A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

F8 Crusader Variable Incidence Wing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 14th 09, 08:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,rec.aviation.military
John Randolph
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default F8 Crusader Variable Incidence Wing

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



  #2  
Old August 18th 09, 01:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,rec.aviation.military
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default F8 Crusader Variable Incidence Wing

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Skybolt Tail Incidence Question Scott Rodriguez Home Built 1 November 20th 05 07:44 PM
Skybolt Tail Incidence Question Scott Rodriguez Aerobatics 0 November 4th 05 04:16 PM
Better GPS, Flight Computer, Variable Wing Geometry, abililty to Self-Launch Stewart Kissel Soaring 7 May 2nd 05 06:02 PM
Variable geometry intakes Boomer Military Aviation 17 April 12th 04 09:42 PM
want variable pitch prop Ray Toews Home Built 5 October 7th 03 09:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.