Northrop F-5G / F-20 Tigershark

[R_K_M]

How exactly did Northrop manage to fit in an engine an entire meter longer in essentially the same airframe?

 

[Scott Kenny]

How exactly did Northrop manage to fit in an engine an entire meter longer in essentially the same airframe?

They hung most of it out the back.

 

[perttime]

The F-20 afterburner does extend further back than the ones on F-5. Also, the rear fuselage must have a lot of redesign when you replace two small engines with one larger engine.

 

[okakac]

I remember reading a phrase a while back on adding a missile to another aircraft, cant remember offhand which and which but it went 'it was like adding an anchor to the aircraft'.......this could apply here.

Basically off-topic, but a good excuse as any to post this image l had not seen before. There was a Naval F-5A or something similar that would have been a contemporary to Hunters and it is possible Sparrows were tested "on paper"...



From:

The F-5G / F-20 Tigershark; Northrop’s Bane - Forgotten Aircraft - Military Matters

Northrop's F-20 Tigershark was an aircraft that seemed to offer everything that a customer could want. So what went wrong?

militarymatters.online

 

[DesScorp]

Basically off-topic, but a good excuse as any to post this image l had not seen before. There was a Naval F-5A or something similar that would have been a contemporary to Hunters and it is possible Sparrows were tested "on paper"...

View attachment 736474

From:

The F-5G / F-20 Tigershark; Northrop’s Bane - Forgotten Aircraft - Military Matters

Northrop's F-20 Tigershark was an aircraft that seemed to offer everything that a customer could want. So what went wrong?

militarymatters.online

"What went wrong" was essentially the US Air Force saw the Tigershark as a threat to F-16 production, and lobbied heavily against it wherever it was being offered, including foreign markets, even when directed by Congress to support the FX program. The more F-16's being produced, the lower the per-unit purchase price for USAF. I remember reading in the press back in the 80's about Northrop's frustration; whenever they'd go to a foreign buyer to show off the F-20, DoD, on behalf of USAF, would essentially tell them "Hey, you should buy F-16's. It's what we use". And foreign customers wanted what US forces were using. The answer to everything other than high end air superiority was some flavor F-16.

 

[okakac]

Let Sir William explain what went wrong.



Uhm, yeah, the necessary translation. F-5A carried as heavy a weaponload as an F-100 in the 1974 operation over a much shorter range, could not fight off RAF Lightnings in the same, produced poorer reconnaisance pictures compared to RF-84F in the same. This is exactly why the F-5E was long desired as the plane for license production because the Europeans with F-16s and Tornadoes would have no manhood issues. That's why the licence ended up in South Korea. Sir William in some other book insists the Turkish Army was to receive MD500s(?) with TOW missiles in '82; also South Korea. Something about being close allies, in case you wonder. The F-16 question would soon be solved, with assistance to Iran being rather more effective than what was going to turn into the Contra affair. C/Ds, co-production, with engine factory. USAF would otherwise stick to Block 25s. "Second order after Israel" but ours was in the pipeline since...

That's why referrals to how the South Koreans are still limited in exports because US content are basically ... If one does not like Turkish things, one should really avoid putting one's head in a vice. For those who need a translation that's something about the war within the former USSR borders where sides are forced to offer advantages. Please, go easy with advice on how some non-Americans can not do proper engineering.

People were paying a million dollars each or more for those F-104s. Under creative finance, some building up stocks, some to stop a faster F-5. Was never Taiwanese, if you are dying to ask.