F-8 versus F-100

In the interest of getting back to a discussion on Naval Aviation in this
news group... (I'm tired of the War in Iraq and German Proximity Fuze
threads.)

I recently had the good fortune to talk to several former Navy reservists at
a recent Hunter Reunion for pilots. We had 35 years of VF-201 and VFA-201
folks there.

There were at least 4 guys who had transitioned into the squadron from the
USAF active duty after Viet Nam tours in F-100's. (No, I don't remember
their names.) They were great guys though. Said the F-8 and the F-100 had
nearly identical flying characteristics and genuinely enjoyed their USNR
time.

Anybody else have similar insights?

--Woody

As an F-86, later F-100, driver in the USAF, I had numerous encounters with
the F-8.
A truly marvelous air-to-air fighter. Great turning radius.
A clean Hun could be a good fight... if the Hun driver was sharp!
One of my treasured memories is having an F-8 guy join up after a hard
fought hassle. We flew in close formation for a minute or two... the
Crusader was truly one of the most handsome fighters ever built. My F-8
hassles prompted me to volunteer for USN exchange duty, but alert/TDY
commitments prevented my ever getting the shot.
I believe the F-8 had the best air-to-air gun kill ratio in the SEA war?
The Hun was a great airplane, but I think the F-8 might've been the better
air-to-air machine.

Cheers...





"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
In the interest of getting back to a discussion on Naval Aviation in this
news group... (I'm tired of the War in Iraq and German Proximity Fuze
threads.)

I recently had the good fortune to talk to several former Navy reservists
at
a recent Hunter Reunion for pilots. We had 35 years of VF-201 and VFA-201
folks there.

There were at least 4 guys who had transitioned into the squadron from the
USAF active duty after Viet Nam tours in F-100's. (No, I don't remember
their names.) They were great guys though. Said the F-8 and the F-100
had
nearly identical flying characteristics and genuinely enjoyed their USNR
time.

Anybody else have similar insights?

--Woody

Jack Doub wrote:

I believe the F-8 had the best air-to-air gun kill ratio in the SEA
war?

Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm sure it didn't have the best
guns-to-missiles kill ratio, since there were several aircraft that got
nothing but gun kills (having no AAMs). Take the F-105, for example.

The actual record for the "Last of the Gunfighters" is somewhat different
from the legend. If Barrett Tillman's _MiG Master_ is correct, only 4 of
the type's 19 MiG kills involved guns, and 3 of those were split credits
with Sidewinder or, in one case, Zuni rockets. Another 14 kills were
Sidewinder-only affairs, and one was preemptive kill (pilot bailed when he
found he was under attack).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
k.net...
Jack Doub wrote:

I believe the F-8 had the best air-to-air gun kill ratio in the SEA
war?

Probably, in the sense that there were no gun kills against the Crusader.
The F-8 overall kill ratio was 18-3, better than any type in the war. Make
that 19-3 if you count the Mig-17 that Jerry Tucker and Frank Bachman got
with no ordnance expended (awarded to the Hancock vice the fighters). A
great sea story, all the more golden because it was true.

The F-4 and F-105 both had more kills. Of course, they lost more to Migs as
well. In the case of the Thuds, the ratio was pretty much 1-1 ... not bad
considering their mission was not air-to-air and most of the engagements
were off target when they weren't enjoying something you'd call an
advantage.

OTOH, air superiority (as is more generally defined) easily went to the
Crusader air wings. The Migs stayed away. CAG-19 (VF-191 and VF-194) saw
fewer Migs (far fewer) during the entire conflict than CAG-9 (VF-192 and
VF-196) saw in one day. While multiple missions unopposed is hardly the
aggressive fighter pilot's dream, it's getting the bombers to the target
that counts. NTL, this frustration led to the Crusader motto, "A Mig at 6
is better than no Mig at all."

R / John

Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm sure it didn't have the best
guns-to-missiles kill ratio, since there were several aircraft that got
nothing but gun kills (having no AAMs). Take the F-105, for example.

The actual record for the "Last of the Gunfighters" is somewhat different
from the legend. If Barrett Tillman's _MiG Master_ is correct, only 4 of
the type's 19 MiG kills involved guns, and 3 of those were split credits
with Sidewinder or, in one case, Zuni rockets. Another 14 kills were
Sidewinder-only affairs, and one was preemptive kill (pilot bailed when he
found he was under attack).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
k.net...
Jack Doub wrote:

I believe the F-8 had the best air-to-air gun kill ratio in the SEA
war?

Probably, in the sense that there were no gun kills against the Crusader.
The F-8 overall kill ratio was 18-3, better than any type in the war.
Make that 19-3 if you count the Mig-17 that Jerry Tucker and Frank Bachman
got with no ordnance expended (awarded to the Hancock vice the fighters).
A great sea story, all the more golden because it was true.

The F-4 and F-105 both had more kills. Of course, they lost more to Migs
as well. In the case of the Thuds, the ratio was pretty much 1-1 ... not
bad considering their mission was not air-to-air and most of the
engagements were off target when they weren't enjoying something you'd
call an advantage.

OTOH, air superiority (as is more generally defined) easily went to the
Crusader air wings. The Migs stayed away. CAG-19 (VF-191 and VF-194) saw
fewer Migs (far fewer) during the entire conflict than CAG-9 (VF-192 and
VF-196) saw in one day. While multiple missions unopposed is hardly the
aggressive fighter pilot's dream, it's getting the bombers to the target
that counts. NTL, this frustration led to the Crusader motto, "A Mig at 6
is better than no Mig at all."

R / John

Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm sure it didn't have the best
guns-to-missiles kill ratio, since there were several aircraft that got
nothing but gun kills (having no AAMs). Take the F-105, for example.

The actual record for the "Last of the Gunfighters" is somewhat different
from the legend. If Barrett Tillman's _MiG Master_ is correct, only 4 of
the type's 19 MiG kills involved guns, and 3 of those were split credits
with Sidewinder or, in one case, Zuni rockets. Another 14 kills were
Sidewinder-only affairs, and one was preemptive kill (pilot bailed when
he found he was under attack).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Thomas Schoene wrote:

Jack Doub wrote:

I believe the F-8 had the best air-to-air gun kill ratio in the SEA
war?

Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm sure it didn't have the best
guns-to-missiles kill ratio, since there were several aircraft that got
nothing but gun kills (having no AAMs). Take the F-105, for example.

Tom, the F-105 is credited with 3 kills by AIM-9Bs.

snip

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:
Thomas Schoene wrote:

Jack Doub wrote:

I believe the F-8 had the best air-to-air gun kill ratio in the SEA
war?

Not sure what this means, exactly. I'm sure it didn't have the best
guns-to-missiles kill ratio, since there were several aircraft that
got nothing but gun kills (having no AAMs). Take the F-105, for
example.

Tom, the F-105 is credited with 3 kills by AIM-9Bs.

Oops. Tillman drops further in my opinion then. He states the F-105 kills
were guns-only in _MiG Master_. Granted, it's not primarily about the
F-105, but he ought to have checked (and so should I).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872