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Type_322

I would not however call it unsuccessfull, Supermarine had so much
Spitfire work on that they did not have the design capability to work
on the Dumbo too.

Guy

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 2:17*am, "John Randolph" > wrote:
> I flew the F-8D out of Miramar in 1965 when Tooter Teague and I talked our
> respective C.Os (VF-121 and VF-124) into cross training. The F-8 exceeded
> the F-4 in one in-flight characteristic only. It had a superb roll rate. It
> was a joy to fly when cleaned up. But with the gear down and the wing up, it
> was a truck. It was terrible. And that explained the high F-8 accident rate
> among carrier pilots in those days.
>
> The problem in landing the F-8 wasn't so much due to the variable incidence
> wing. It was the power plant. On my first touch-and-go everything was great
> at the 180. Then passing the 90 I got slow so I added some power. I got
> slower, so I added more power. At the 45 I was suddenly very, very fast. I
> damn near pulled the power back to idle. I was driving an unstable truck. I
> loved the F8 when the wing was down and the gear up. I hated it when the
> gear was down and the wing was up.
>
> I hate to contemplate what the a/c would have been like without the variable
> incidence wing.
>
> Cdr John Newlin, USN (Ret.)
>
Thank you for your reply.

Judging from photographs of the Crusader with the wing in its high
incidence position, it appears that the rather bluff front of the wing
center section might generate a turbulent wake that could impinge on
the wing with possible adverse effects. Does anything in your
experience support or contradict this? How did handling with the wing
up compare with handling at the same speed and angle of attack with
the wing down?

Thank you again,
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist