Long road to the F-111: TAC, SOR.183, SDR 17, WS-324A, TFX

Still, much of the information I've read says the all the Services were eyeing the Boeing design as the final choice, and the only people who were Not shocked by the GD being named the winner were the SoD :mad: and GD. That's why there was a congressional investigation of the matter.
If the Services were apprehensive about Boeing, why bother? Boeing's design may have had some flaws, but it seems like GD problems were worse, and were proven correct by out of control costs, inlet design flaws, crashes of the early models, the British cancelling their order, and the Australians not taking theirs until everything was fixed (about a 10 year wait). :p
You're likely right. Boeing's was likely tailored for only one service, which means they took a chance, hoping the 'Whiz Kids' would come to their senses and realize you Cannot make an Air Force bomber into a Navy fighter and actually perform both roles, allowing them to build the bomber and let the Navy get a fighter that could actually fight and operate from their ships. The A-5 would have been a better choice, at least they knew it could operate from carriers. Relieved of such a burden, Boeing's design would have been cheaper, because it would only need the equipment for one role, instead of All-Singing-All-Dancing, having everyone stick want They wanted in the plane, and making it work.
No, GD only seemed to have won because they were either too naive to realize the requirement could not be fulfilled by one machine, or they were manipulative and told the SoD EXACTLY what he wanted to hear, whether or not it would work.
 
I still liked Republics the best but I can't see it on a carrier.
 
Akaikaze said:
Still, much of the information I've read says the all the Services were eyeing the Boeing design as the final choice, and the only people who were Not shocked by the GD being named the winner were the SoD :mad: and GD. That's why there was a congressional investigation of the matter.
If the Services were apprehensive about Boeing, why bother? Boeing's design may have had some flaws, but it seems like GD problems were worse, and were proven correct by out of control costs, inlet design flaws, crashes of the early models, the British cancelling their order, and the Australians not taking theirs until everything was fixed (about a 10 year wait). :p
You're likely right. Boeing's was likely tailored for only one service, which means they took a chance, hoping the 'Whiz Kids' would come to their senses and realize you Cannot make an Air Force bomber into a Navy fighter and actually perform both roles, allowing them to build the bomber and let the Navy get a fighter that could actually fight and operate from their ships. The A-5 would have been a better choice, at least they knew it could operate from carriers. Relieved of such a burden, Boeing's design would have been cheaper, because it would only need the equipment for one role, instead of All-Singing-All-Dancing, having everyone stick want They wanted in the plane, and making it work.
No, GD only seemed to have won because they were either too naive to realize the requirement could not be fulfilled by one machine, or they were manipulative and told the SoD EXACTLY what he wanted to hear, whether or not it would work.
Click to expand...

Well, according to David Halberstam's "The Reckoning" (comparing the no. 2 automakers in the US and Japan from the end of WW II to 1990), when JFK tapped McNamara to be SecDef, the line at Ford was "A great day for Ford; a rotten day for America but a great day for Ford." It's not aerospace, but I can most definitely recommend that book as a great and informative read.

Oh, and you left out that GD had to redesign the backend of the F-111 because the original design, due to bad data reduction from the wind tunnel testing, had just about every drag increasing measure it could. Later extensive testing of afterbody drag for twin-engined jets confirmed this (bunch of AIAA papers published in the 1970's).
 
:D Thanks for that line from Ford. That's funny!
I forgot about the redesign. Thanks for that, too. Mostly, I hear about the inlets not working and the wingbox failing. Not taking the F-111 was the Smartest cancelation the British ever did.
Irony: The F-111 was the end result of swingwing research conducted between NASA and (pause) Vickers. I just find that funny... ;D
 
The A-5 would have been a better choice, at least they knew it could operate from carriers.
Click to expand...

Now you mention it, I just found in the NASA Technical Reports one covering a swing-wing design that looks like an A3J with variable-geometry, here...
 
TM- X-743
"SUBSONIC AND SUPERSONIC AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AN AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION HAVING TWO TYPES OF VARIABLE WINGS"
 

Attachments

  • NAA_TFX_config_3.jpg
    NAA_TFX_config_3.jpg
    59 KB · Views: 1,544
  • NAA_TFX_config_4jpg.jpg
    NAA_TFX_config_4jpg.jpg
    63.5 KB · Views: 1,424
  • NAA_TFX_config_4_photo.jpg
    NAA_TFX_config_4_photo.jpg
    58.5 KB · Views: 1,540
Last edited by a moderator:
Skybolt said:
The A-5 would have been a better choice, at least they knew it could operate from carriers.
Click to expand...

Now you mention it, I just found in the NASA Technical Reports one covering a swing-wing design that looks like an A3J with variable-geometry, here...
Click to expand...

That design proposal looks too reasonable!

At very least, variable geometry might have lowed the Vigillante's dangerously high 150 knot approach speed.

Of course, the Vigillante design was still far too large for the fighter role envisioned by the navy. It also had very little space for the avionics required, and it is doubtful that the added weight of the variable geometry wing mechanism, massive radar, bulkier TF-30 turbofans and six huge Phoenix missiles would have made it any lighter than the failed F-111B.

Perhaps it would have been even heavier and less suitable - or perhaps North American would have done a bit better than Convair/General Dynamics. It would seem that Convair's management had been particularly inept in this era. You don't have to look any farther than the CV-880/CV-990 fiasco to figure that out.
 
For a fighter derivative of the A-5, best bet would be to keep the J79s to start with, at least on some tech demonstrators; the final design would need a re-design of the spindle frame (major forging that carries the spindles the tail surfaces move on) in order to accomodate larger engines (management reluctance to change this frame is one reason re-engined versions of the A-5 never got past concepts). I rather suspect that replacing attack avionics with fighter avionics would use roughly the same volume of space and reconfiguring the nose for a fighter radar wouldn't be that difficult.
 
I suspect the two config. studied by NASA were intended more for the GOR-183 role than for TFX. Don't be misled by the name of the file, was decided by myself for archiving purposes. So they were land-based attack aircraft. VG was intended for: enhancing the low-altitude supersonic performance without comprimising the high-altitude ferrying one and the take-off distance; complying with the USAF-mandated requirements. Moreover, don't know (does someone know ? ) if GOR-183 already required TF-30s or another specific turbofan. Anyhow, I doubt that a GOR-183- type aircraft would have used J-79s. So a redesign was due. It is difficult from the NASA drawings and photos if the new engine is already factored in. And then there is the bomb-bay problem...
 
Interesting how the swing wing A3J design looked so...Right! :-\
 
Smartest cancellation the British ever did. Well, thanks, but we don't deserve applause. We didn't foresee the problems, but by Jan.'68 were flat busted. We had known by late-64 we could not risk our few deep strike platforms in C.Europe, and chose to replace 64 RAFG nuke-Canberra B(I)6/8 firstly with F-4D, then with a non-$ type, which might swing, or might be a Buccaneer stuffed with avionics a generation beyond hot, heavy 1958-vintage. We thought we could afford a Force of 50 TSR.2 or F-111A in an Indian Ocean role.

SecDef had spread the capital cost of F-111K over a decade, but we could not sustain the running costs. UK cancellation irritated DoD, who had committed to offset deals. Some - e.g HP C-10A Jetstream - could be beached, but others - e.g Scottish Avn. C-130 fuse panels - could not be. McNamara's Joint notion drew on F-110/F-4, seen even then as a benchmark. He intended to buy 3,000 F-111A+B, even before FB- and EF- had been thought of. Don't disparage this type unduly: SEAsia had been a grafted-on, not a design role. Saceur's LN/UH Wings did the job nicely 1969-92, able to take 6 B-61 laydown nukes survivably into WarPac airspace.
 
In reality TFX got only something from the SOR/GOR 183, and unfortunately the worst (in sight of commonality) ones: ferry range, internal bomb bay and low-level performance (Mach 1.2 at sea level). As for the list, I've tryed to reconstruct it some time ago. I have to dig up the file. In summary and immediately: take the list of the TFX, split the teams (ex. GD/Grumman) and then add someone ;D
 
In the last issue of the AAHS Newsletter there is a lively discussion on the use of ., and - and (nothing) as a separator in aerospace and engines designations.... ;)
 
Found!
General Dynamics
Boeing
McDonnell
Republic
Chance-Vought V-440
Grumman G-283
Douglas
Lockheed CL-??? Scott, there is something in your treasure trove of Lockheeds CLs ?
North American possibly a VG version of the A3J
 
Wonder if the "Retaliator" derivative of the Vigilante was one NAA response?
 
Mmm, possibly, but perhaps a bit early and not with extensive modifications (VG). Since the Retailator wasn't much changed in respect of the Navy version, I think it was more apt in fulfilling the high altitude purely nuclear tactical bomber role, same as the Martin XB-68. Bomb bay disposition and engines of the Retailator don't fit in the intended SOR-183 role, AFAIK. A FOIA is due....
 
*Possibly* the CL-407. VTOL strike/recon capable of up to Mach 3. Had an APR article on that, back in the day...
Click to expand...

mmm, too early I think: 1956. Could be the ventral intake configuration covered in the NASA report I bought from you?
 
Very nice drawing Scott. It seems the early TFX designs have common ground with NASA SCAT studies?
 
Wow, that Lockheed design looks very cool. Thanks for posting that.
 
Thanks for the drawing of the Lockheed TFX design submission!
Its the first time that I have seen the Lockheed submission

Regards
Pioneer
 
A twin-engined F-105 for SOR-183? Two very different compact envelopes....
 
Well, it wasn't exactly a twin-engined F-105, but the Republic AP-75 LRI resembles an enlarged, twin-engined F-105 fuselage with the aerodynamic surfaces of the XF-103. A rather attractive-looking design I'm trying to accumlate the bits to model.

If you search on here, you might find the posted picture of the display model.
 
In the LRI thread, I think, was an article by AW in 1958.
 
Is it me,or does that look almost like the Su-24 Fencer,even more so the the F-111.
 
Ummm, could be the first official proposal to the TFX specification, the one that was rejected outright.
 
The version of the F-111 that looks very "Fencer" like is the pre-production version of the F-111B. That shouldn't be confused with the prototype F-111B. Of ocurse, I guess I should say, the Fencer looks very much like the pre-production F-111B, since one preceded the other. The place I have ever seen photo's is in the F-111 Naval Fighters series. In fact, I never knew so many pre-production F-111B's had flown until I bought that book. I had only known about the short nosed prototype until then.
 
does anyone out there have drawings or model pics of the Chance Vought V-440, Grumman G-283, et al?

cheers, Joe
Click to expand...

Yes I second this request

Regards
Pioneer
 
What about the Valorous Vought Retirees? ;)
 

Attachments

  • 1984.092.JPG
    1984.092.JPG
    18 KB · Views: 1,518

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom