Fairchild FX fighter project (rival to the McDonnell-Douglas F-15)

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Already posted 8 years ago by hesham in this topic.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fairchild-fx-fighter-project-rival-to-the-mcdonnell-douglas-f-15.15663/post-160388

 

[fightingirish]

Cleaned up a bit.

It would be interesting to see the full colour original

Larger and better, but still with watermarks. I found at the Cradle of Aviation Museum web archive.

F-15 concept art

AFT 1 Proposed Craft

cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org

 

[Pioneer]

Cleaned up a bit.

It would be interesting to see the full colour original

Larger and better, but still with watermarks. I found at the Cradle of Aviation Museum web archive.

F-15 concept art

AFT 1 Proposed Craft

cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org

Great find fightingirish!!
Very much emphasises the bubble cockpit canopy and the excellent rear-view it affords.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?

Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP

And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[taildragger]

I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?

Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP

And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer

Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?

Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP

And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer

Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.

The scoring results are somewhere in the McDonnell Douglas FX thread - they had the edge on the Fairchild bit on purely technical grounds, but not decisively so. It was on the industrial assessment that their bid pulled clear.

From memory, the North American Rockwell bid fell short of the McDonnell Douglas and Fairchild bids on technical grounds, but was comparable to Fairchild on industrial merit.

 

[Archibald]

AFAIK one of the key factor in the T-46 demise and Republic going under, was they had become atrociously bad at quality control. The T-46 was a good aircraft but they found quality issues all over the place. Now had they build F-15s... imagine the chaos. Would make early F-35 production in the late 2000's - early 2010's looks flawless.

 

[sferrin]

I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?

Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP

And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer

Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.

They did get the Harrier and Hornet work.

 

[taildragger]

I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?

Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP

And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer

Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.

They did get the Harrier and Hornet work.

I think that the Harrier and Hornet work came a few years later.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?

Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP

And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer

Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.

They did get the Harrier and Hornet work.

I think that the Harrier and Hornet work came a few years later.

1st Flight Dates:

F-15 - July 27, 1972

F-18 - November 18, 1978

YAV-8B - November 9, 1978

No aircract manufacturer could sit around for 6+ years waiting for the possible next production program. The record of the F-15 speaks volumes for the correctness of the selection process.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Mike Machat talks about the Fairchild F-15 and shows his beautiful proposal model.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkbDd-9a9sw

 

[hesham]

From Air Force Magzaine 1969.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Cleaned up a bit.

It would be interesting to see the full colour original

Larger and better, but still with watermarks. I found at the Cradle of Aviation Museum web archive.

F-15 concept art

AFT 1 Proposed Craft

cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org

 

[iverson]

This is a Keith Ferris painting.

 

[Nik]

"Reminds me irresistibly of a cross between the Su-27..."
Thank you for nailing my 'deja vu'. Also, a whiff of 'Hustler' ??
Hmm: Twin tails would certainly help with an 'engine out'. But so would any thrust vectoring ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Fairchild did a terrible job of weight control on the T-46. Does make me wonder how the Fairchild F-15 would have fared.

 

[apparition13]

"Reminds me irresistibly of a cross between the Su-27..."
Thank you for nailing my 'deja vu'. Also, a whiff of 'Hustler' ??
Hmm: Twin tails would certainly help with an 'engine out'. But so would any thrust vectoring ?

I think it looks more like an F105 with two podded engines (the forward fuselage is very F-105) which it kind of is since its an outgrowth of studies to improve survivability with two widely separated engines. It's a bit early for TVC though.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Greetings All -

Very nice!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXTREMELY-RARE-1969-FAIRCHILD-REPUBLIC-FX-F-15-LARGE-CUSTOM-MODEL-/170818500426?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27c593774a

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Interesting cockpit layout depicted here. Looks like a central radar display just below the HUD, RWR to right, lots of vertical "tape" style controls like the F-15.

 

[kitnut617]

There's a little bit about the Fairchild (Republic) XF-15 proposal in the latest Air-Britain Aviation World (Summer 2022). It's talked about in the last segment of the Republic story.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Does it say who wrote the article?

 

[kitnut617]

The article was divided into 8 segments (printed over 8 issues), starting with Seversky. This was the last segment and it was all written by Graham Salt. In this last segment, there's a little bit about the swing-wing V/STOL too. Quite a bit about the A-10 and the T-46 (plus a bit about the 62% scale demonstrator)

 

[hesham]

The article was divided into 8 segments (printed over 8 issues), starting with Seversky. This was the last segment and it was all written by Graham Salt. In this last segment, there's a little bit about the swing-wing V/STOL too. Quite a bit about the A-10 and the T-46 (plus a bit about the 62% scale demonstrator)

Please dear Kinut,can you display them,if that possible.

 

[kitnut617]

Sorry, I can't, I'm an Air-Britain member and I don't want to jeopardize that ---

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

If there is anything interesting to add relating to this topic you could summarise it.

 

[Hood]

The FX section of that article is two and a half short paragraphs. A vague description;

a twin-engined fighter with a fixed, cranked wing, and a single fin/rudder. The wide spacing of the two Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofans offered aerodynamic and drag advantages, as well as structural weight saving, enhanced fuel capacity, and better survivability in a hostile combat situation.

It sums up;

In spite of Republic offering a credible design, capable of providing a first class air combat fighter, the award of the contract from the USAF went to McDonnell Douglas, and this ultimately resulted in the highly successful F-15C/D Eagle, and later F-15E Strike Eagle designs.
Republic was aware that opportunities to particulate in programmes like the F-15 were rare and infrequent, and it had made an intensive effort to secure a contract. Whatever the relative merits of its, and McDonnell Douglas's designs, no doubt many other factors came into play, not least the US Government's need to spread the work around. the award to Grumman for the new F-14 Tomcat to produced just a few miles up the road at Bethpage, NY, may have possibly worked against Republic at Farmingdale, and in favour of McDonnell Douglas.

The image provided is the same as the third picture of Post #1 of this thread but with a blue tinted background.

The article makes a one-line reference to FH-V1 and FH-V2 and the Republic/EWR project is afforded a slightly longer section than FX.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

AFTI & Advanced Concept Aircraft

AFT 1 Proposed Craft

nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org

F-15 concept art

nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org

High resolution pics with watermark.

 

[kitnut617]

Looks like Hood has covered it, but I did say there was a 'little' bit about it. I thought the images were interesting but I didn't notice that one was the same already posted. The image of the V/STOL is a 3/4 top view showing the above fuselage intakes, and there's an image of the F-15 proposal which looks like what's in the video in post #94

 

[Cjc]

Does anybody know the distance between the engine pods on this plane? Because they look a lot further apart then even the f-14's did, but that might just be artistic distortion.

 

[Firefinder]

Does anybody know the distance between the engine pods on this plane? Because they look a lot further apart then even the f-14's did, but that might just be artistic distortion.

There is a suze break down as the fifth image in this thread.

It says 13 feet between the engines centerlines.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Grumman engineering team has moved to Hagerstown, Md., to work with Fairchild Hiller on that company’s design proposal for the Air Force F-15
air superiority fighter.

VERY interesting snippet from AWST 24 Feb 1969!

 

[1635yankee]

I wonder how well it and the NAA design would have handled high AOA with their single tails. (Then again the F-16 seems to do okay without the need for high AOA excursions so who knows?) Personally, my favorite of the three was the NAA design with Republics a close second. Thing is, NAA would have probably run into the same issues Sukhoi did with the gothic wing, and the box-like fuselage of McDD's design came in pretty handy when the CFTs came along.

The F-16's flight control software enforces the aircraft's limited AoA range, which probably doesn't matter that much: it's likely the most maneuverable aircraft of its generation.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder how well it and the NAA design would have handled high AOA with their single tails. (Then again the F-16 seems to do okay without the need for high AOA excursions so who knows?) Personally, my favorite of the three was the NAA design with Republics a close second. Thing is, NAA would have probably run into the same issues Sukhoi did with the gothic wing, and the box-like fuselage of McDD's design came in pretty handy when the CFTs came along.

The F-16's flight control software enforces the aircraft's limited AoA range, which probably doesn't matter that much: it's likely the most maneuverable aircraft of its generation.

Probably depends on how you measure it. The YF-17 could do a Pugachev's Cobra.

 

[ScrutorAudax]

Any US members fancy a trip to NASM in Washington?

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/findaids/pdf/Fairchild_Finding_Aid.pdf

[Box 178]
Folder 2 Fairchild Hiller Republic Aircraft Division F-X Phase 1B/C Technical Resources, October 18, 1968

[Box 189]
Folder 6 Fairchild F-15 brochures

[Box 381]
Folder 8 F-15 pamphlets

[Box 386]
Folder 9 ...and F-15 General Arrangement

[Box 396]
Folder 1 F-15, Air Superiority Fighter pamphlet, advertisements, brochures, photographs and
stickers, 1969
Folder 2 F-15 dismantling, September 1970, photographs
Folder 3 F-15 Design Team, biographical sketches and photographs
Folder 4 F-15 articles
Folder 5 United States Air Force, information on the F-15, February – November, 1969
Folder 6 F-15 contract awarded to McDonnell Douglas, December 23, 1969, statements and
articles
Folder 7 F-15 articles, 1969-1970

[Box 569]
Folder 12 F-15, promotional brochures

[Box 579]
Folder 19 F-15, advertisement order, June 18, 1969, “Happiness is the F-15”

[Box 588]
Folder 7 Fairchild Hiller and F-15, bumper stickers and correspondence

Has anyone scanned the F-15 General Arrangement from Box 386, Folder 9?

 

[ScrutorAudax]

Found this brochure. Does anyone have a higher resolution version?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Link?

 

[ScrutorAudax]

Link?

1971 Fairchild Hiller News Republic Aviation A-10 F-15 | #26944350

This auction is for 2 orig 1969 and 1971 Fairchild Hiller News... Republic Aviation Vol 8, No1 January 1971....Fairchild Hiller News.....2 page foldout... all about the contract to build the A-10 ...a

www.worthpoint.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Great find!!!

I have always loved Fairchild FX (F-15) ever since I first saw it in the book 'The Thunder Factory'.
Was the 'Thunder' the official name for the design (as portrayed in this picture!)
I look forward to a colour version of this picture and I salute the man who finds it!!!


Regards
Pioneer

I think it's just that everything Republic made was a thunder-something. Thunderbolt, Thunderjet, Thunderchief, Thunderbolt II...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

1971 Fairchild Hiller News Republic Aviation A-10 F-15 | #26944350

This auction is for 2 orig 1969 and 1971 Fairchild Hiller News... Republic Aviation Vol 8, No1 January 1971....Fairchild Hiller News.....2 page foldout... all about the contract to build the A-10 ...a

www.worthpoint.com

This auction is for 2 orig 1969 and 1971 Fairchild Hiller News... Republic Aviation Vol 8, No1 January 1971....Fairchild Hiller News.....2 page foldout... all about the contract to build the A-10 ...also F-105 photo.. and SST..... Vol6, No 12 Dec 1969...Fairchild Hiller News... all about F-15 proposal against the MacDonald Douglas aircraft..

Its not a brochure, but in in-house news publication. In Dec 1969, technical details would have secret, but it might include some salient information like who worked on it.

Found some copies online in seconds.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Fairchild Wins Award for Next Phase of F-15

Fairchild Hiller has been chosen as one of three companies to receive $9.6-million contracts to proceed into the next phase of contract definition
of the U.S. Air Force F-15. The two other companies are McDonnell-Douglas and North American Rockwell. A runoff for the 1200-plane, $8-billion program is expected to continue till next fall.

The Air Force described the F-15, which will replace the present F-4 series, as a highly maneuverable, single-place, twin-engine jet that is expected to become operational in the mid-1970s.

Dedication Praised

Commenting on the award, Donald J. Strait, Vice President and General Manager at Republic Aviation Division where the previous work was performed, said: “I want to compliment Dr. Norman Grossman and his team of dedicated and professional people for an outstanding effort which enabled us to wrin this award. The companies involved in the F-15 race are as tough as they come and it is to our credit that we won a CDP. “Now we have six months to prove we can do it again and win the final award.”

Will Have Missiles

The F-15 tactical fighter will be armed with a mix of air-to-air weapons, including short range missiles, to ensure air superiority at low and medium altitudes. Formerly designated the FX, it will carry four AIM-7F radar-guided Sparrow missiles and an internal cannon. It is also expected to carry the AIM-82 short-range missile, designed as a “dogfight” weapon, capable of withstanding high g-loads and striking sharply maneuvering targets at ranges under two miles.

The F-15 will be powered by 22,800-pound thrust turbofan engines with afterburner which are being developed competitively by General Electric and .
Pratt & Whitney. The engines are to have an extremely high thrust-to-weight ratio, possibly as much as 8.3 at sea level.

Capabilities Described

The aircraft, according to Aviation Week, is to have a range in its air-superiority role of 260 nautical miles. For point intercept, the range will shrink to 215 nautical miles. In a high-low-high profile, range is expected to be 600 miles and for ferrying, it. can be stretched to 2600 miles.

The publication said that the design aim is a maximum continuous speed at altitude of Mach 2.3, with Mach 2.5 in bursts. On-the-deck maximum velocity will be about Mach 1.2.

Charles Collis , Fairchild Hiller Executive Vice President, said -that the company is “trying to make the F-15 a pilot’s aircraft. We are trying to optimize the relationship of man and aircraft more than has ever been achieved before.”

F-105 Experience Helpful

Mr. Collis said that the expenence gained by the Company's F-105 Thunderchief in Vietnam has enabled Fairchild engineers to design increased survivability into the F-15.

Heading the company’s design efforts has been Dr. Norman Grossman recently named Vice President and Manager of the F-15 project. Dr. Grossman has worked closely with the Air Force in bringing important advances to the F-105 and has more than 20 years experience in advanced fighter design.

Fairchild Hiller News Jan 1969

https://westislip.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?t=32252&i=t&by=1969&bdd=1960&d=01011939-12311970&fn=fairchild_hiller_news_usa_new_york_west_islip_19690101_english_1&df=1&dt=10

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

November 1969 is an F-15 themed issue...

THE DIE IS SET By Edward G. Uhl, President
“It Is Vital That The Nation Get The Finest Aircraft Possible"

In the next few days, by January 1, the United States Air Force will choose a contractor to build the F-15 air superiority fighter.

It is vital that the nation get the finest aircraft possible. The United States simply cannot afford to risk the security of the country or the lives of its airmen in any “second best” machine.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a sincere ‘Thank You! to all who have put their minds and hearts into winning this competition since Fairchild Hiller first began intensive studies for the program in 1965.

Whatever the outcome, win or lose. I know you have done your very best. Competition is the American way. There can be only one winner.

Regarding Fairchild Hiller’s F-15. I have never seen a design as good as the one we arc proposing. I believe we have offered the United States Air Force the best F-15 and the best production proposal.

Our three body concept is simple, easy to build and it will assure maximum airframe / engine performance in the toughest maneuvers ever imposed on a fighter plane. Our designers have learned well the requirements for survivability— taught by combat against Soviet fighter aircraft over North Vietnam; for example, the necessity for a simple, rugged aircraft that will absorb battle damage, bring the pilot back safely, and possess the capability to be repaired in the field to fight again.

We have all the facilities needed to build the F-15. Our production space is more than twice what it was when we were rolling out F-105s one-a-day.

We can honestly say that the F-15 is the company’s highest priority project. This means that our top management will be able to concentrate on the program and respond quickly to Air Force requirements rather than spreading its attention over many large projects requiring constant supervision.

We have the right people. All of the supervisory boxes of the F-15 organization charts are filled already with experienced people who have been engaged continuously in Mach 2 fighter development since 1952.

We have the best avionics subcontractor — the Hughes Aircraft Company — which has its best men on the program.

We have the financial resources and all the cash needed to finance the production program.

Fairchild Hiller is a Maryland corporation and F-15 program management will be in Maryland. However, our approach to the F-15 program has been national and not restricted to a single geographic area. Potential subcontractors have been solicited from twenty-nine states. There is strong nation-wide participation in the program.

For example, for each billion dollars of F-15 funding, approximately 12 per cent will go to Maryland. Some 29 per cent will funnel to California. Approximately 10 per cent will go to Georgia. Another 27 per cent will accrue to New York where our F-15 division will be responsible for part of the airframe structures as well as system integration. The remainder will go to subcontractors in other states, with substantial amounts to Ohio or Connecticut, depending on the choice by the Air Force of the engine manufacturer.

One of our strong attributes is that the Fairchild Hiller approach of organizing the program by demonstration milestones has been accepted and is now being used by all the competitors. Our proposal breaks down by steps the work of producing an operational prototype. As development progresses, unforeseen technological or cost problems can be identified and reviewed so that a go or no-go decision can be made. From the corporate point of view, I want the protection of the milestone approach since it assures that production commitments are made only after proper technical confidence has been attained.

Winning the F-15 program will, of course, have an immediate, substantial impact on the company's sales and earnings. Exactly how much will depend on how the government funds the project. Nonetheless, should the award go to another company, we foresee continued growth for Fairchild Hiller during 1970. We currently are budgeting for a five per cent increase in pre-tax earnings independently of any F-15 business.

In addition, we have gained a wealth of engineering and technological experience which enhances our ability to compete for other major aerospace programs down the road. In a recent Senate speech. Senator John L. McClellan declared his confidence in the competence, experience and technical knowledge of the Air Force experts now evaluating the competing designs.

Further, he said, “it is imperative that the civilian officials in the Pentagon select the aircraft which is best suited to do the combat job required, and that no consideration of any kind other than merit and capability be used to determine the award winner.’* Fairchild Miller agrees completely. In 1970 the company starts its fiftieth year as an aircraft manufacturer. We look forward with confidence to marking the anniversary by building the F-15 for the United States Air Force

F-15 The Engineering Approach
Dr Norman Grossman, Vice President F-15 Program

Three Body Concept Yields Benefits In Aerodynamics, Production, Growth

The proposed Fairchild Hiller F-15 design has evolved over a period of four years During this time extensive trade off studies were performed to determine the best combination of engines, wing plan form, payload-radius, maneuverability, take off gross weight. avionics relationship and cost to provide the United States Air Force with the most efficient air-to-air fighter for the 1975-1985 time period.

In the spring of 1965 the concept of separating the engines in podded nacelles was first proposed by the company’s preliminary design group. During ensuing design and parametric analyses this innovative design approach commonly referred to as the three body concept proved significantly superior to all the other competitive designs.

The F-15 design group began investigating the three body concept because of the known difficulties experienced in the recent installation of high performance engines in the fuselage where unfavorable flow disturbances adversely affected efficient engine operation at critical flight conditions. This consideration plus the promise of reduced wave and aft end drag at high speed provided the initial impetus; however, it was soon evident that this unique design also offered sizable savings in weight because of its inherently efficient structural arrangement.

As the design investigations continued, the technical superiority of the three body concept in the critical areas of propulsion compatibility, aerodynamic efficiency and minimum structural fraction were further enhanced by certain practical operational and cost fallouts peculiar to this design approach.

By separating the engines and housing them in pods, the degree of survivability was markedly increased in three key areas, namely, completely separated and redundant primary control surfaces, complete separation of the fuel tanks from the hot sections of the engines, and true twin engine reliability.

Minimum cost for future system growth was possible because the three body concept could accept changes in engine dimensions with minimum disruption to the structure arrangement.

Production cost savings were possible because the F-15 design concept and the inherent producibility of the three body configuration lent itself to simple subassemblies. Each module could be built up and stuffed with the necessary electrical, fuel and hydraulic systems and checked prior to splicing. This approach makes it possible to assemble in the field a complete fighter frnm combat damaged aircraft.

In September 1968, the Air Force asked industry for definitive design solutions. By this time Fairchild Hiller’s F-15 team was convinced that the three body design approach represented the happiest marriage of technical innovation, minimum risk and operational suitability.

With the award of a Phase IB contract in January of 19.69, the final competitive stage of the F-15 program began. During the next six months extensive wind tunnel testing was conducted which thoroughly substantiated the aerodynamic and propulsion efficiency assumptions for the three body concept. Concurrent with the test program, all the basic elements of the proposed F-15 Fighter Weapon System were defined together with all the necessary plans for development, test and production.

I sincerely believe the F-15 Proposal submitted by Fairchild Hiller is an outstanding one. I believe this because it represents a total effort by the most experienced fighter design group in the country. Meticulous attention has been given to every aspect of the program whether it be a design consideration such as the fuel system, a support problem the training area, a category I or II test milestone or a production plan. Whatever the item, it has received serious attention from an experienced expert. Although this across the-board attention by experts is an essential ingredient of the proposal, it alone does not make an outstanding proposal. The experts must have a design concept within which to work. It is. easy to propound the routine and familiar or the exotically impractical. It is professionally demanding to successfully accomplish the difficult blending of theory and practice so that your design concept for solving an operational problem pushes the state of-the-art within the bounds of acceptable technical risk.

In my judgment the three body concept as defined in our proposal raises fighter state-of-the-art technology to a new conceptual plateau. All the essential elements that contribute to making the most superior air-to-air fighter are realized in this design approach. The long chord inboard wing-nacelle configuration provides the lowest drag and highest propulsion efficiency attainable throughout the flight envelope of the F-15. This is accomplished while maintaining highly desirable stability, control, buffet stall and spin characteristics. The fallout inherent in the design without penalty to the
air-to-air performance has been thoroughly exploited by the F-15 group. This includes survivability, maintainability, growth, weapons flexibility, producibility and cost realism (minimum technical risk).

Regardless of the outcome of this competition, I would like to extend a sincere well-done to all members of the Fairchild Hiller organization who have contributed to the program. You can be justly proud of the results of your endeavor which is representative of the highest professional and critical skills in the fighter business. I am confident that such an effort can only receive the most serious consideration by the United States Air Force.

F-15 The Marketing Goal
Tom Turner Coperate Vice President, Marketing
Total Corporate Capability Committed To Deliver Superior F-15 To USAF

Throughout the intensive F-15 competition the marketing goal has been to tell the Fairchild Hiller story as it is, to tell about the excellence of its fighter design team, its people, its resources, its production records and its superior aircraft — past, present and future.

Fairchild Hiller is inextricably linked with aviation progress. Since the company built the world's first enclosed cabin airplane, it has produced some 40,000 aircraft — including some 25,000 fighters in which three generations of Air Force pilots have maintained air superiority in three wars. The company's list of achievements in innovative aerospace technology and efficient production is long and still growing.

The company has the very best fighter design team in America today. For corroboration, ask the Red River Rats who outstripped Soviet-built fighters over North Vietnam or the four star general who recently said our F-105 is probably the best aircraft ever put together.

In marketing it is vital to believe in your product and the need for it. This country has been so successful in gaining air superiority in the past that it has been sometimes taken for granted that we always would be able to defeat enemy aircraft in air-to-air combat in the future.

Fifteen years have passed, however, since this country designed and built its last air-to-air fighter. In the same period, the Soviets have introduced a new fighter about once every two years. Since the Soviets always have optimized their fighters for air-to-air combat, there is good reason for concern over the competitive status of the United States Air Force with the Soviets. During the Korean war, the margin of victory of United States over Soviet aircraft was 12 to one. More recently over Southeast Asia the result has been a virtual one-to-one standoff.

Right now the MIG-21, which is about six models old, is a match for the best air superiority fighter in our inventory and this will continue to be the case until the mid 1970s. The country's disadvantage in this area is further compounded by the fact that the Soviets appear to have built competitive prototypes and tested them, something that budget constraints have prevented here. Since the purpose of the F-15 is to assure air superiority against the Soviets, it is absolutely essential that the United States Air Force get the superior aircraft of the three designs offered in the current competition.

The Air Force source selection procedures have been carefully structured to achieve that end. The Air Force evaluators are disciplined and professional. Contractors are kept at arms length. Gone are the days of lavish entertainment and golf course selling. The aerospace industry and the taxpayers are better off for it. I am convinced that the Air Force selection process is as fair as it is possible to make it. Nor do I know of any recent programin which the competition has been so intense and above board.

At first glance, the source selection procedures might appear to negate the need for marketing. Not so, for the corporate effort has been aimed at dispelling any misunderstanding of Fairchild Hiller’s capability to manage a program of this magnitude and to deliver the best air superiority machine to the Air Force.

Just as the F-15 program has been a total corporate effort, so has the marketing approach. Fourteen months ago a task force was assembled of the best available manpower in the company. The field officers were brought in and a formalized marketing information and reporting system was established.

The scene during this time has been played against a backdrop of rising public and congressional debate of the defense effort. Fortunately, Congress and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have recognized the urgent need for the F-15 program.

One of the most difficult tasks has been to extract the important characteristics of the air vehicle and its supporting elements from the large proliferation of constantly changing data produced by the engineering team working under Dr. Grossman. Much effort has gone into translating this data into briefcase briefings aimed at dispelling any misunderstanding of Fairchild Hiller or the F-15 program, whether technical or general in nature. Three major documentary movies have been produced to the same purpose.

The Fairchild Hiller F-15 design has some very distinct advantages over its competitors.

These include:

The configuration has outstanding flying characteristics validated in the wind tunnels over the entire flight envelope. It makes the pilot's job as easy and safe as possible.

Past survivability lessons learned in combat have been applied to the new design. This means redundant controls, redundant control surfaces as well as the simplest, rugged structure that can absorb battle damage.

Flexibility and growth are essential. Our three body design with its independent engine nacelles allows for easy adaptability to engine growth and has high speed growth validatedby wind tunnel test up to almost twice its design speed.

The three body concept is not only the aerodynamic solution but the survivability solution and the production solution as well.

Our effort has been helped and company proposals given great credibility by the outstanding performance of the F-105 Thunderchief in Southeast Asia.

We have built aircraft for the Tactical Air Command since its beginning. If we are fortunate enough to be selected to build the F-15, I am sure that we will build an aircraft that will be even better than the F-105.

WHAT MAKES THE MOST SUPERIOR AIR TO AITR FIGHTER?

• PERFORMANCE IN COMBAT
  • LOW DRAG AT HIGH LIFT
  • LOW BASE DRAG
  • HIGH THRUST EXCESS OVER DRAG ( PROPULSION EFFICIENCY)
  • ENGINE / AIRFRAME COMPATIBILITY
• PILOT EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBAT
• GOOD STATIC STABILITY - ALL AXES
• GOOD DYNAMIC STABILITY - ALL AXES
• POSITIVE FLIGHT CONTROL POSITIONING
• GOD CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS ( ESPECIALLY AT LIMITS)
• MINIMUM INERTIA COUPLING
• REDUCE PILOT DISTURBING EFFECTS
  • ABSENCE SEVERE TRIM TRANSIENTS WITH MACH NUMBER
  • ABSENCE SEVERE TRIM CHANGE WITH ARMAMENT LAUNCH
  • ABSENCE S EVERE TRIM CHANGE WITH OPERATION OF SPEEDBRAKES AND MANEUVERING DEVICES
  • BUFFET FREE MANEUVERING
  • MINIMUM C.G. SHIFT WITH F UEL EXPENDED
• IF PILOT EXCEEDS AIRCRAFT LIMITS
  • LOW SPIN RATES
  • NON OSCILLATORY SPIN
  • POSITIVE AND IMMEDIATE SPIN RECOVERY
  • SAFE POSTSTALL HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS
• WEAPONS FACTORS
  • FLEXIBLE MISSION/ WEAPONS CAPABILITY
  • MISSILE TARGET ACQUISITION AND LOCK PRIOR TO LAUNCH
  • SMOOTH MISSILE TRAJECTORY AT LAUNCH
  • GOOD GUN LOCATION
  • MISSILES AND GUNS MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ENGINE INLETS