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

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

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
258
Reaction score
51
Does anyone have the SOR 183 Document? I'm curious to see what the original TAC only requirements were.
 

Dynoman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
903
Reaction score
255
I don't have the document, but these were some of the basic requirements of SOR 183 with the Navy requirements.
 

Attachments

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
188
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
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,317
Reaction score
3,079
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:


L-61-854_Convair_Variable_Sweep_Test_174.jpg L-61-855_Convair_Variable_Sweep_Test_174.jpg L-61-856_Convair_Variable_Sweep_Test_174.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
2,446
Hi! CL-590 mockup pictures.


 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
124
Hi! CL-590 mockup pictures.


Another couple of them, same source.

Cheers to everyone!
 

Attachments

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
1,099
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)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,317
Reaction score
3,079
It's Josef Gatial, posting his own CGI model. I'll move to User Artwork section later.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
2,446
Hi!
Please delete if these are not proper.
boeing_f-7_stratofighter.jpg boeing_f-7b_stratofighter.jpg
無題.jpg
BoeingModel818TFX-2.jpg
818N-2.jpg
BoeingModel818TFX-1.jpg

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.
 
Last edited:

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
301
Reaction score
171
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

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
2,446
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.
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
2,446
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.
 
Last edited:

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,457
Reaction score
3,330
From Aviation magazine 1963.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
763
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

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
188
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
763
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 early 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....???
 
Last edited:
Top