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

[Arjen]

The isometeric drawing is clearly a modern CAD model

I suspect that's Jozef's own work. Style is similar.

 

[PlanesPictures]

This style of rendering is one from outputs from my modeller Rhinoceros. I wait for some good drawings of top of TFX collection - Republic TFX to close it and release more pictures. I know in 2013(?) Republic's archive was destroyed but maybe someone has copies from original TFX drawings. I have boaught Orionblamblam's magazine with USAF version of Republic TFX but it seems it is based on simple sketch. Or no?

 

[Sundog]

Perhaps the Vought Archives will have some drawings of the Republic TFX, since they used it to develop their naval variant of the TFX?

 

[Pioneer]

I know in 2013(?) Republic's archive was destroyed but maybe someone has copies from original TFX drawings.

Really?
How sad :'(
How did this occur?

The top drawing looks like the Boeing TFX proposal to me :-\

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

When Republic Aviation Folded

A historian rescued a lone document from the company’s files.

www.airspacemag.com

It was 1987 when Fairchild Republic was liquidated, not 2013.

 

[Pioneer]

Thank's for the link Paul

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Bill S]

No drawings, but low speed wind tunnel photos there are....................
VAHF images

 

[PlanesPictures]

For me it seems as NA project

 

[Sundog]

It's safe to say those pictures are of the Vought naval variant (Phoenix missiles on the model) of the Republic TFX design.

Edit: I just noticed, I don't know what those missiles are, now that I look at them closer. The plane is still the same though.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

also from American Modeler magazine,a TFX artist drawing in 1963.

 

[Antonio]

also from American Modeler magazine,a TFX artist drawing in 1963

Hesham, this is a personal guess or the drawing is identified as a TFX drawing inside the magazine?

 

[hesham]

My dear Pometablava,

I saw a similar drawing to a TFX aircraft,but it was not inside the magazine,I
don't have it.

 

[hesham]

Although I didn't find, what I was looking for, I at least found this
NASA TFX study :
(from Aviation Week 19-26 1926)

As my dear Jemiba displayed this NASA studied for TFX,my new imagine is
very close to it,but I am not sure if it was a TFX or not ?.

 

[Antonio]

Instersting finding. Thanks for the additional information, hesham

 

[sferrin]

It almost looks like they took an F-105 and combined it with a verbal description of the Republic TFX concepts. Fuselage is very reminiscent of an F-105.

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dears Pometablava and Sferrin.

 

[PlanesPictures]

possible variants

 

[PlanesPictures]

and pure (?) Republic's designs

 

[robunos]

It almost looks like they took an F-105 and combined it with a verbal description of the Republic TFX concepts. Fuselage is very reminiscent of an F-105.

Indeed. But look at the fin. Pure F-111...

cheers,
Robin.

 

[The Artist]

possible variants

Something I wondered about when I took those first four pictures was the accuracy of the markings. Air Force "Buzz" Numbers on a Navy aircraft? And, in a location where they couldn't be seen by an observer on the ground?

 

[Pioneer]

End 1959, Langley researchers stressed the importance of the development of a new turbofan engine to match the new aircraft versatility offered by the variable sweep wing.
P&W, counting on Navy support in the multi-service competition, was proposing the TF30, an engine developed under a $30 million USN program.
Allison had reached a technical agreement with R-R and was proposing a version of the R-R Spey engine.
After originally submitting the J79 and not having it selected by any of the competing airframe companies. GE promptly came up with an entirely new design: the MF295, a dual rotor, front fan powerplant. The MF295 was several hundred pounds lighter than the Allson or P&W engine, and was smaller both in length and in diameter. This promised relief from the crushing limitation on weight, and also permitted the narrow fuselage so critical to the USAF requirements.
Boeing, which had been designing the TFX around the heavier P&W for two and an half years deided to switch the the MF295.
Other contractors apparently shared Boeing's views for North American, MCDonnell, Douglas, Lockheed, and indeed every one except Republic, Chance Vought and GD/Grumman, switched to the MF295. Five airframe companies had speified the MF295 as their engine of choice.
The TFX competition narrowed to two:
Boeing design/ GE MF295
GD/Grumman design/P&W TF30

Couldn't sleep, and decided to read over some old topics/posts and wow - how'd did I ever miss this
Sorry cat-shot :-[

To think the issues with the TF30 might not have to have been
So did anything ever become of the MF295 engine?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Re: Boeing Model 818 ‘TFX’ design submission

….To eliminate this flutter mode we decided to use a primarily titanium structure in the aft fuselage for the USAF airplane. The Navy version was to have a conventional aluminum structure. This cost a certain amount of commonality, but allowed a reasonably low weight in the US Navy version ……Several major problems were encountered by General Dynamics well into the flight test program. One of these was the flutter mode which we had found at Boeing by simply doing the right homework in the wind tunnel. To fix that flutter problem required a massive weight increase of the aft fuselage: more aluminum! This made the airplane too heavy for carrier operations and the US Navy cancelled its part of the contract for the F-111B……
The USAF was stuck with the F-111A and, to stay within reasonable development costs, decided to degrade the mission requirements: supersonic, low altitude requirement was dropped. The US taxpayers ended up with a much less capable airplane.

(Source: Roskam's Airplane War Stories: An Account of the Professional Life and Work, By Jan Roskam)

Regards

Pioneer

 

[TsrJoe]

re the FG-956 code, I think the modelmaker just applied some F.104 decals to fill up the space and make the model look interesting ?

(iv done similar on contract pieces in the past)

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
”CL-507 was a pre-study by Lockheed in the year 1960, including a number of fighter-bombers for short and vertical takeoff and landing (STOVL, VTOL) with a maximum speed of Mach 2. This version (507-27) possessed a variable sweep wing.”

Сеанс авиационной археологии в офисе Lockheed Martin - Альтернативная История

Сеанс авиационной археологии в офисе Lockheed Martin - Альтернативная История

alternathistory.com

 

[blackkite]

Overview of short takeoff and landing derivatives of the F-111. Drawing dated 13 December 1964.

Aircraft Design Studies | Code One Magazine

Recently released preliminary design drawings from the deepest files in the Lockheed Martin archives are exposed in this exclusive online collection.

www.codeonemagazine.com

 

[Skybolt]

Again, sorry to revive etc., ma no one seemed to me reacting with the required awe to the fact that this https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,526.msg202996.html#msg202996
is the first ever piece of information on the Grumman Model G-273, the original WS-324A submission by the Bethpage company. And it confirms the piece of information that two of the original submission weren't VG. Now, let's find the other one. BTW, you gentlemen surely appreciated the leading edge extensions near the fuselage probably meant to prevent FOI during take-off and landing from minimally prepared strips....exactly the requirement included in the original all-USAF TF-X specification (I propose to use this to differntiate from the late USAF-Navy TFX, although not historically correct).

 

[sferrin]

Again, sorry to revive etc., ma no one seemed to me reacting with the required awe to the fact that this https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,526.msg202996.html#msg202996
is the first ever piece of information on the Grumman Model G-273, the original WS-324A submission by the Bethpage company. And it confirms the piece of information that two of the original submission weren't VG.

This image you link to is a VG aircraft. You can see the wing glove.

 

[circle-5]

Again, sorry to revive etc., ma no one seemed to me reacting with the required awe to the fact that this https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,526.msg202996.html#msg202996
is the first ever piece of information on the Grumman Model G-273, the original WS-324A submission by the Bethpage company. And it confirms the piece of information that two of the original submission weren't VG.

This image you link to is a VG aircraft. You can see the wing glove.

Yes, this is a VG aircraft (I checked the model itself, just to be sure). Past efforts at identifying this design suggest it might be the Grumman G-310, possibly a VAX submission, but more likely VFAX. Intake design does have some F-111 ressemblance. I would love to see some supporting drawings or data.

 

[GTX]

That looks cool

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yep, its VG, and my gut feeling is it's aimed at VAX or VFAX rather than TFX. No clear evidence to date, perhaps Allyson could comment on the origin of the original association of this model with TFX?

 

[dan_inbox]

Are we sure that this is a serious model?
It looks rather like some whatif modeller took apart a F-111 and re-assembled the central fuselage upside down.

 

[Skybolt]

Yes it's VG. Sorry. Just a question, are the two photos shots of the same model?

 

[circle-5]

Yes and yes.

 

[hesham]

Amazing Model my dear Circle-5.

 

[Pioneer]

I just took another look at this artist work of air force F-111's operating from a dirt airfield.

Does anyone know if the F-111 was actual tested/trialled on such rudimental rough airfields?, and if so, is there any pictures out there of it doing so?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Does anyone have the SOR 183 Document? I'm curious to see what the original TAC only requirements were.

 

[Dynoman]

I don't have the document, but these were some of the basic requirements of SOR 183 with the Navy requirements.

 

[Dynoman]

Some additional information on TFX requirements:

 

[Dynoman]

TFX Profiles:

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Thank you Dynoman.