Is this the best air superiority fighter in the late 50s and 60s?

File: f8 rockets.webm (942KB, 622x480px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 622x480px

>>31178561
LAST GUNFIGHTER

It was better than the F-100 Super Sabre, the Dassault Super Mystère or the MiG-19 (all of them with a similar role). In my opinion is clearly superior.

F-8 Crusader: How to survive in a dogfight, alone against six MiGs: the lesson learned from Richard Schaffert dogfight.

https://theaviationist.com/tag/f-8-crusader/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXNEiMYExY

>>31178646
Hmm. Missilles broken on the rails. Missilles fired but not exploding. Guns choking due to jinking. Best fighter?

>>31179616
Can't blame the missile failures on the fighter.

Guns did suck though.

Its performance otherwise was really hard to beat.

Well I specifically chose the 1960s to set my alt-his novel just so I could use the F-8 Crusader. You tell me.

File: 1427421837286.jpg (42KB, 747x422px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 747x422px

Is this the thread where we post about our MiG kills?

File: 5x20mm.jpg (146KB, 800x629px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 800x629px

Or just about the most successful 3rd generation jet aircraft?

>>31179658

So apart from the fighting part it was a great fighter?

File: 1424990142655.jpg (479KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1920x1080px

I'm number one baby, so why try harder?

>>31179798
The guns had a problem with jamming occasionally, but it was a great fighter nonetheless.

>>31179798
It managed to get the job done despite the shortcomings of its weapons.

>>31179804
Hahahahaha

>>31179796
4 M61 + 4 AIM-9 = a lot of dead commies

File: x3wo.jpg (82KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x532px

>>31178561
>What do you think?

Probably ranks as third best fighter of it's generation behind MiG-21 and Mirage III. MiG-21 is rare case of commies doing their shit properly. Mirage III just being brilliant.

Crusader is easily best American fighter of it's generation.

>>31179804
Who stepped on your blue prints?

File: THE-COMBAT-STATISTICS-FOR-ALL-THE-AIRCRAFT-CURRENTLY-IN-USE-Air-to-air-kills-–-Air-to-air-losses-–-Losses-to-ground-fire.png (2MB, 2473x4847px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2473x4847px

>>31180049
>Probably ranks as third best fighter of it's generation behind MiG-21 and Mirage III. MiG-21 is rare case of commies doing their shit properly. Mirage III just being brilliant.
Considering the fact that the Mirage III was introduced to service after the F-4 Phantom and the MiG-21 only a year before, I'm curious as to what your reasoning is here.

Pic related (the Mirage F1 being basically an upgraded Mirage III).

>>31181085
Different anon here.

MiG-21, Mirage III and F-8 are all generally considered second-generation fighters (with the MiG-21 sometimes being considered third-gen due to its later variants and its longevity of service). An aircraft's generation usually refers to its general capabilities, rather than a specific set time between two dates. The F-4 Phantom II is considered a third-generation fighter.

>>31180049
>>31181238
The Crusader entered in service in 1957, I find more fair the comparison with the F-100, the MiG-19 and the Super Mystère.

File: vought_f_8_cruisader_usn_mig_killers_by_darthpandanl-d53wgzh.png (64KB, 1000x1048px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1000x1048px

MiG killers.

What's the difference between the A-7 Corsair II and the F-8 Crusader?

File: 8249768955_196c1d2585_b.jpg (212KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1024x683px

>>31183164
original A-7 has
>TF30 turbofan instead of J57 engine requiring larger intake and wider fuselage
>removal of variable-incidence wing
>two 20mm cannon instead of four
>Nav/attack radar in the nose
>hardpoints for 15,000lb of bombs instead of the Crusader's 4,000lb

>>31181605

Woah, never realized the Crusader was that old.

Makes it kind of hilarious in hindsight that the French used theirs up to 2000

>50s
top kek thread

>>31183252
I wonder why they removed the variable incedence wing. That's a very cool feature.

>>31183711
It's a maintenance nightmare.

>>31179796
MiG-23

But it came late to the party and instead got shrekt against 4th Gens

File: Chance_Vought_Crusader_III.jpg (259KB, 3384x2188px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 3384x2188px

>>31183769
Apperently not that bad because they brought it back in the Crusader III.

>>31178561
The nose is so small. Did it even have a radar?

>>31184068
I think it had a small one for helping compute where you should aim your gun, but nothing comparable to modern radars

>>31184068
Yes, it did. It had the APQ-94 Radar (min range 300m, max range for targeting bombers 28nm, max range for targeting fighters 11nm). It tied into the AIM-9C Sidewinder, the rarely heard of radar guided sidewinder only used on the Crusader.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (78KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1440x1080px

the best

>>31184225
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
I'LL GET MY SELF TOGETHER

File: 1415502424970_3GjvOWC.jpg (158KB, 1024x718px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x718px

>crusader on the rocks

>>31183840
>>31183711
>>31183769
didn't it also limit the payload that you could stick on the wings? (less of a problem for the Crusader III which returned to an air-combat focus, but a big issue on the A-7 for ground attack.)

>>31183711
Probably a combination of maintenance issues and less space for the mechanism in the smaller airframe.

>>31183840
The XF8U-3 predates the A-7 by something like 8 years, m8. The Crusader had barely even reached service by the time the Crusader III was flying, but the VAX/VAL program that resulted in the A-7 didn't even begin until 1962/63, some five years after the Crusader entered service.

>>31184397
>>31184225
Fucking yes.