Long road to the F-111: TAC, SOR.183, SDR 17, WS-324A, TFX

[Bruno Anthony]

Does anyone have the SOR 183 Document? I'm curious to see what the original TAC only requirements were.

 

[Dynoman]

I don't have the document, but these were some of the basic requirements of SOR 183 with the Navy requirements.

 

[Dynoman]

Some additional information on TFX requirements:

 

[Dynoman]

TFX Profiles:

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Thank you Dynoman.

 

[Pioneer]

I've always found it somewhat difficult at time to explain the failings of the General Dynamics F-111 design, even though it would later prove itself an effective strike/reccon platform. but recently listened to a podcast, and thought I'd share it with the forum!

Quote from Jeff Guinn re F-111
Q&A with Jeff Guinn – Aircrew Interview

In response to the question – ‘was the F-111 the right plane for the RAF?’, Jeff Guinn, an experienced F-111 pilot states:

"I don’t think the F-111 was the right aeroplane for anybody.
It was a great aeroplane, it was a great performer, but it’s original design was simply unachievable, and it’s almost an accident in a sense that it ever was as good as it became at what it did, and the reason I say this is because it was specified to do some things that we never did, weren’t useful in our role, and compromised the design of the aeroplane.
The requirements for the F-111 to go supersonic meant it had to have more fuel, because it had to have a range commitment to keep up with, so those things combined to make it heavier, at the same time it forced airframe design that wasn’t really the best design for the subsonic realm in which we nearly always worked, except when we were doing make-believe at Red Flag; and I think the [Blackburn] Buccaneer really was in summarise it wasn’t as modern an airplane, it didn’t have the range, the speed and some other things, but the Buccaneer or the [Grumman] A-6 [Intruder] maybe was even better if they could have been given some of the performance that we had [in the F-111] – a little bit more speed and the lower altitude TFR and things like that."


Regards
Pioneer

 

[hesham]

From L + K 2/1969.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I return to this topic to submit members two very probable identifications of model tested at langley during the TFX competition and previously noted as "unknown". It's my fault not having linked the model drawings with some very well known model photos :-[. In my defence I have to remark that no-one seems to having done it... : . Except Scott, regarding the Configuration 403. In eAPR V1N2 he correctily singles out the possibile identity, pointing out some difference in the cockpit area. I agree, but I think the rest of the plane is so siliar that probably that derives from some "tuning", either by NASA or Convair; or it could be a sub-configuration.
I'll repost the drawings with the correct (IMHO) identification.
First is General Dynamics/Convair Configuration 430. It is the first from the right in the well known photo of FGD TFX wind-tunnel model. the following three photos are of the model in the tunnel from different angles. And the fourth is a detail from a larger photos with a display model of same configuration. I think that the match is near to perfect, and such to allow certainity. See picture 7 for a slightly different configuration 430-like: slender and with different wingtips.

NASA have posted some pics of the "Convair TAC" windtunnel Test 174 in the 16 foot windtunnel:

Test 174: Convair TAC Model - NasaCRgis

crgis.ndc.nasa.gov

 

[blackkite]

Hi! CL-590 mockup pictures.

Lockheed CL-590 Mockup Photo | #422578724

These are 11 X 8.5 photos of the Lockheed project CL-590-1 which was the Lockheed entry in the TFX program that ultimately became the F-111. Little seems to known about this as the extensive design d

www.worthpoint.com

Lockheed CL-590 TFX /F-111 Mockup photos | #497454625

The Lockheed CL-590 was the Lockheed factory's attempt to win the TFX USAF/Navy contract that eventually became the F-111. These are three factory photos 8 X11.5 and are a bit clearer than my attempt

www.worthpoint.com

 

[Skybolt]

Hi! CL-590 mockup pictures.

Lockheed CL-590 Mockup Photo | #422578724

These are 11 X 8.5 photos of the Lockheed project CL-590-1 which was the Lockheed entry in the TFX program that ultimately became the F-111. Little seems to known about this as the extensive design d

www.worthpoint.com

Lockheed CL-590 TFX /F-111 Mockup photos | #497454625

The Lockheed CL-590 was the Lockheed factory's attempt to win the TFX USAF/Navy contract that eventually became the F-111. These are three factory photos 8 X11.5 and are a bit clearer than my attempt

www.worthpoint.com

Another couple of them, same source.

Cheers to everyone!

 

[hesham]

From Ailes 25/5/1962,

the Boeing Model-818 artist drawing.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Boeing Model 818.

The History of Boeing in 15 Objects

A rummage through the airplane maker’s attic.

www.airspacemag.com

 

[PlanesPictures]

Only this one is real picture of Boeing 818N

 

[Hood]

Only this one is real picture of Boeing 818N

How are you defining real? Looks like a 3D CGI to me and certainly not a model (note the artificial lighting effects, complicated panel details and shading inside the panels and a 2-D flat arrestor hook!).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It's Josef Gatial, posting his own CGI model. I'll move to User Artwork section later.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
Please delete if these are not proper.

Forgotten Designs Part One TFX

In late 1950s, US Navy had a requirement for a long range high endurance fighter replacing McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II to defend their carrier battle groups (CVBGs) against long range anti-sh…

defencetechnologycom.wordpress.com

TFX Scandal and the JFK assassination

In the last few months of Eisenhower’s administration the Air Force began to argue that it needed a successor to its F-105 tactical fighter. This became known as the TFX/F-111 project. In January, 1961, Robert McNamara, changed the TFX from an Air Force program to a joint Air Force-Navy under-tak...

educationforum.ipbhost.com

I have never seen the official three side view drawing of Boeing TFX proposal for U.S.NAVY.
I have been long thinking that the bottom drawing is little strange, especially wing root leading edge shape.
N's tail was short.

 

[taildragger]

I have to question whether anyone would apply the name Stratofighter to an aircraft built around a terrain following radar. Maybe Deckfighter, which has the bonus of sounding naval also.

 

[blackkite]

We have three drawings for Boeing 818N.
Wing root leading edge shapes are almost same but subtly different between these drawings.
What is the meaning of this mysterious shape?
Only Boeing's OB knows everything.

 

[PlanesPictures]

You have to wait some time ( one year? ) for the book on this plane. The author will certainly inform you

 

[blackkite]

Thanks a lot Jozef-san for sharing such a surprising, excellent and interesting drawing!! I believe you already know many secrets of 818N.
Perhaps I see the nose of missiles in 818N plan view. Perhaps I see IRST system head in the bottom drawing wing leading edge and your drawing.

 

[hesham]

From Air Force magazine.

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 1963.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Evening gents

I am going through some of my older files and came across this picture.
The only thing I have written is - 'Mock-up of early Model 818 designed to USAF SOR-183 competition'. My file shows that I saved it in 2008 (but I have no recollection or its source!!)

Regards
Pioneer

View attachment 107487

I have seen a suggestion that this mock-up may represent the 818-202 design. That it was built in mock-up form suggests it was a very serious study, perhaps an early submission, either against the un-issued October 1960 SOR.183 Request for Proposal or as an Air Force specific offering against the September 1961 RFP?

Has any more information on this come to light?

 

[Pioneer]

Evening gents

I am going through some of my older files and came across this picture.
The only thing I have written is - 'Mock-up of early Model 818 designed to USAF SOR-183 competition'. My file shows that I saved it in 2008 (but I have no recollection or its source!!)

Regards
Pioneer

View attachment 107487

I have seen a suggestion that this mock-up may represent the 818-202 design. That it was built in mock-up form suggests it was a very serious study, perhaps an early submission, either against the un-issued October 1960 SOR.183 Request for Proposal or as an Air Force specific offering against the September 1961 RFP?

Has any more information on this come to light?

Thanks for your reply JFC Fuller.
No unfortunately, nothing from my end.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[JFC Fuller]

Trying to get my head round this, apologies if I am behind the knowledge curve. The down-select to Boeing and General Dynamics was undertaken in round 1 in January 1962, the six companies initially in the competition had responded to the original RFP issued in October 1960. The side-by-side seating and escape capsule requirement was not introduced until the fourth and final round. Responding to an RFP would be a logical trigger for building a full-scale mock-up, no pure SOR.183 RFP was ever released, though one was written. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the various mock-ups we have photos of in tandem seat configuration relate to the first-round submissions:

Republic
Boeing
Lockheed

It looks like McDonnell and General Dynamics may have gone straight to side-by-side seating?

The only caveat is that the various companies were clearly well aware of the impending requirement well before the RFP was issued. William McPherson Allen (President and CEO of Boeing), told the TFX contract investigation hearings that Boeing had started development work in earl 1959 and that this had included "complete systems engineering, substantiated by full-scale mock-ups laboratory systems tests, extensive aid tunnel tests of various configurations and numerous structural tests on critical elements of the air vehicle". So it's still possible that the Boeing tandem seat mock-up predates the October 1960 RFP....???