TinWing said:Here's a drawing, source unknown:
That can't be right - the F-111k was similar to the RAAF F-111C and had the longer wings - same as the F-111B and FB-111A
David W
TinWing said:Here's a drawing, source unknown:
dwomby said:TinWing said:Here's a drawing, source unknown:
That can't be right - the F-111k was similar to the RAAF F-111C and had the longer wings - same as the F-111B and FB-111A
David W
rickshaw said: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?
Thorvic said:dwomby said:TinWing said:Here's a drawing, source unknown:
That can't be right - the F-111k was similar to the RAAF F-111C and had the longer wings - same as the F-111B and FB-111A
David W
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.
..................................................
Geoff B
..................................................
Pioneer said:overscan said:There was also CWIP, Colossal Weight Improvement Program.
Please tell me more Overscan
fightingirish said:If CWIP-program went on, maybe the F-111B might have had conventional ejection seats instead of an escape pod. Just like later with the B-1 programme.
But at that moment, "the Navy refused the substitution of the crew capsule with ejection seats, which would have saved 500 lb, the reduction of the 3.5 hour loiter time and would not consider reducing the Phoenix missile (1000 lb each) load from six to four."
Source: Carlo Kopp - THE GENERAL DYNAMICS F-111 profile
Pioneer said:Thanks for this info on the Colossal Weight Reduction Program - CWIP Overscan -
It sounds as if they almost did it - making the F-111B carrier operational friendly!
As much as I liked the Grumman F-14 Tomcat - I still like to think what if the F-111B CWIP had of been put into production
Regards
Pioneer
Configuration A. The current airplane after SWIP with only minor changes in "commonality." A saving of 4644 lb. from the base weight of 46310 lb. was claimed. Costs were stated to be within the current scope of the program.
Configuration C. In addition to the changes of A, 2050 lb. were saved by reducing the design Mach number, deleting the weapons bay and capsule, and incorporating new, lower design Mach engines. Part count "commonality" was reduced from 78.8% to 57.4%, and costs increased by 45M, "R&D,", and 260 M "Total."
Configuration E. This design saved another 987 lb. by reducing the wing strength on the Navy airplane and increasing the thickness of the horizontal tail. Part count "commonality" dropped 2.6 points to 54.8% and costs were quoted as increasing 53M and 344M for "R&D" and "Total."
Configuration X. A substantially new Navy airplane designed by General Dynamics with wing and tail planforms held. Part count "commonality" was reduced to 28.1% while the changes in costs were given as 128M and 480M. The weight was quoted as one pound more than E.
Configuration Y. An airplane with a new Navy fuselage and landing gear designed by Grumman. Part count "commonality" was given by General Dynamics as 29.4%, the weight was quoted as the same as "E" and costs the same as "X."
Modifications considered by Grumman included several of the early Langley suggestions, such as a modified wing and pivot location, a straightened tailpipe, and an improved interengine fairing. In addition, Grumman examined a modified horizontal tail, alternate missile arrangements, and an aft-fuselage modification. Although these modifications never came to fruition for the F-111B, the discussions had a large impact on the later design of the F-14 by Grumman."
F-14D said:The F-111B would never have been able to survive as a fighter in hostile airspace
rickshaw said:F-14D said:The F-111B would never have been able to survive as a fighter in hostile airspace
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?
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
Sundog said: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
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.
KJ_Lesnick said: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
F-14D 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 said:F-14D 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.
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?
flateric said:Can't stop myself from posting this beauty here. Scan from an old TFX promotional lithograph.
In other words, they chose to be undereCWIPed...Pioneer said: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.
Here'a a GD factory model that is probably on the wrong stand.
robunos said:Agreed. Hard to see how stretching the aircraft is going to *reduce* it's weight...
robunos said:Agreed. Hard to see how stretching the aircraft is going
to *reduce* it's weight...
Pioneer said:Its a stab in the dark - but is the fuselage of the 'unknown F-111' narrower than that of the F-111A`s?