• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

General Dynamics F-111 Projects

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
7
Hot Breath said:
I understand that the F-111D was able to use Sparrow missiles. Is this correct? What was the thinking behind that? Did they ever use them operationally?
I believe the F-111D's radar/fire control was intended to have the capability to guide AIM-7. The thinking was, "Hey, it's a Fighter, isn't it"? :) Plus, the F-111 was supposed to be all things to all people. I know of no case where a Sparrow was fired at anyone "in anger", and I'm not sure if one was fired at all. I believe the capability was eventually deleted from the Ds and wasn't ever integrated on the Es and Fs. Perhaps some else knows more.
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
44
A tandem-seat variant of the General Dynamics F-111B, proposed to the U.S. Navy.

(courtesy Sir George Cox Collection)
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
144
And clearly recognisable as a F-111B variant ! Thank you!
I've added the "Tandem F111: Anyone know more?" thread" here,
think, it needs no thread on its own.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
144
Assuming that the fuselage after the cockpit section wasn't changed, the tandem seating variant
would have had quite roomy and comfortable cockpits, I think, at least compared to other contemporary
aircraft.
 

Attachments

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
0
I enjoyed a good nosey around the Evans Head ( NSW Australia) F-111 Museum machine today,
& a quite impressively large & shapely aircraft it is, with numerous sophistications which only reveal themselves up-close..
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
JohnR said:
Just out of interest did any countries other than us (UK) and Australia evaluate or consider the F111?
A good question. I'm surprised no one has answered it. I'd be interested to find out as well. Surely it would have been attractive to other nations? UK chose it as a consolation prize for the cancellation of TSR.2. Australia chose it as a deterrence to Indonesian Tu-16s.
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
44
General Dynamics F-111 V/STOL variants. My favorite ones have the 10 thrust-vectoring lift jets in twin rotating pylons on the VG wing...
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
144
Almost hard to believe, that it was something else, than an attempt to show the impracticability
of such a design. Or were those pods intended as a "strap-on" solution for short range missions ?
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,764
Reaction score
805
Oh my God,my dear Circle-5,you made my day.
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
44
I just noticed Configuration 3, where the 10 thrust-vectoring lift engines in the swiveling pods on the swiveling wings also swivel back 90 deg. individually into each pod, to reduce drag. And I thought the Republic AVS was over the top...
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
144
In a classic case of perfect teamwork, circle-5, aim9xray and me corrected my first drawing of the
tandem seated F-111B. My assumption, that the rear/center fuselage would have remained unaltered
was wrong, indeed changes incorporated into this design were considerable. Using the additional
material and good advise provided by those SPF members, the drawing should now stand up to
closer comparison with the model.
Many thanks indeed for the excellent support !
 

Attachments

allysonca

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
168
Reaction score
136
Being the original poster and owner of the model I'd say that you had this one spot on. Great job. As I said earlier.... had this model been larger it would have remained in my collection as it was a stunning example of what the F-111B should have been.
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
44
Thank you Jens -- you deserve all the credit.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
General Dynamics F-111K concept photo and press release found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Royal-Air-Force-General-Dynamics-F-111E-artists-concept-official-photo-1968-/390882670396?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5b026c373c
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
144
allysonca said:
... a stunning example of what the F-111B should have been.
... and if, without doubt the F-14 would have remained a What-If and the mount of the
VFA-103 "Jolly Rogers" maybe would have looked like this:
 

Attachments

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,122
Reaction score
97
Nice picture, Jembia,
but "proposal" is only written with two "p", one in the middle and one at the beginning. :p ;)
Not like Pfeiffer with three "f"... ;D
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
7
Jemiba said:
allysonca said:
... a stunning example of what the F-111B should have been.
... and if, without doubt the F-14 would have remained a What-If and the mount of the
VFA-103 "Jolly Rogers" maybe would have looked like this:

Hmmm,... maybe not. it still wouldn't have had the maneuverability, the flexibility (among other things, with the gear placed where it was, under fuselage weapons carrying capability would not be that good), wouldn't be designed to easily accommodate higher thrust engines, would not have the high AoA performance, etc. just by changing the seating.

By the time the VFX competition was in full swing the Navy's view of what was requierd for its next fighter had evolved. For example, Air superiority was the most important role, whereas in the design of the F-111, that was not even a major consideration.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
144
fightingirish said:
Not like Pfeiffer with three "f"... ;D
That's good indeed, haven't seen that movie for a long time ! ;D And thanks for the clue
and the correction, Rolf and John.
Another error I just came across, is the squadron badge with that fat cat. If the F-111B would
have taken the place of the F-14 (and I fully agree with F-14D about its shorcomings and that
probably only severe political pressure could have led to it), it certainly wouldn't have carried
a typical Grumman "Cat" name.
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
5
What was the exact first flight date of the prototype FB-111A. I've seen 30 July 1967 and 31 July 1967 - which date is the correct date? -SP
 

Ardavan.K

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
148
Reaction score
2
circle-5 said:
General Dynamics F-111 V/STOL variants.
WOW !! ... This is amazing ... Thanks a lot for sharing it. ;D ... When these configurations were studied if I may ask?! ::)
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
558
Reaction score
61
circle-5 said:
General Dynamics F-111 V/STOL variants. My favorite ones have the 10 thrust-vectoring lift jets in twin rotating pylons on the VG wing...
Interesting to compare the design in the lower right hand corner to the AVS concept: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,452.0/all.html

Martin
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
44
General Dynamics manufacturer's proposal model of the F-111/SAC (from ~1965). This was a modified variant of the F-111/ADC. The F-111/SAC was developed for the Strategic Air Command well prior to the FB-111H (which was proposed as a B-1 substitute). I have no evidence the FB-111H was a direct development of the F-111/SAC, but it is a reasonable assumption, as both variants appear to have the same general "stretch" areas, when compared to the F-111A.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
circle-5 said:
General Dynamics manufacturer's proposal model of the F-111/SAC (from ~1965). This was a modified variant of the F-111/ADC. The F-111/SAC was developed for the Strategic Air Command well prior to the FB-111H (which was proposed as a B-1 substitute). I have no evidence the FB-111H was a direct development of the F-111/SAC, but it is a reasonable assumption, as both variants appear to have the same general "stretch" areas, when compared to the F-111A.
Along those lines, there were TF-30 variants up to 30,000lb thrust proposed. (Which would get you to F101 levels, though I doubt they would have been as efficient.)
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,689
Reaction score
217
circle-5 said:
General Dynamics manufacturer's proposal model of the F-111/SAC (from ~1965). This was a modified variant of the F-111/ADC. The F-111/SAC was developed for the Strategic Air Command well prior to the FB-111H (which was proposed as a B-1 substitute). I have no evidence the FB-111H was a direct development of the F-111/SAC, but it is a reasonable assumption, as both variants appear to have the same general "stretch" areas, when compared to the F-111A.
Amazing find!!!
I think that FB-111H wing sweep back angle and air intake shape are litttle different from this model.
 

Attachments

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
196
Reaction score
18
I don't think that much can be learned from the wing sweep range of a 50 year old mass produced resin model. The sweep range is determined by crude little resin gear teeth and/or the fuselage wing slot. It was probably a sloppy approximation of the real thing when the model was produced and a half century of aging and wear hasn't made it more accurate. I'd guess that the wing sweep range would be so fundamental to the design of a VG aircraft that it would tend to remain constant across any derivatives.
The planned use of a different engine and the troubles experienced with the original configuration(s) would have almost guaranteed that the late-70s version intakes differed from the mid-60s model.
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
44
taildragger said:
I don't think that much can be learned from the wing sweep range of a 50 year old mass produced resin model. The sweep range is determined by crude little resin gear teeth and/or the fuselage wing slot. It was probably a sloppy approximation of the real thing when the model was produced and a half century of aging and wear hasn't made it more accurate.
This model was hand-made at the GD model shop in Fort Worth. It is constructed of laminated hard wood (maple or cherry) and the VG gears are machined metal with no play, even after 50 years. It measures 2-1/2 feet long and it is unlikely that more than a handful were ever built. Unlike the resin promotional models you are thinking of, these in-house proposals had to be very accurate, particularly for something as important as wing sweep (which was a new feature for military aircraft at the time).
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
196
Reaction score
18
As I was saying, it looks like the wing sweep angle is a little different.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
31
G'day gents

Just finished reading the following article:

The Air Force instituted a series of studies (Advanced Manned Interceptor, CONUS Interceptor, etc.) during 1971-72 for a new interceptor and had considered a wide variety of possibilities, including a modified Lockheed YF-12A, an improved General Dynamics F-106, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 and the Grumman F-14. The YF-12 and F-106 were dropped from consideration in late-1971, and the F-14 was generally rated at par or slightly superior than the F-15 in the intercep­tor role. The studies later included a stretched, F100 powered F-111, designated F-111X-7, and a modified North American RA-5C pow­ered by three J79s and designated NR-349. Initial funding consisted of $5 million in FY73 money for continued engineering studies, but the program was cancelled shortly thereafter.

Read more http://www.aviatia.net/air-force-f-14/
I'm intrigued by this F-111X-7 and was hoping to learn more about its layout and configuration.
Anyone got anything on it??


Regards
Pioneer
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
31
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
FB-111B/C flyer


Source Dave Wood / The Greatest Planes That Never Were group on Facebook here
Looking over the F-111 Projects topic, in the hope of finding something on the proposed F-111X-7 interceptor derivative, I couldn't help notice the following interesting infomation, which Id overlooked sometime ago when PaulMM (Overscan) first posted this!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
25
I never noticed those mission specifics either. Also, notice the bottom right one of escort interceptor. It could have been used to protect B-52s and B-1s on long missions; although, probably not the longest.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
31
Yeah Sundog, I acknowledge your Escort Interceptor, and I can immediately comprehend that mission, as SAC has always been in search of a strategic escort since its experience of WW2. But it's the ASW Support mission that has me baffled - like how is such an advanced supersonic bomber like the proposed FB-111H meant to support ASW operations? and what weapons/sensors would it carry and employ?

Very curious :p

Regards
Pioneer
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
558
Reaction score
52
Pioneer said:
But it's the ASW Support mission that has me baffled - like how is such an advanced supersonic bomber like the proposed FB-111H meant to support ASW operations? and what weapons/sensors would it carry and employ?
In the 50s they had hunter+killer ASW combos. It could be the killer.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
31
dan_inbox said:
Pioneer said:
But it's the ASW Support mission that has me baffled - like how is such an advanced supersonic bomber like the proposed FB-111H meant to support ASW operations? and what weapons/sensors would it carry and employ?
In the 50s they had hunter+killer ASW combos. It could be the killer.
I hear what you are saying dan_inbox, but I'd think the cost and capability of the likes of the FB-111H would be a very inefficient method, wouldn't it? :eek:

Regards
Pioneer
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
946
Reaction score
14
dan_inbox said:
Pioneer said:
But it's the ASW Support mission that has me baffled - like how is such an advanced supersonic bomber like the proposed FB-111H meant to support ASW operations? and what weapons/sensors would it carry and employ?
In the 50s they had hunter+killer ASW combos. It could be the killer.
Cued by SOSUS? Or perhaps attacks on Soviet SSBNs in the Bastions?
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
115
Nuclear depth-bomb missions using its high speed as a rapid reaction platform, perhaps cued in from an Orion?
 
Top