Fairchild FX fighter project (rival to the McDonnell-Douglas F-15)

Steve Pace said:
Michel Van said:
I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?
Click to expand...
Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP
Click to expand...
And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Steve Pace said:
Michel Van said:
I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?
Click to expand...
Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP
Click to expand...
And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
taildragger said:
Pioneer said:
Steve Pace said:
Michel Van said:
I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?
Click to expand...
Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP
Click to expand...
And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.
Click to expand...
The scoring results are somewhere in the McDonnell Douglas FX thread - they had the edge on the Fairchild bit on purely technical grounds, but not decisively so. It was on the industrial assessment that their bid pulled clear.

From memory, the North American Rockwell bid fell short of the McDonnell Douglas and Fairchild bids on technical grounds, but was comparable to Fairchild on industrial merit.
 
AFAIK one of the key factor in the T-46 demise and Republic going under, was they had become atrociously bad at quality control. The T-46 was a good aircraft but they found quality issues all over the place. Now had they build F-15s... imagine the chaos. Would make early F-35 production in the late 2000's - early 2010's looks flawless.
 
taildragger said:
Pioneer said:
Steve Pace said:
Michel Van said:
I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?
Click to expand...
Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP
Click to expand...
And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.
Click to expand...

They did get the Harrier and Hornet work.
 
sferrin said:
taildragger said:
Pioneer said:
Steve Pace said:
Michel Van said:
I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?
Click to expand...
Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP
Click to expand...
And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.
Click to expand...

They did get the Harrier and Hornet work.
Click to expand...
I think that the Harrier and Hornet work came a few years later.
 
taildragger said:
sferrin said:
taildragger said:
Pioneer said:
Steve Pace said:
Michel Van said:
I have a question: Why has the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) F-15 lost against McDonnell Douglas F-15 ?
Click to expand...
Because the latter was better than the former according to the USAF, TAC (now ACC) and DoD. -SP
Click to expand...
And I think McDD's design was deemed less risky.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Political and industrial base considerations also enter into this type of selection. I assume that the Fairchild-Hiller (Republic) aircraft would have been assembled on Long Island, NY, just down the road from Grumman who was hard at work on the F-14. McDonnell, the only airframer left in the midwest, in St. Louis didn't have much to do outside of the F-4 program, which would be winding down as the F-15 was introduced.
Click to expand...

They did get the Harrier and Hornet work.
Click to expand...
I think that the Harrier and Hornet work came a few years later.
Click to expand...
1st Flight Dates:

F-15 - July 27, 1972

F-18 - November 18, 1978

YAV-8B - November 9, 1978

No aircract manufacturer could sit around for 6+ years waiting for the possible next production program. The record of the F-15 speaks volumes for the correctness of the selection process.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • f-15-1.jpg
    f-15-1.jpg
    231.3 KB · Views: 385
  • f-15-2.jpg
    f-15-2.jpg
    190.1 KB · Views: 236
  • f-15-3.jpg
    f-15-3.jpg
    133.2 KB · Views: 251
  • f-15-4.jpg
    f-15-4.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 249
  • f-15-5.jpg
    f-15-5.jpg
    144.9 KB · Views: 264
  • f-15-6.jpg
    f-15-6.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 279
  • f-15-7.jpg
    f-15-7.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 301
  • f-15-8.jpg
    f-15-8.jpg
    79 KB · Views: 299
  • f-15-9.jpg
    f-15-9.jpg
    53.9 KB · Views: 290
  • f-15-10.jpg
    f-15-10.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 286
  • f-15-11.jpg
    f-15-11.jpg
    185.6 KB · Views: 362
Last edited:

Attachments

  • default.jpg
    default.jpg
    500.3 KB · Views: 377
"Reminds me irresistibly of a cross between the Su-27..."
Thank you for nailing my 'deja vu'. Also, a whiff of 'Hustler' ??
Hmm: Twin tails would certainly help with an 'engine out'. But so would any thrust vectoring ?
 
Fairchild did a terrible job of weight control on the T-46. Does make me wonder how the Fairchild F-15 would have fared.
 
Nik said:
"Reminds me irresistibly of a cross between the Su-27..."
Thank you for nailing my 'deja vu'. Also, a whiff of 'Hustler' ??
Hmm: Twin tails would certainly help with an 'engine out'. But so would any thrust vectoring ?
Click to expand...
I think it looks more like an F105 with two podded engines (the forward fuselage is very F-105) which it kind of is since its an outgrowth of studies to improve survivability with two widely separated engines. It's a bit early for TVC though.
 
There's a little bit about the Fairchild (Republic) XF-15 proposal in the latest Air-Britain Aviation World (Summer 2022). It's talked about in the last segment of the Republic story.
 
The article was divided into 8 segments (printed over 8 issues), starting with Seversky. This was the last segment and it was all written by Graham Salt. In this last segment, there's a little bit about the swing-wing V/STOL too. Quite a bit about the A-10 and the T-46 (plus a bit about the 62% scale demonstrator)
 
kitnut617 said:
The article was divided into 8 segments (printed over 8 issues), starting with Seversky. This was the last segment and it was all written by Graham Salt. In this last segment, there's a little bit about the swing-wing V/STOL too. Quite a bit about the A-10 and the T-46 (plus a bit about the 62% scale demonstrator)
Click to expand...

Please dear Kinut,can you display them,if that possible.
 
The FX section of that article is two and a half short paragraphs. A vague description;
a twin-engined fighter with a fixed, cranked wing, and a single fin/rudder. The wide spacing of the two Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofans offered aerodynamic and drag advantages, as well as structural weight saving, enhanced fuel capacity, and better survivability in a hostile combat situation.
Click to expand...

It sums up;
In spite of Republic offering a credible design, capable of providing a first class air combat fighter, the award of the contract from the USAF went to McDonnell Douglas, and this ultimately resulted in the highly successful F-15C/D Eagle, and later F-15E Strike Eagle designs.
Republic was aware that opportunities to particulate in programmes like the F-15 were rare and infrequent, and it had made an intensive effort to secure a contract. Whatever the relative merits of its, and McDonnell Douglas's designs, no doubt many other factors came into play, not least the US Government's need to spread the work around. the award to Grumman for the new F-14 Tomcat to produced just a few miles up the road at Bethpage, NY, may have possibly worked against Republic at Farmingdale, and in favour of McDonnell Douglas.
Click to expand...

The image provided is the same as the third picture of Post #1 of this thread but with a blue tinted background.

The article makes a one-line reference to FH-V1 and FH-V2 and the Republic/EWR project is afforded a slightly longer section than FX.
 
Looks like Hood has covered it, but I did say there was a 'little' bit about it. I thought the images were interesting but I didn't notice that one was the same already posted. The image of the V/STOL is a 3/4 top view showing the above fuselage intakes, and there's an image of the F-15 proposal which looks like what's in the video in post #94
 
Does anybody know the distance between the engine pods on this plane? Because they look a lot further apart then even the f-14's did, but that might just be artistic distortion.
 
Cjc said:
Does anybody know the distance between the engine pods on this plane? Because they look a lot further apart then even the f-14's did, but that might just be artistic distortion.
Click to expand...
There is a suze break down as the fifth image in this thread.

It says 13 feet between the engines centerlines.
 
sferrin said:
I wonder how well it and the NAA design would have handled high AOA with their single tails. (Then again the F-16 seems to do okay without the need for high AOA excursions so who knows?) Personally, my favorite of the three was the NAA design with Republics a close second. Thing is, NAA would have probably run into the same issues Sukhoi did with the gothic wing, and the box-like fuselage of McDD's design came in pretty handy when the CFTs came along.
Click to expand...
The F-16's flight control software enforces the aircraft's limited AoA range, which probably doesn't matter that much: it's likely the most maneuverable aircraft of its generation.
 
1635yankee said:
sferrin said:
I wonder how well it and the NAA design would have handled high AOA with their single tails. (Then again the F-16 seems to do okay without the need for high AOA excursions so who knows?) Personally, my favorite of the three was the NAA design with Republics a close second. Thing is, NAA would have probably run into the same issues Sukhoi did with the gothic wing, and the box-like fuselage of McDD's design came in pretty handy when the CFTs came along.
Click to expand...
The F-16's flight control software enforces the aircraft's limited AoA range, which probably doesn't matter that much: it's likely the most maneuverable aircraft of its generation.
Click to expand...
Probably depends on how you measure it. The YF-17 could do a Pugachev's Cobra.

SAAB_35_Draken_performing_the_Cobra_maneuver.gif
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Any US members fancy a trip to NASM in Washington?


[Box 178]
Folder 2 Fairchild Hiller Republic Aircraft Division F-X Phase 1B/C Technical Resources, October 18, 1968

[Box 189]
Folder 6 Fairchild F-15 brochures

[Box 381]
Folder 8 F-15 pamphlets

[Box 386]
Folder 9 ...and F-15 General Arrangement

[Box 396]
Folder 1 F-15, Air Superiority Fighter pamphlet, advertisements, brochures, photographs and
stickers, 1969
Folder 2 F-15 dismantling, September 1970, photographs
Folder 3 F-15 Design Team, biographical sketches and photographs
Folder 4 F-15 articles
Folder 5 United States Air Force, information on the F-15, February – November, 1969
Folder 6 F-15 contract awarded to McDonnell Douglas, December 23, 1969, statements and
articles
Folder 7 F-15 articles, 1969-1970

[Box 569]
Folder 12 F-15, promotional brochures

[Box 579]
Folder 19 F-15, advertisement order, June 18, 1969, “Happiness is the F-15”

[Box 588]
Folder 7 Fairchild Hiller and F-15, bumper stickers and correspondence
Click to expand...
Has anyone scanned the F-15 General Arrangement from Box 386, Folder 9?
 
Found this brochure. Does anyone have a higher resolution version?
 

Attachments

  • 1_1b42fa65606697e01da50b2274c966e1.jpg
    1_1b42fa65606697e01da50b2274c966e1.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 104
Pioneer said:
Great find!!!

I have always loved Fairchild FX (F-15) ever since I first saw it in the book 'The Thunder Factory'.
Was the 'Thunder' the official name for the design (as portrayed in this picture!)
I look forward to a colour version of this picture and I salute the man who finds it!!!


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
I think it's just that everything Republic made was a thunder-something. Thunderbolt, Thunderjet, Thunderchief, Thunderbolt II...
 
ScrutorAudax said:
www.worthpoint.com

1971 Fairchild Hiller News Republic Aviation A-10 F-15 | #26944350

This auction is for 2 orig 1969 and 1971 Fairchild Hiller News... Republic Aviation Vol 8, No1 January 1971....Fairchild Hiller News.....2 page foldout... all about the contract to build the A-10 ...a
www.worthpoint.com www.worthpoint.com
Click to expand...

This auction is for 2 orig 1969 and 1971 Fairchild Hiller News... Republic Aviation Vol 8, No1 January 1971....Fairchild Hiller News.....2 page foldout... all about the contract to build the A-10 ...also F-105 photo.. and SST..... Vol6, No 12 Dec 1969...Fairchild Hiller News... all about F-15 proposal against the MacDonald Douglas aircraft..
Click to expand...

Its not a brochure, but in in-house news publication. In Dec 1969, technical details would have secret, but it might include some salient information like who worked on it.

Found some copies online in seconds.
 
Fairchild Wins Award for Next Phase of F-15

Fairchild Hiller has been chosen as one of three companies to receive $9.6-million contracts to proceed into the next phase of contract definition
of the U.S. Air Force F-15. The two other companies are McDonnell-Douglas and North American Rockwell. A runoff for the 1200-plane, $8-billion program is expected to continue till next fall.

The Air Force described the F-15, which will replace the present F-4 series, as a highly maneuverable, single-place, twin-engine jet that is expected to become operational in the mid-1970s.

Dedication Praised

Commenting on the award, Donald J. Strait, Vice President and General Manager at Republic Aviation Division where the previous work was performed, said: “I want to compliment Dr. Norman Grossman and his team of dedicated and professional people for an outstanding effort which enabled us to wrin this award. The companies involved in the F-15 race are as tough as they come and it is to our credit that we won a CDP. “Now we have six months to prove we can do it again and win the final award.”

Will Have Missiles

The F-15 tactical fighter will be armed with a mix of air-to-air weapons, including short range missiles, to ensure air superiority at low and medium altitudes. Formerly designated the FX, it will carry four AIM-7F radar-guided Sparrow missiles and an internal cannon. It is also expected to carry the AIM-82 short-range missile, designed as a “dogfight” weapon, capable of withstanding high g-loads and striking sharply maneuvering targets at ranges under two miles.

The F-15 will be powered by 22,800-pound thrust turbofan engines with afterburner which are being developed competitively by General Electric and .
Pratt & Whitney. The engines are to have an extremely high thrust-to-weight ratio, possibly as much as 8.3 at sea level.

Capabilities Described

The aircraft, according to Aviation Week, is to have a range in its air-superiority role of 260 nautical miles. For point intercept, the range will shrink to 215 nautical miles. In a high-low-high profile, range is expected to be 600 miles and for ferrying, it. can be stretched to 2600 miles.

The publication said that the design aim is a maximum continuous speed at altitude of Mach 2.3, with Mach 2.5 in bursts. On-the-deck maximum velocity will be about Mach 1.2.

Charles Collis , Fairchild Hiller Executive Vice President, said -that the company is “trying to make the F-15 a pilot’s aircraft. We are trying to optimize the relationship of man and aircraft more than has ever been achieved before.”

F-105 Experience Helpful

Mr. Collis said that the expenence gained by the Company's F-105 Thunderchief in Vietnam has enabled Fairchild engineers to design increased survivability into the F-15.

Heading the company’s design efforts has been Dr. Norman Grossman recently named Vice President and Manager of the F-15 project. Dr. Grossman has worked closely with the Air Force in bringing important advances to the F-105 and has more than 20 years experience in advanced fighter design.
Click to expand...
Fairchild Hiller News Jan 1969

 

Attachments

  • Fairchild Hiller News, Page1, 1969-01-01.pdf
    264.5 KB · Views: 25
  • Fairchild Hiller News, Page3, 1969-01-01.pdf
    301.5 KB · Views: 16
  • Fairchild Hiller News, Page4, 1969-01-01.pdf
    284.1 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom