General Dynamics F-111

[flateric]

This is a pair of lithograph prints of the F-111 by the artist Robert McCall.

In early 1964, prior to the introduction, General Dynamics commissioned Robert McCall to paint two pictures of the F-111 in the Navy and Air Force colors.

This pair was presented by the GD President Frank Davis to all the employees on November 16, 1964 as explained by the original letter. Along with the prints and presentation letter was a fact sheet about the F-111 and the original post marked envelope.

 

[Pioneer]

Great find!
Great works of art.

I do not know if it is just me – but in the Air Force painting, it appears that the aircraft are carrying out ‘rough field’ operations (non-sealed runways).

I know the F-111 was supposedly designed for this type of operations – hence the large tires and bulky landing gear of the F-111 (may I add, which I have never liked, due to the space they take up in the lower fuselage, which I personally believe should have held weapons!!).
Does anyone know if the F-111 was ever trialed on rough field runways???
And if so are there any photos of them doing so???????

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

G'day all

I'm after the forums consensus as to the principle reason for the General Dynamics F-111 size and weight please.
Was it principly attributed to the USAF or USN's doing/requirements?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[TomS]

The Air Force requirements for range, payload, and supersonic dash drove TFX to quite a large size even before the Navy was involved.

 

[Dynoman]

Yes the AF influence was significant, but they made every effort to keep the weight down. In McNamara: His Ordeal in the Pentagon (Harper & Row, 1971) suggests that General Everest did not want an aircraft that was 70,000 lbs and would not agree to it (as the mission drivers were ramping up the weight). He later accepted a 60,000 gross weight in order to comply with the lo-lo-hi penetration profile.

TFX (originally a USAF program known as Future Tactical Strike Fighter (FTSF) in 1960, later with the omission of the word Strike, to become Tactical Fighter Experimental, probably to be more politically correct, because its primary design had to include internal nuclear weapons for a deep strike role) emanated from a USAF Special Operational Requirement (SOR) 183 document. It just so happened that the Navy had a program known as the Fleet Air Defense Fighter, which evolved into the Douglas F6D Missileer program, however the Douglas centered design was subsonic and the Navy Secretary could not accept this concept.

It was then that McNamara came in and combined the two programs under TFX. There really were two different sets of requirements, i.e. a USAF Strike/Bomber and Navy Fighter-Attack. General Dynamics, whose bid came in higher than its competitors, won because its design provided a higher percentage of commonality. So, from the start McNamara's TFX was a compromise. The weight drivers were range and armament requirements, and the weight escalated with the variable geometry structure and the ejectable capsule system. There was no requirement for specific excess power, which would have driven a fighter design.

The shape of the aircraft was originally devised by NACA Langley engineers who were experimenting with Barnes Wallis of Vickers, variable geometry wings. They worked with General Everest to create the basic configuration of the FTSF. All of the six entrants in the TFX were VG designs.

 

[TomS]

Everett may have wanted to keep weight down, but the SOR 183 requirements, even without Navy input, were pointing to a >70,000-lb aircraft, which is where the F-111 ended up.

 

[martinbayer]

I recommend this source: http://www.ocw.nur.ac.rw/NR/rdonlyres/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-885JFall2003/DF2C5D8A-02C4-44D1-9825-4E288870125D/0/f_111_final_a_1_41.pdf

Martin

 

[Pioneer]

Wow, great document, thank you martinbayer


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

G'day all

Im looking for information/article on the cost mitigation of the troubled Australian purchase of the F-111 in the 60's, where the American's promised/proposed a cost reduction/mitagation on the Australian F-111's, if they committed a third combat Battalion to the Viet Nam War! I'm adimit it came to light in the last few years with the release of Federal government history information.....

I had, I've seen it, but frustratingly for the life of me I can't find it!

If anyone has a copy of this information it would be greatly appreciated.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[FFX]

I recommend this source: http://www.ocw.nur.ac.rw/NR/rdonlyr...D1-9825-4E288870125D/0/f_111_final_a_1_41.pdf

Martin

Uh...can't find this site. :（

 

[Hicks]

PDF seem to be available on Scribd.
https://www.scribd.com/document/341883184/f-111-final-a-1-41

 

[Forest Green]

Flying the Iconic Swing-Wing F-111 Aardvark at the Height of the Cold War

Swing-wings, blistering fast down low, and super temperamental. What’s not to love?

www.thedrive.com

The Vark's big strength was that it was fast as hell. I routinely cruised at .95 mach in military power (full throttle with no afterburner augmentation) while on the deck. The F model was nearly super cruise-capable. I saw 1.1 mach on the deck in a D model, and I knew guys who had the F model up to 1.4 mach on the deck! It held enough gas to do it for a while, too. Not many planes could keep up.

 

[Flyaway]

Was it just down to cost that it didn’t get sold to many countries?

 

[Forest Green]

Was it just down to cost that it didn’t get sold to many countries?

It didn't have the broad applicability that many countries look for when they buy fighters. Most countries can't afford dedicated fighter bombers, they need multi-role aircraft, or at least fighters that can do a bit of A2G too. This is likely why the F-15E had some success where the F-111 did not.

 

[zjz]

F-111 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY

http://www.afit.edu/docs/0930AFIT14ENV125%202-2.pdf

 

[Cjc]

Everett may have wanted to keep weight down, but the SOR 183 requirements, even without Navy input, were pointing to a >70,000-lb aircraft, which is where the F-111 ended up.

Honestly sor 183 is disturbingly similar to the the requirement number ( I forgot it) that lead to the tsr 2, only difference was that the usaf was asking for even more range. But the payload and speed requirements were practically identical.

 

[Unstart]

Couple interesting links in this article, claiming the F-111 was capable of ~Mach 3; https://www.twz.com/air/the-f-111-was-faster-than-you-thought

https://hushkit.net/2021/06/27/flyi...-aardvark-weapon-system-officer-jim-rotramel/

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiS13MVMWtA&t=3336s
(should go to about 55:36 in)

 

[GTX]

I heard similar about the F-111 decades ago while working with someone who was involved with TF30-P-108 engine development for the RAAF ones. His stories almost identically match the claims made in the TWZ article including the paint damage etc. He also claimed they were able to go supersonic with one engine turned off.

 

[sferrin]

Back in the day, on rec.aviation.military (USENET), saw one pilot who claimed to have got a clean F-111F up to Mach 2.8 briefly.

 

[Kiltonge]

Fully-swept the F-111 has a Mach cone angle of 14 degrees, which gives it aerodynamic leeway up to Mach 4. So it would indeed be limited by material, engine inlet flow and thrust before aerodynamics.

For comparison:
F-15 24.3 deg for Mach 2.43
F-14 19.5 deg for Mach 2.99
F-18 31.1 deg for Mach 1.94