General Dynamics F-111 Projects
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 262
dwomby said:
Hmmn i take it you haven't actually seen the link Joe site.
http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/generaldynamicsf111k.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41
The GD drawings clearly indicate that the the F-111K was based on the USA F-111A with just the retractable, nose probe, adaptable bomb bay and FB-111 wheels. Wings, tail and intakes are all A standard.
Your chasing an urban Myth of the long span K probably brouught about by parts of the cancelled F-111Ks under construction being recycled by GD to create the FB-111A prototype. Possibly brought about by some writers not have access to official records and making assumptions. The RAAF ordered the F-111C but the RAF went for the F-111A adapted to suit british requirements.
Check out Tony Buttlers British Secret Projects- Bombers, or Don Logans F-111 history, but as Joes seen the GD stuff on the F-111K you'll find they have the same data that Joe has on his site.
Geoff B
(You should have seen Mike McEvoys face when i showed him the info after he did a pair for SMW2005, i know it got a comment in a later tailpiece in SAM as a result ;D)
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 605
Out of a matter of interest, where was the flight-refuelling probe? Is it the probe at the extreme nose or was there a probe that folded away? If it was the nose probe, didn't that complicate the plumbing/radar scanner?
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 262
rickshaw said:
The probe is a retractable one fwd of the canopy in the panel between the windscreen and the radome above the avionics bay. It mouted just slightly off the centreline so as not to clash visually with the centre windsceen pillar.
http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/generaldynamicsf111k.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=46
The recess for it can be seen in this photo of K1 on the above link.
G
Thorvic said:
True, I hadn't. Thanks for the pointer. I don't have access to any of my books these days but I was guided by
http://www.f-111.net/ext_diff.htm
which has been pretty good on most stuff F-111 related to date.
I have to say, looking at that photo of the two TF-111K airframes in assembly - although hard to tell from that angle, I am inclined to see a long pair of wings installed on the nearer one
but it could just be wishful thinking
David W.
I just found this.
It refers to a wing mounted refueling probe and to potential use of the longer F-111B/C or FB-111 wings.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1967/1967%20-%200488.html.
Presumably both ideas wer dropped before cancellation as all other refs I have seen describe retractable nose refueling probe.
David W.
It refers to a wing mounted refueling probe and to potential use of the longer F-111B/C or FB-111 wings.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1967/1967%20-%200488.html.
Presumably both ideas wer dropped before cancellation as all other refs I have seen describe retractable nose refueling probe.
David W.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 262
Its just aviation journalist speculation at the time attempting to fill in the gaps with educated guess's. You'll see the same stuff in todays press about aircraft about to enter service in the near future, except then during the cold war the Aviation companies were much less free with the current information.
Cheers
Geoff
Cheers
Geoff
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,027
- Reaction score
- 22,262
Notice that the canard in side view doesn;t even remotely resemble the canard in top view.
There's no question that the F-111B was overweight. However, Grumman didn't do all that much better with the F-14 when it was burdened with all the stuff required for the F-111B's fleet air defense mission(i.e. six Phoenix, a few hours on station at 150 nm), even though they got a pass on some of the specification requirements that more than offset the weight of the gun and ammo that the F-111B wasn't required to have. Wings swept in the stow position, the F-14 was only one foot narrower and three feet shorter than the F-111B when the latter's radome was folded up. Carrying all the fuel it could and the six Phoenix, the F-14 fell short of the F-111B's time on station. The F-14 also had a higher approach speed. The one at-sea evaluation of the F-111B was in an airplane that did not have the production cockpit configuration that provided better over the nose visibility. (I'm still looking for that flight test report - I'm suspicious that it wasn't as negative as the Admirals wanted, although that's hard to believe since most of the evaluations are pretty negative even for airplanes that become well regarded in service.)
I'm not saying that canceling the F-111B and going with the F-14 wasn't the right thing for the Navy to do, particularly since the Vietnam War had necessitated a rethink of carrier-based fighter/attack requirements, or that the smear job the Navy did on McNamara and the F-111B wasn't necessary to get congressional approval to do it, but I do think the F-111B deserves more respect than it gets.
I'm not saying that canceling the F-111B and going with the F-14 wasn't the right thing for the Navy to do, particularly since the Vietnam War had necessitated a rethink of carrier-based fighter/attack requirements, or that the smear job the Navy did on McNamara and the F-111B wasn't necessary to get congressional approval to do it, but I do think the F-111B deserves more respect than it gets.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,172
fightingirish said:
Pioneer said:
The F-111B was never carrier friendly. They managed to a few demonstration flights off the carrier Coral Sea after the program was already canceled, but that was with very little fuel, no weapons, as much pulled off that aircraft as possible, etc. To get an idea how frantic McNamara and GD were to try and save this plane, one of the weight reductions was to replace the glass lenses on the cockpit instruments with lighter weight plastic. With a longer nose one has to wonder how the plane would fit on elevators, the whole reason they shortened the nose to begin with. Moving the gear back changes the mold line, and illustrates how desperate they were. Moving the gear back also changes the amount of downward force required to rotate at takeoff on land The F/A-18 had this same problem going from the YF-17 to the F/A-18. They solved it through a workaround that toes in the rudders at rotation to give extra downward force on takeoff, but the F-111 didn't have twin rudders (or an advanced enough flight control system) to accomplish this. The longer nose would have exacerbated this along with degrading over the nose visibility on approach, something the F-111B actually did quite well, which probably would have meant an expensive cockpit area reconfiguration, etc
The F-111B would never have been able to survive as a fighter in hostile airspace, perform deck launched intercept, do ground attack, etc. This is something to keep in mind. Even if they had managed to get, at enormous cost and rework, acceptable shipboard characteristics, you would have a plane that lacked versatility and you'd still have to develop something else to handle the other roles.
The F-14 did not meet the F-111B's required time on station. This was one of the requirements relaxed for all competitors in VFX competition. Remember, the F-111B mission was that of the old F6D: a plane whose sole function was to loiter for a long time with a big radar and hurl long range missiles at oncoming bombers. When Navy went to VFX, they also wanted to be able to perform fighter and attack roles, because they realized they weren't ever going to have as many carriers again and they could not afford such a limited use aircraft taking up deck space. The F-14 also had a higher approach speed (although lower than the later Hornet's and I believe the F-4 as well). Again something they could afford to relax in exchange for so many other things other things they needed. F-14A did not fly with six AIM-54 off carriers because with the TF30s, carrying six AIM-54 meant it could not meet the single engine waveoff requirement of a 500 fpm climb. Of course, it was said that at landing weights in landing configuration carrying nay ordnance the F-111B could not maintain level flight on one engine. The F-14 has a spotting almost as big as the F-111 (with the original nose), but spotting factor was one of the requirements the F-111B met (as did the F-14). Interestingly, the Super Hornet unfolded is bigger than the "large F-14.
All of this was a result of McNamara's obsession with taking two virtually diametrically opposed missions and trying to force one plane to do all of it. BTW, the way Boeing was going to try to meet the requirement (they wouldn't have done it either but probably would have come closer) was that although the structure, ribs and frames, would mostly be identical in shape but whenever possible, they Navy plane would use lighter gauge metals internally, since the Navy did not need their plane to go 400 miles on the deck at M1.2 (an AF specification the F-111A/D/E/F never met because of compromises forced on the design in order to try and meet Navy requirements). Even though Boeing had demonstrated this in KC-135/B707 production, McNamara rejected this elegant solution because he didn't think the planes would be "Common" enough which had mutated in his mind from a means to an end to an end in itself.
In most cases, the F-14 was better at virtually everything than anything you could ever get out of anything you could do to the F-111, even when the Government failed to provide the engines it told Grumman to design the Tomcat around. around. Once the F110s became available...
Pyrrhic victory
This is going to hurt
- Joined
- 31 January 2008
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 76
When Full Scale Development of the F-111 began in 1963 General Dynamics realized that the data they had used from Cornell University's wind tunnels concerning supersonic and transonic drag were incorrect. The revised data from Langley's wing tunnels showed that the F-111 was going to come up way short on range figures. So the Air Force had General Dynamics lengthen the aircraft to add fuel, which greatly increased the weight. Langley also suggested changing the wing pivot position, tailpipe and intakes but were generally ignored. When the Navy cought wind of this in late 1963, and saw that the F-111B was going to be 5,000 pounds over weight, instead of the 1,000 they had estimated, they tried to get the Air Force and General Dynamics to reneg on the design changes. However,the AF really needed the range badly and the changes would stay.
In February 1964 the BuWeps issued a letter to the CNO to halt F-111B development until significant design changes could be implemented that met the original specifications. This was politically unacceptable, but General Dyamics and Grumman went about designing some weight improvement proposals. By August 1964 5 different proposals were submitted, A,C,E,X,Y, with varying in degrees of commonality and weight savings. General Dynamics had 4 designs under the Super Weight Improvement Program, and Grumman submitted their own heavily modified design which eventually became known as the Colossal Weight Improvement Program.
From F-111 Design Review, Spangenberg:
They Navy preferred the Y configuration (or out right cancellation), but this was unfeasable as it was too expensive implement and the aircraft was already behind schedule. Configuration A was selected, also work on a new high lift system, uprated engines and improved inlets were approved. As the Vietnam war heated up in 1965, Grumman continued working on ways to improve acceleration and maneuvering abilities as the possible threat shifted from AShM carrying bombers to nimble fighters like the MiG-17, -19 or -21.
From Partners in Freedom:
At this point in time the Navy still thought they were going to have to bite the bullet and replace the 2 F-4 squadrons per carrier with a single F-111B due to its expensive nature. So the Navy and the Naval contractors began doing studies in late 1965 on an aircraft that could suplement the Sea Pig. These private and publicly funded studies eventually resulted in the VFAX requirement, which had an aircraft with better fighter ability than the F-4 and better bombing capability than the A-7. After Grumman saw more political and techincal set backs in the F-111 program from 1966-67, they read the writing on the wall. So they pitched their best VFAX design studies mated to the F-111B's weapons systems and engines to the Navy, this suggestion became the VFX requirement. Thus all work further work on improving the F-111B was terminated. However several were constructed for testing and evaluation purposes through 1968, despite the fact that the airplane was cancelled in mid 1967. Grumman did a good deal of subcontractor work on the AF versions of the F-111 and did the EW integration on the EF-111s.
In February 1964 the BuWeps issued a letter to the CNO to halt F-111B development until significant design changes could be implemented that met the original specifications. This was politically unacceptable, but General Dyamics and Grumman went about designing some weight improvement proposals. By August 1964 5 different proposals were submitted, A,C,E,X,Y, with varying in degrees of commonality and weight savings. General Dynamics had 4 designs under the Super Weight Improvement Program, and Grumman submitted their own heavily modified design which eventually became known as the Colossal Weight Improvement Program.
From F-111 Design Review, Spangenberg:
They Navy preferred the Y configuration (or out right cancellation), but this was unfeasable as it was too expensive implement and the aircraft was already behind schedule. Configuration A was selected, also work on a new high lift system, uprated engines and improved inlets were approved. As the Vietnam war heated up in 1965, Grumman continued working on ways to improve acceleration and maneuvering abilities as the possible threat shifted from AShM carrying bombers to nimble fighters like the MiG-17, -19 or -21.
From Partners in Freedom:
At this point in time the Navy still thought they were going to have to bite the bullet and replace the 2 F-4 squadrons per carrier with a single F-111B due to its expensive nature. So the Navy and the Naval contractors began doing studies in late 1965 on an aircraft that could suplement the Sea Pig. These private and publicly funded studies eventually resulted in the VFAX requirement, which had an aircraft with better fighter ability than the F-4 and better bombing capability than the A-7. After Grumman saw more political and techincal set backs in the F-111 program from 1966-67, they read the writing on the wall. So they pitched their best VFAX design studies mated to the F-111B's weapons systems and engines to the Navy, this suggestion became the VFX requirement. Thus all work further work on improving the F-111B was terminated. However several were constructed for testing and evaluation purposes through 1968, despite the fact that the airplane was cancelled in mid 1967. Grumman did a good deal of subcontractor work on the AF versions of the F-111 and did the EW integration on the EF-111s.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 605
F-14D said:
Errr, my understanding is that the F-111B was never intended to be a fighter but rather a long-range intercepter. Am I correct? if I am, doesn't this rather suggest a profound misunderstanding of the role of the aircraft is, on your part?
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,172
rickshaw said:
You are in a sense correct, it was not intended in the mission requirements for the F-111B to pursue aircraft or perform BARCAP, MIGCAP,Deck Launched Intercept or similar missions. Let me quote from one of my earlier posts, please. "Remember, the F-111B mission was that of the old F6D: a plane whose sole function was to loiter for a long time with a big radar and hurl long range missiles at oncoming bombers". The point I was making, and was alluded to by another poster here, is that given the reduced number of carriers USN would have in the '60s and '70s vs. what it had and expected to have in the late 1950s/very early '60s when the F6D/F-111B mission was first mooted, the F-111B would have to perform those other missions, because there would no longer be the deckspace available for another plane to perform the other fighter/attack roles. F-111Bs, whether McNamara wanted to admit it or not, would be taking up the space used by F-4s, so i would have to perform those roles.
Let me also, if I may, briefly comment on the alphabet soup of Navy programs of the '60s and '70s. The first VFAX was supposed to be a lighter weight complement aircraft to the F-111B to perform the other fighter roles with a secondary attack mission. The problem was again the amount of deckspace available. It really wasn't practical or economical, though, to develop and deploy the F-111B and another aircraft to defend the battle group and do fighter/ attack. It was determined that with a relaxation of some of the F-111B requirements that were no longer necessary (especially loiter)and by divorcing from the F-111B airframe/engine. It would be possible and cheaper to perform all the roles necessary with one aircraft. VFAX became VFX, and the results of that competition became the F-14. In the 1970s, the program designator VFAX was revived for what would become the F/A-18 Hornet.
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,354
Which is why, as part of this "upgrade," the cockpit was to be raised to increase the visibility over the nose.
In fact, I've found that the preproduction F-111B's have a very "Fencer" like appearance, IMHO, due to their nose shape. I realize the Fencer came after, but the F-111B would have looked great painted up as a "Fencer" aggressor for attack/strike training defense. (Once a modeler, always a modeler
)It's a shame the F-111B couldn't be made more carrier compatible, as I think it would have been a great replacement for the A-5/RA-5C, not that the Navy would have ever used it like that, or McNamara allowed them to let it fill the strike/recon role.
Of course, the whole problem with the landing gear/tail volume issue is a result of taking a "land based" design and trying to make it carrier suitable. For those who don't know, the landing gear on Naval aircraft has to be further behind the CG than on land based aircraft so they don't tip back on their tails while the aircraft carrier pitches and rolls; If the aircraft was backed up to the edge of the deck in rough seas and not tied down, it could literally tip off of the carrier. i.e.- not good. As a result, aircraft designed from the start to operate off of an aircraft carrier have their tails sized for the greater rotation forces required due to having their main gear further back from the cg, as F14D alluded to in his post. Which, among other reasons, explains why making naval aircraft land based is almost always easier than the other way around.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,172
Sundog said:
Which is why, as part of this "upgrade," the cockpit was to be raised to increase the visibility over the nose.
In fact, I've found that the preproduction F-111B's have a very "Fencer" like appearance, IMHO, due to their nose shape. I realize the Fencer came after, but the F-111B would have looked great painted up as a "Fencer" aggressor for attack/strike training defense. (Once a modeler, always a modeler
It's a shame the F-111B couldn't be made more carrier compatible, as I think it would have been a great replacement for the A-5/RA-5C, not that the Navy would have ever used it like that, or McNamara allowed them to let it fill the strike/recon role.
Of course, the whole problem with the landing gear/tail volume issue is a result of taking a "land based" design and trying to make it carrier suitable. For those who don't know, the landing gear on Naval aircraft has to be further behind the CG than on land based aircraft so they don't tip back on their tails while the aircraft carrier pitches and rolls; If the aircraft was backed up to the edge of the deck in rough seas and not tied down, it could literally tip off of the carrier. i.e.- not good. As a result, aircraft designed from the start to operate off of an aircraft carrier have their tails sized for the greater rotation forces required due to having their main gear further back from the cg, as F14D alluded to in his post. Which, among other reasons, explains why making naval aircraft land based is almost always easier than the other way around.
Agree.
By the time you raise the cockpit, though, you are getting into serious money,even for the Government, and at the end of it all, you still have an F-111B. That's the reason it had to die. It was a single purpose aircraft, and even if they fixed everything it was an aircraft that would have very limited utility. There were other ways to accomplish its mission (which dated from the late -50s) and to do other things the Navy needed better, and for less money. It lost its reason to exist.
KJ_Lesnick
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 February 2008
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 105
How fast did the F-111B (and later F-14) have to cruise at when flying on-station during those CAP missions, just out of curiosity?
Kendra Lesnick
Kendra Lesnick
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,172
KJ_Lesnick said:
They would both be at best endurance (which is not necessarily the same as best range) when doing BARCAP to protect the fleet. On a CAP as part of a strike, well, the F-111B may or may not have been expected to do that at all. Once the AIM-54s were gone an F-14 would then close to engage with its other weapons,while an F-111B would run (which it could probably do pretty fast). it'd do that for two reasons. One, it didn't have any other weapons, and two, it wouldn't survive an encounter with a modern fighter that could close on it.
KJ_Lesnick
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 February 2008
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 105
F-14D said:
I know they would both be at best endurance... The problem is, I don't know what the endurances of the two planes are (I know the two are different) and I was asking what the endurance requirements were for the TFX program (Navy), and the VFX/F-14 (Navy).
BTW: There was no requirement as to how fast the plane would have to fly doing it's CAP-missions?
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,172
KJ_Lesnick said:
Without doing a whole bunch of digging, I can't quote the time on station for the two, except to sate that the time on station requirement for VFX was reduced from that specified for the F-111B (a time it's not sure the F-111B would have met if it had managed to make it into service). This reduction was in exchange for the change in mission. VFX's first priority was air superiority, Fleet Air Defense came in second and strike was third.
The issue of speed at time on station would not be as important as en-route speed to station, and I'm not sure if that was ever specified except in relation to deck cycles, to which the F-11B would have been relatively independent in any case.
Remember, the F-111B had no other role than Fleet Air Defense. No requirement for BARCAP except in the Fleet Air Defense role. No TARCAP, RESCAP, CAP/strike, MiGCAP, etc. Speed/acceleration (F-111B took six minutes to accelerate from M.8 to 1.8 ) wouldn't be that big a factor because it would never be required to do anything other than throw AIM-54s at incoming strikers from long range. It would never be expected to close with an enemy or establish air superiority in a target area. VFX/F-14, on the other hand, would have to be able to do all those in addition to the FAD mission.
interesting for a conus interceptor version aka F-111B, with AGM-64 or AGM-130 vs SRAMs
this airplane has a little info, no max vel, max alt, cruise, FM and AB speed, no wind ammo loadout or other conventional weapons cargo
this airplane has a little info, no max vel, max alt, cruise, FM and AB speed, no wind ammo loadout or other conventional weapons cargo
Precise Models model of General Dynamics - Grumman F-111K tactical fighter model in Royal Air Force livery in 1/48 scale.
http://members.chello.nl/m.waterloo/precise_models_inc.html
http://members.chello.nl/m.waterloo/precise_models_inc.html
Attachments
- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,844
- Reaction score
- 1,953
Gents I found this whilst reading George Spangenberg transcripts on http://www.georgespangenberg.com/history3.htm
Grumman had a little more data on a design that they identified as CWIP, the Colossal Weight Improvement Program. It had a completely new fuselage and saved considerably more weight than the GD designs did. As accepted, the decision in that case was to continue with only SWIP, the least costly, hold the contractor to his schedule and to make some management improvements.
Regards
Pioneer
Grumman had a little more data on a design that they identified as CWIP, the Colossal Weight Improvement Program. It had a completely new fuselage and saved considerably more weight than the GD designs did. As accepted, the decision in that case was to continue with only SWIP, the least costly, hold the contractor to his schedule and to make some management improvements.
Regards
Pioneer
- Joined
- 1 November 2009
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 411
flateric said:
Thanks for this one. A Robert McCall painting I had not seen.
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 613
oookay...
Here'a a GD factory model that is probably on the wrong stand. Stretched fuselage, tandem seating, semi-conformal sidewinders, etc. It's not the FB-111B, FB-111C, FB-111G, FB-111H, F-111X, F-111X-7, F-111SAC, F-111ADC, FB-111-3-M or GD 916. Two brownie points for whoever finds admissible evidence of its true designation. Regular F-111A model is included for size comparison.
Here'a a GD factory model that is probably on the wrong stand. Stretched fuselage, tandem seating, semi-conformal sidewinders, etc. It's not the FB-111B, FB-111C, FB-111G, FB-111H, F-111X, F-111X-7, F-111SAC, F-111ADC, FB-111-3-M or GD 916. Two brownie points for whoever finds admissible evidence of its true designation. Regular F-111A model is included for size comparison.
Attachments
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,256
- Reaction score
- 4,601
robunos said:
Unless it's not to be read as Colossal Weight Improvement Program but as Colossal Weight Improvement Program, in which the already colossal weight is subject to being improved on... ;D ;D ;D
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 613
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,027
- Reaction score
- 22,262
So presumably its an interceptor derivative to IMI or similar program?
- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,844
- Reaction score
- 1,953
Hey great and interesting find!!
Where may I ask did you manage to find these???
Its a stab in the dark - but is the fuselage of the 'unknown F-111' is narrower than that of the F-111A`s?
The elimination of the small and limited weapons bay could save weight and space (unless it has been utilized for more fuel)?
The elimination of the side-by-side escape capsule (that is if it is not a tandom-seat escape capsule!) would have to save weight and complication (as well as making sense!), whilst the over all reduction in forward fuselage width (with the use of a tandom-seat arrangement), you think would reduce both structural weight and drag.
Can we determin if the original heavy and bulky main landing gear has been replaced with a simpler and less space and weight type?
Thanks once again for your find and sharing it
Regards
Pioneer
Where may I ask did you manage to find these???
Its a stab in the dark - but is the fuselage of the 'unknown F-111' is narrower than that of the F-111A`s?
The elimination of the small and limited weapons bay could save weight and space (unless it has been utilized for more fuel)?
The elimination of the side-by-side escape capsule (that is if it is not a tandom-seat escape capsule!) would have to save weight and complication (as well as making sense!), whilst the over all reduction in forward fuselage width (with the use of a tandom-seat arrangement), you think would reduce both structural weight and drag.
Can we determin if the original heavy and bulky main landing gear has been replaced with a simpler and less space and weight type?
Thanks once again for your find and sharing it
Regards
Pioneer
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 613
Pioneer said:
The front fuselage (ahead of air intakes) is narrower, but the rear fuselage (engine bay) is the same as on the F-111A. There are a number of noticeable fuselage contour differences. Wings and empennage are identical, except for the unknown fairing on top of the vertical. IMI program connection is possible, but speculative. Looks like I need to raise the incentive to three Brownie points!
Here are some salient comments from aim9xray:
I'd guess the model dates from late 1963 to 1964 -- judging by the squared off horizontal stabilators; these were angle-cut by the time of the roll-out and revised again very early in flight test.
The semi-conformal carriage of the Sidewinders in very interesting, particularly as it implies that the weapons bay was moved aft. And the tandem cockpit makes me wonder if the aft stretch was done for weight and balance as well as additional fuel. And was the tandem cockpit introduced in response to visibility complaints, or drag reduction or...? One thing is certain - the finesse ratio was certainly improved - but the difficulties with the depth of the turbulent boundary layer air reaching the intakes would be even worse than the prototypes that flew.
- Joined
- 1 November 2009
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 411
Could this unknown F-111 have been a connected with North American's NR-349 Advanced Vigilante - I mean as a competing proposal? Just a thought though I'm not sure what the time frame was on the North American proposal.
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,354
I was wondering if it was just part of the original design study for the F-111 program and they had to decide on the choice between a tandem cockpit and side by side seating? Or was the side by side seating arrangement spelled out in the requirements?
Similar threads
-
Convair / General Dynamics Advanced Tactical Fighter (1965)- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 15
-
ADF to LWF: Evolution of the General Dynamics F-16
- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 135
-
-
-
