Republic XF-103 Interceptor

topspeed3 said:
MLG is behing the CG radically..how can it rotate ?

Pilot has no forward visibility ? How to land it ?
Click to expand...
Forward visibility was achieved through a retractable periscope apparatus ( I didn't include that in my model).....landing would have required so skill, for sure.
 
More from current ePay listings with $$$ starting bids
 

Attachments

  • s-l1600-23.jpg
    s-l1600-23.jpg
    586.5 KB · Views: 66
  • s-l1600-24.jpg
    s-l1600-24.jpg
    638.1 KB · Views: 62
  • s-l1600-25.jpg
    s-l1600-25.jpg
    519.3 KB · Views: 59
  • s-l1600-26.jpg
    s-l1600-26.jpg
    535.4 KB · Views: 62
  • s-l1600-27.jpg
    s-l1600-27.jpg
    601.3 KB · Views: 64
  • s-l1600-28.jpg
    s-l1600-28.jpg
    644.3 KB · Views: 72
  • s-l1600-13.jpg
    s-l1600-13.jpg
    668.3 KB · Views: 108
It's a pity the two XF-103A prototypes weren't built as NACA then NASA could've used them for research into sustained supersonic flight which would've been handy for the US's SST programme.
 
topspeed3 said:
MLG is behing the CG radically..how can it rotate ?
Click to expand...
Rotate slowly and through a small angle?

Given the positive angle of attack ground sit angle I imagine it mostly just lifts off when it hits sufficient speed.

Design very much with an emphasis on max speed rather than take-off distance
 
red admiral said:
Rotate slowly and through a small angle?

Given the positive angle of attack ground sit angle I imagine it mostly just lifts off when it hits sufficient speed.

Design very much with an emphasis on max speed rather than take-off distance
Click to expand...
Someone once said that if there were a runway that ran all the way around the world Republic would build the aircraft that would require it.
 
Pardon me, binged the whole thread.
pathology_doc said:
True. Maybe it would have been more accurate to say "A weakness of the weapon system concept is that it can too easily become a hostage to concurrent-development problems".


The other problem with an "integrated" platform is the potential for making it so integrated that future changes with demands on weight and/or space become difficult to incorporate. This is sometimes not too much of a problem with many aircraft (though it may be more of an issue with a stealth design which is obliged to carry its primary weapons suite internally), but certainly impacts on warships unless they have "space and weight reserved" considerations built in from the start (with all the effects on size, cost, etc. which those precautions entail).
Click to expand...
Case in point: F-22.



topspeed3 said:
MLG is behing the CG radically..how can it rotate ?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's all that far behind the CG. Look where the wings are on the model relative to the MLGs, not the MLGs relative to the fuselage.

Also, it was supposed to have variable-incidence wings, so it'd fly a lot like the F-8 Crusader. Minimal rotation, the plane was intended to keep that nose-high attitude regardless of what the wings were doing.


topspeed3 said:
Pilot has no forward visibility ? How to land it ?
Click to expand...
A big periscope system.


Sferrin said:
Someone once said that if there were a runway that ran all the way around the world Republic would build the aircraft that would require it.
Click to expand...
Yep. And I ran across a book by a Thunderchief pilot who suggested giving any Republic pilot a chunk of concrete on a string to tell the plane it had run out of runway and would then take off.
 
Sferrin said:
Someone once said that if there were a runway that ran all the way around the world Republic would build the aircraft that would require it.
Click to expand...

Well, Republic already had the "Groundhog", "Superhog" and the "Ultrahog";):D.

On another note does anyone know if Revell or any other kitset model companies had produced a scale-model of the XF-103A?
 
NMaude said:
On another note does anyone know if Revell or any other kitset model companies had produced a scale-model of the XF-103A?
Click to expand...
- Ken Rymal produced a "garage model" vacu-form model of the F-103 in 1/72nd scale in the 1980s under the "KR Models" brand
- Anigrand has produced a resin model of the F-103 which is intermittently available on eBay.
- Collect-aire Models may have done one in 1/48th scale resin.
- There have been solid resin "garage kits" floating around in 1/48th.
 
aim9xray said:
- Ken Rymal produced a "garage model" vacu-form model of the F-103 in 1/72nd scale in the 1980s under the "KR Models" brand
Click to expand...
I have a KR kit of the XF-109 (for sale if anyone wants it...). Lets just say it lays the foundation for a model rather than actually being a model kit. For self-flagellating nihilists only.
aim9xray said:
- Anigrand has produced a resin model of the F-103 which is intermittently available on eBay.
Click to expand...
Anigrand are back up and operating again, so their kit is likely available direct. I have one, it looks to be quite well cast, and would build up into a nice depiction of the real (imagined?) thing.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Case in point: F-22.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The F-22's problem is that its raison d'etre is stealth, which means that hanging stuff off the wings (outside of certain peculiar circumstaces) is a no-go even if you had ten pylons each rated for 50,000lb at 12G and the aircraft could somehow lift it all.

The best "old school" comparisons to the F-22 are the F-102 and F-106, conceptually identical aircraft* likewise bound to a particular weapon (AIM-4) by the shape and size of their internal bays. The difference with the Deuce and Six, though, is that any hypothetical attempt to develop them in the ground-attack role (say, in the early 1960s) would not have been shy of hanging stuff off the wings.



* Yes, I know there are huge differences between them; but given that the Six was originally going to be called the F-102B, the basic outlines of the aircraft - a single-engined, single-seat interceptor with a sophisticated fire-control system and internal missile armament - are the same. The differences are probably on the same scale as the Supermarine Spiteful when compared to a late Merlin Spitfire.
 
pathology_doc said:
Yes and no. The F-22's problem is that its raison d'etre is stealth, which means that hanging stuff off the wings (outside of certain peculiar circumstaces) is a no-go even if you had ten pylons each rated for 50,000lb at 12G and the aircraft could somehow lift it all.
Click to expand...
Those bays are still limited in depth and length. They do not have enough space for SiAW or AARGM-ER. (or for a 2000lb JDAM, but we have the F-35 for that)

The F-22 cannot load any AAM larger than AMRAAM, and the side bays cannot even load an AMRAAM.
 
aim9xray said:
- Ken Rymal produced a "garage model" vacu-form model of the F-103 in 1/72nd scale in the 1980s under the "KR Models" brand
- Anigrand has produced a resin model of the F-103 which is intermittently available on eBay.
- Collect-aire Models may have done one in 1/48th scale resin.
- There have been solid resin "garage kits" floating around in 1/48th.
Click to expand...
NMaude said:
On another note does anyone know if Revell or any other kitset model companies had produced a scale-model of the XF-103A?
Click to expand...

There is also this,

XF-103 High-Speed Interceptor Plane, Beaver Corporation BELK144004 (2021)

Beaver Corporation model kit in scale 1:144, BELK144004 is a NEW tool released in 2021 | Contents, Previews, Reviews, History + Marketplace | Republic XF-103 Thunderwarrior | EAN: 4589913367463
www.scalemates.com

XF-103 Prototype High-Speed Interceptor (Early) | HLJ.com

Beaver Corporation brings us a well-detailed kit of the XF-103! The XF-103 was a high-speed interceptor aircraft developed for the U.S. Air Force. It was intended to reach speeds as high as Mach 3.7, but the plan was canceled after the mockup was completed.This kit was made with 3D printing...
www.hlj.com www.hlj.com

kampfgruppe144.blogspot.com

1/144 XF-103 High-Speed Interceptor Plane Early Version 1954 - Beaver Corporation

1/144 XF-103 High-Speed Interceptor Plane Early Version 1954 - Beaver Corporation This is a Beaver Corporation / Foxone Collaboration, fol...
kampfgruppe144.blogspot.com kampfgruppe144.blogspot.com
 
Scott Kenny said:
Those bays are still limited in depth and length. They do not have enough space for SiAW or AARGM-ER. (or for a 2000lb JDAM, but we have the F-35 for that)

The F-22 cannot load any AAM larger than AMRAAM, and the side bays cannot even load an AMRAAM.
Click to expand...
We're more or less on the same wavelength here. My point was that if in 1960 the USAF or some external customer had pointed to the Deuce or Six and said "We want the capacity for four Sparrows or six thousand pounds of bombs on this thing and then we'll double the purchase" and Convair had come back and said "OK, they won't fit in the bays but we can fit wing racks to take it so long as you can cope with the performance loss" and the USAF had replied "Yeah, fine, do it", it would have been done.

But nobody wants to hang external weapons on the F-22, so things are as you have said.
 
pathology_doc said:
We're more or less on the same wavelength here. My point was that if in 1960 the USAF or some external customer had pointed to the Deuce or Six and said "We want the capacity for four Sparrows or six thousand pounds of bombs on this thing and then we'll double the purchase" and Convair had come back and said "OK, they won't fit in the bays but we can fit wing racks to take it so long as you can cope with the performance loss" and the USAF had replied "Yeah, fine, do it", it would have been done.

But nobody wants to hang external weapons on the F-22, so things are as you have said.
Click to expand...
Wut?
 

Attachments

  • F-22_fuel_tanks-1280x720.jpg
    F-22_fuel_tanks-1280x720.jpg
    105 KB · Views: 72
  • dwqjmbajhnz71.jpg
    dwqjmbajhnz71.jpg
    86.8 KB · Views: 58
  • NEW_F22_illustration.jpg
    NEW_F22_illustration.jpg
    249.8 KB · Views: 72
pathology_doc said:
We're more or less on the same wavelength here. My point was that if in 1960 the USAF or some external customer had pointed to the Deuce or Six and said "We want the capacity for four Sparrows or six thousand pounds of bombs on this thing and then we'll double the purchase" and Convair had come back and said "OK, they won't fit in the bays but we can fit wing racks to take it so long as you can cope with the performance loss" and the USAF had replied "Yeah, fine, do it", it would have been done.

But nobody wants to hang external weapons on the F-22, so things are as you have said.
Click to expand...
They literally pitched that to Japan, it's in the F-106 thread. Four wing hardpoints (1/4 3000lbs, 2/3 2000lbs) and sidewinder integration. I think napkin math you could get 10-12,000lbs of bombs that way.

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom