North American XF-108 (F-108) Rapier

[robunos]

and also, it's a single seater...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[famvburg]

I dunno. Take an A-5 Vigilante, raise the front cockpit and canopy a tad, move the intakes to the belly and either add lowered enlarged F-4 wings or lower and give the A-5 wings an F-4 treatment, add canards and there you have whatever this is........ I think it has a MiG MFI look to it in a way.

 

[fightingirish]

Could this be an alternate concept by North American for a USAF fighter program, which the McDonnell Douglas F-110 Spectre won in the end?
But maybe this is just a thought for our sister forum "whatifmodelers"...

 

[aim9xray]

Given tha lack of details, I think this could be an ornamental design or just conceptual art created for a magazine, unrelated to North American.

I agree, this looks like fan-art. Details do not agree between views, particularly around the intake, and others make no sense such as the proposed external carriage of the Sparrow III (at Mach 3?). I strongly believe that this design did not come from North American Aviation.

 

[RAP]

Years ago I requested a search from the Smithsonian Air Space archives on the NAA F-107. One of the drawings they provided was this canard layout. The drawing was not a very high quality work so I was not sure what to make of it and it had no manufacture markings on it. It sure did not look like the F-107 so I thought it must have been a mistake, someone misfiled the drawing or something like that. I'll try to dig this out of my files and get a copy of it posted.

 

[Stargazer]

Years ago I requested a search from the Smithsonian Air Space archives on the NAA F-107. One of the drawings they provided was this canard layout. The drawing was not a very high quality work so I was not sure what to make of it and it had no manufacture markings on it. It sure did not look like the F-107 so I thought it must have been a mistake, someone misfiled the drawing or something like that. I'll try to dig this out of my files and get a copy of it posted.

Please do. It may not say much but at least we may be able to tell if it looks like company artwork that might have inspired the magazine's own artist.

 

[RAP]

Dug out this drawing I obtained from the Smithsonian archives. Note it says XF-107, not YF. Don't know if it helps clear anything up but thought I'd post it.

 

[blackkite]

Hmmmm.........I believe F-107 was a fighter bomber.
Smithsonian archives :-[

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Looks like someone mixed verbal descriptions of the F-100B (F-100 development with ventral intake, later became F-107) and F-108 (canard delta) and drew the result.


Possibly, could be a genuine early F-107 study influenced by the F-108 layout.

 

[sferrin]

Looks like someone mixed verbal descriptions of the F-100B (F-100 development with ventral intake, later became F-107) and F-108 (canard delta) and drew the result.


Possibly, could be a genuine early F-107 study influenced by the F-108 layout.

I'm seeing some Vigilante in there as well.

 

[Arjen]

I'm seeing some Vigilante in there as well.

Wing planform, fin shape. Agreed.

 

[sferrin]

In fact, having looked at it a little closer, take a Vigilante, slide the wing back, fold it's tips half-way, add the intake style of the North American F-100B (YF-107 precursor), and slap a canard on it. That'd get you pretty close to what we're seeing.

 

[Johnbr]

Could not find a xf 108 post to put it sorry.

 

[pathology_doc]

I'm seeing some Vigilante in there as well.

With that canard layout I'm seeing far more Viggen than Vigilante, I have to admit. Although that's not all. Grab a Eurofighter by the nose and tail, apply a bit of stretch, and you have this.

 

[Spook]

Close up of the F-108's FCO's (Guy in Back) weapon select panel

The original pic was a bit unfocused...Found this in five so called boxes of F-108 material at Archives II. So many "this is cool, but we have decided it's classified so sucks to be you" fun defeaters...

Sir..

At first Im must Thank you for the Great Pictures that you shared with us. I know It is not a good question to ask , but i was just curious how did you get your hands on these pictures and if they are confidential, wnt be any problems facing you?

Thank you,
Regards,
AK

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The posted stuff is no longer classified - but there is still lots of F-108 stuff in the archive that is not declassified and hence cannot be shared.

 

[Spook]

Isn't it a rubbish pic of the XB-70

No, it's a top view of the ITC Model Craft "F-108 Rapier."

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/ITCF-108RAPIERPAGE.htm

May i know the Idea behind this type of testing... was it suppose to be a F-108 fast response Squd?

Thank you.

 

[AL]

I believe the booster in the ITC F-108 kit is actually the booster of the Navaho missile.

 

[Zeppelin]

http://aerocinema.com/ has a 30min video doco on the XF-108

http://aerocinema.com/product/xf-108-the-rapier.html

 

[blackstar]

Well, that's cool. But is it really a documentary or just somebody playing around with some CGI animation of the F-108? Although the clip was neat, it doesn't provide a sense of what the video actually is.

 

[Zeppelin]

Yes the Trailer seems to be all CGI. The full doco - and I'm afraid its only on joining on a subscription / member has interviews and archive footage. You could argue that it quite expensive - but there are many other 30min features on other aviation topics available not just this one. Regards

 

[Stargazer]

Methinks I've seen the first shot somewhere... : B)

 

[blackstar]

Yes the Trailer seems to be all CGI. The full doco - and I'm afraid its only on joining on a subscription / member has interviews and archive footage. You could argue that it quite expensive - but there are many other 30min features on other aviation topics available not just this one. Regards

There was an episode of a US documentary series that dealt with the F-108. I think I even have that on DVD. I vaguely remember the name as something like "Secret Planes." I'll check. That documentary would be around 42 minutes.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes the Trailer seems to be all CGI. The full doco - and I'm afraid its only on joining on a subscription / member has interviews and archive footage. You could argue that it quite expensive - but there are many other 30min features on other aviation topics available not just this one. Regards

There was an episode of a US documentary series that dealt with the F-108. I think I even have that on DVD. I vaguely remember the name as something like "Secret Planes." I'll check. That documentary would be around 42 minutes.

I would like to know more please!! Title??

Regards
Pioneer

 

[blackstar]

Yes the Trailer seems to be all CGI. The full doco - and I'm afraid its only on joining on a subscription / member has interviews and archive footage. You could argue that it quite expensive - but there are many other 30min features on other aviation topics available not just this one. Regards

There was an episode of a US documentary series that dealt with the F-108. I think I even have that on DVD. I vaguely remember the name as something like "Secret Planes." I'll check. That documentary would be around 42 minutes.

I would like to know more please!! Title??

I think it is this:

Amazon.com: Fighters : Movies & TV

Amazon.com: Fighters : Movies & TV

www.amazon.com

Secret Superpower Aircraft: Fighters

I cannot find my copy, but will look. I cannot remember if there is an entire episode on the F-108, or just one 15-minute segment. I think it is only one segment.

You can find that DVD cheaper than what Amazon has it listed for. I cannot remember where I've seen it, but it's cheap.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

More artwork courtesy of the Gerald Balzer Collection.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[blackstar]

Some screencaps from the Secret Superpower Aircraft episode on interceptors.

 

[hesham]

This is an interesting point raised by Scott Ferrin (sferrin) - the 1960 evolution of the F-108 seems to be MUCH larger, based on the size of the canopies.

My dear Paul,


I repeat displaying your drawings,but from Airpower 9/2004 magazine but with
more info and add some artist drawings from the article.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I have a few questions from which I have received one of the following: Conflicting data; data that appears ambiguous or inaccurate, data for which I am unable to find any answers.

Provided they are not classified, I'm curious if anybody has any answers to any of the following

1. Wing Thickness

• I've heard T/C ratio figures which range from between 3.0-3.5% which I've seen mentioned several times
• I have also seen a diagram which stated the T/C was 2.0 at the root, and 2.65% at the tips

I'm curious as to the correct wing-thicknes figures by the final design stage (July to September 23, 1959)

2. L/D Ratio: I don't think I have ever heard anything specific regarding the aircraft's L/D ratios at any design stage (particularly the final design stage) under any of the following conditions

• Supersonic cruise speeds @ normal cruise altitudes
• High subsonic speeds @ altitude
• Takeoff and Landing

3. Mysterious Windows: Starting in July 1958, a mockup drawing indicates a pair of circular windows located in the neck of the plane far aft of the cockpit: What is the function of these?

4. Vortex Generation: The wing's leading-edge sweep appears to be around 65-degrees according to a blueprint (which I can post if anybody here would like) at the leading edge (not the 1/4 chord) which is sufficient to generate a vortex across the leading edge; what I'm curious is whether the vortex would be reasonably stable across the outboard section which is swept around 50 degrees on the leading-edge and insufficient to generate a vortex across it: While I know aircraft can use a highly swept inboard LERX to generate a vortex which is then directed along a low-swept surface, generally these surfaces are very highly swept compared to this design. I'm curious as to whether the vortices produced by the wing can effectively cover the whole wing without vortex bursting.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Early LRI designs from earlier in topic.


The first is "Advanced Piloted Interceptor" (according to Jim Keeshan), now identified as D266 (ESO 7799)

The second is labelled "WS-202A", probably D265

NAA LRI designations known are:


D235 LRI (ESO 5189)
D??? LRI (ESO 7189) - perhaps one of these two is a typo?
D265 LRI (202A) Phase I (GO 9069)
D266 API (ESO 7799)
D271 X207 LRI [X207 = J79-X207 engine?]
NA236
NA257

 

[circle-5]

Early LRI designs from earlier in topic.

The second is labelled "WS-202A", probably D265

NAA LRI designations known are:

D235 LRI (ESO 5189)
D??? LRI (ESO 7189) - perhaps one of these two is a typo?
D265 LRI (202A) Phase I (GO 9069)
D266 API (ESO 7799)
D271 X207 LRI [X207 = J79-X207 engine?]
NA236
NA257

Looking at Bob Bradley's list, D265 is shown to be WS-118P (see attached) whereas WS-202A is listed as D264.

 

[Delta Force]

This question was asked earlier in the thread, but I don't think I saw it answered. I've read some sources that claim the F-108 was to have had provisions for the carriage of 4 x 20 mm cannons, 108 x 2.75 inch rockets, and 4,000 pounds of bombs, but they don't seem to be present in any of the illustrations or in photographs of the mockup I've seen here or elsewhere. Was this an armament proposed earlier in the design process and then dropped?

 

[J.A.W.]

Final configuration - prior to cancellation..
.. featured a proposed stowed/rotary launcher armament of 3 Hughes GAR-9 Falcon A2A guided missiles, AFAIR..

 

[Orionblamblam]

A hugenormous inboard profile of the XF-108 is available for a limited time OVER HERE, as described HERE.

 

[hesham]

From Le Fana 527.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

Does anyone know why the fuselage was sort of bent/angled up as you go towards the front? Seems that the plane would have a constant very nose high attitude even at high speed and high altitude. A bent down nose like in the Su-27 (maybe not as drastic) would seem to make more sense to me, as it would smooth out airflow and allow the radar to be pitched down more.

 

[Sundog]

Does anyone know why the fuselage was sort of bent/angled up as you go towards the front? Seems that the plane would have a constant very nose high attitude even at high speed and high altitude. A bent down nose like in the Su-27 (maybe not as drastic) would seem to make more sense to me, as it would smooth out airflow and allow the radar to be pitched down more.

You will notice many of the HSCT designs had this same feature. It minimizes wave drag. The F-108 was designed to cruise at supersonic speeds, the Su-27 wasn't, which is why it wouldn't be a good idea to angle the nose down like on the Su-27.

 

[sferrin]

Does anyone know why the fuselage was sort of bent/angled up as you go towards the front? Seems that the plane would have a constant very nose high attitude even at high speed and high altitude. A bent down nose like in the Su-27 (maybe not as drastic) would seem to make more sense to me, as it would smooth out airflow and allow the radar to be pitched down more.

You will notice many of the HSCT designs had this same feature. It minimizes wave drag. The F-108 was designed to cruise at supersonic speeds, the Su-27 wasn't, which is why it wouldn't be a good idea to angle the nose down like on the Su-27.

Often wondered the same thing about the Blackbird. If you raise the nose so the inlets are normal to the direction of flight (the orientation that would seem to make the most sense for a circular inlet) the nose would be high (more lift too).

 

[Sundog]

Does anyone know why the fuselage was sort of bent/angled up as you go towards the front? Seems that the plane would have a constant very nose high attitude even at high speed and high altitude. A bent down nose like in the Su-27 (maybe not as drastic) would seem to make more sense to me, as it would smooth out airflow and allow the radar to be pitched down more.

You will notice many of the HSCT designs had this same feature. It minimizes wave drag. The F-108 was designed to cruise at supersonic speeds, the Su-27 wasn't, which is why it wouldn't be a good idea to angle the nose down like on the Su-27.

Often wondered the same thing about the Blackbird. If you raise the nose so the inlets are normal to the direction of flight (the orientation that would seem to make the most sense for a circular inlet) the nose would be high (more lift too).

IIRC, the Blackbird originally had the fuselage and nacelles aligned and it didn't work so well, so they angled the fuselage up slightly which allowed the chines to develop more lift to control the AC shift, similar to what canards would do.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19580721/20/2