F-8 versus F-4

Here's another Hunter Reunion thing.

Met several pilots at the reunion that transferred out of VF-201 quickly
when it transitioned from the F-8 to the F-4.

None of them had ANY interest in going from a fighter to an interceptor.
Was this common during that period? AND was it a mission thing or a
single-seat versus two-seat thing?

--Woody

It was like trading your sports car for a pickup truck, albeit a very
powerful and fast one.

As to the hun, except that it was a 1.3 jet vice 1.8, didn't have the legs
w/o tanks, didn't have nearly the overall maneuverability of the F-8
(although its instantaneous turn was close) ... yeh, I guess they were
close.

Certainly there was a single seat mentality ... "Never met a RIO yet worth
300# of gas!" OTOH, there were RIOs worth their weight in gold.

R / John

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
Here's another Hunter Reunion thing.

Met several pilots at the reunion that transferred out of VF-201 quickly
when it transitioned from the F-8 to the F-4.

None of them had ANY interest in going from a fighter to an interceptor.
Was this common during that period? AND was it a mission thing or a
single-seat versus two-seat thing?

--Woody

F-8 vs F-4? I assume you refer to dogfight/sidewinder comparison. The
F-8 with an F-8 pilot driving would usually beat an F-4 with an F-4
pilot driving prior to 1968. An F-4 with an F-8 pilot driving would
usually beat an F-8 (which was only flown by F-8 pilots). After 1968,
the F-4 with either F-8 or F-4 pilot driving would usually beat an F-8.
As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

F-8 vs F-4? I assume you refer to dogfight/sidewinder comparison. The
F-8 with an F-8 pilot driving would usually beat an F-4 with an F-4
pilot driving prior to 1968. An F-4 with an F-8 pilot driving would
usually beat an F-8 (which was only flown by F-8 pilots). After 1968,
the F-4 with either F-8 or F-4 pilot driving would usually beat an F-8.

Not in my experience. Certainly the Phantom community learned considerably
from the Top Gun effort (originally just a bunch of VF-121 instructors
flying VF-126 A-4's). But it remained a difficult aircraft to exploit and
up to CAG-19's departure on the last Fighter Eight cruise in 1975, the ole
gator usually prevailed.

There were guys who mastered the Hawg and were the exceptions to this rule.
After I transitioned to the F-4 and started fighting it, I originally
observed "No wonder we beat up on this pig." After a few hundred hours that
became, "How did we EVER beat up on this beast?" Two J-79's could transform
their shipping containers into a formidable machine, but given the Phantom's
flying qualities it wasn't easy to extract its performance.

As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

A clean F-8 was a joyful machine to fly, but its radar and WCS were
obviously inferior to the Phantom. It was, ah, unforgiving around the blunt
end of the boat while the Phantom was utterly stable and predictable
(although ramp strikes were not unheard of).

R / John

On 5/11/05 7:18 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:


"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

F-8 vs F-4? I assume you refer to dogfight/sidewinder comparison. The
F-8 with an F-8 pilot driving would usually beat an F-4 with an F-4
pilot driving prior to 1968. An F-4 with an F-8 pilot driving would
usually beat an F-8 (which was only flown by F-8 pilots). After 1968,
the F-4 with either F-8 or F-4 pilot driving would usually beat an F-8.

Not in my experience. Certainly the Phantom community learned considerably
from the Top Gun effort (originally just a bunch of VF-121 instructors
flying VF-126 A-4's). But it remained a difficult aircraft to exploit and
up to CAG-19's departure on the last Fighter Eight cruise in 1975, the ole
gator usually prevailed.

There were guys who mastered the Hawg and were the exceptions to this rule.
After I transitioned to the F-4 and started fighting it, I originally
observed "No wonder we beat up on this pig." After a few hundred hours that
became, "How did we EVER beat up on this beast?" Two J-79's could transform
their shipping containers into a formidable machine, but given the Phantom's
flying qualities it wasn't easy to extract its performance.

As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

A clean F-8 was a joyful machine to fly, but its radar and WCS were
obviously inferior to the Phantom. It was, ah, unforgiving around the blunt
end of the boat while the Phantom was utterly stable and predictable
(although ramp strikes were not unheard of).

R / John



Good stuff, John.

Hey, drifting the topic... Would you mind e-mailing me a copy of the BRAC
article that USNI Proceedings published. I'm too cheap to subscribe, but
I'd like to read it.

--Woody

On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
outperform the Crusader.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
outperform the Crusader.

Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
for air-to-ground!"

R / John

On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:27:59 -0500, "John Carrier"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
outperform the Crusader.

Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
for air-to-ground!"

But, air-to-air is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
from the target.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Guy,

The marines, at least, had a different attitude towards their F-8s, and the
USN certainly carried bombs on theirs on occasion, but more often Zunis for
flak suppression.

Nice to know you could do it, if your primary mud-moving assets were
unavailable.

However, IMHO, again an example of "the fact that you can do it, does not
necessarily make it a good idea." Like trying to tank from an A-7, flying
under the Golden Gate Bridge, or extreme pursuit of all the earthly delights
in Olongopo.

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt


"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
.. .
John Carrier wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

snip

While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
outperform the Crusader.

Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
for air-to-ground!"

The marines, at least, had a different attitude towards their F-8s, and
the
USN certainly carried bombs on theirs on occasion, but more often Zunis
for
flak suppression. Per the F-8C/E/H/J/K stores loading chart, an F-8 could
carry 8 Mk.81/82/Rockeyes (total) on MERs, or four Mk.83s, M117s, Mk.77
fire
bombs or CBU-24/29/49 on TERs, or a pair of Mk.84s on the pylons, plus
Zunis
on the Cheek stations. I've seen photos of most of this ordnance being
carried in Vietnam. The F-100 had more pylons, but the F-8 had more
clearance (allowing it to carry TER/MERs) and more internal fuel, while
the
Hun (in Vietnam) always used two of its pylons for fuel. The Hun did have
more reliable guns, and a higher g limit (7.33 vs. 6.5).

Guy

On 5/11/05 3:27 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
outperform the Crusader.

Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
for air-to-ground!"

R / John

An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs on
Tomcats...

--Woody