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

[hesham]

What was this ?.

It's a bomber design from ASD, timeframe early to mid 60's. There's more info and a 3 view in Crecy's ASP Bombers book.

It was from; Inside History of the USAF Lightweight Fighters, 1900 to 1975

 

[Dew]

also from American Modeler magazine,a TFX artist drawing in 1963

Hesham, this is a personal guess or the drawing is identified as a TFX drawing inside the magazine?

It is indeed:


It's a picture by Roy Grinnell, but not sure who for (other than the magazine cover, if anyone). Original is 22½" x 17½"

 

[apparition13]

This showed up on Millennium 7 * HistoryTech's Youtube community feed. Someone said it's a Boeing model, but it doesn't look like any Boeing photo in this thread.

Anyone have any idea what this actually is?

 

[Orionblamblam]

This showed up on Millennium 7 * HistoryTech's Youtube community feed. Someone said it's a Boeing model, but it doesn't look like any Boeing photo in this thread.

Anyone have any idea what this actually is?

Yup. The answer is laid out HERE.

Yes, it's Boeing.

 

[apparition13]

Yup. The answer is laid out HERE.

Yes, it's Boeing.

For the F-111 program or something else?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This showed up on Millennium 7 * HistoryTech's Youtube community feed. Someone said it's a Boeing model, but it doesn't look like any Boeing photo in this thread.

Anyone have any idea what this actually is?View attachment 696730

This was posted and discussed here 12 years ago:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/long-road-to-the-f-111-tac-sor-183-sdr-17-ws-324a-tfx.526/page-5#post-96899

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yup. The answer is laid out HERE.

Yes, it's Boeing.

For the F-111 program or something else?

Pre-F-111

 

[apparition13]

This was posted and discussed here 12 years ago:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/long-road-to-the-f-111-tac-sor-183-sdr-17-ws-324a-tfx.526/page-5#post-96899

Well crap. I thought I clicked through all the photos in this thread, but I either didn't notice it or skipped that page.

 

[raptor82]

​

Convair Negatives

Digitization of these images made possible by a grant from NEH: NEH and the San Diego Air and Space Museum

www.flickr.com

GD TFX wind tunnel models:

 

[hesham]

From Interavia 1963.

 

[flateric]

Air Force Plant #4 - Fort Worth Aviation Museum

fortworthaviationmuseum.com

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

It is frequently stated that the side-by-side cockpit and crew-escape capsule were Navy requirements. I do not believe either to be correct. It is true that 1) the F3D and F6D had side-by-side cockpits and 2) achieving minimum length (a Navy requirement) favors them (but was not required on the F-14). However, there were TFX proposals with tandem cockpits prior to the down-select to Boeing and General Dynamics, Republic's for one. A picture of a Boeing display of TFX mockups and models includes a tandem cockpit mockup next to the side-by-side one. That strongly suggests that side-by-side seating was not a explicit requirement. Note also that while the F6D had a four-foot diameter antenna, meaning frontal area was primarily dictated by it and not the seating arrangement, the F-111B's was limited to three feet (I'm pretty sure that the F-111A's terrain-following radar antenna was wider).

With respect to the crew-escape capsule, while Douglas and Vought had at least suggested them to BuAer, the Navy doesn't appear to have had any interest, certainly not compared to the Air Force's, which was arguably more concerned with survivable supersonic ejections than the Navy. The B-58 and B-70 crew sat in individual capsules and the B-1 prototypes flew with one that housed all four of the crew. My guess is that the Air Force was also concerned with survivability in the icy waters of the North Atlantic in the event that a crew had to jettison an F-111 during a ferry flight to Europe. The Navy was far more likely to have a rescue ship or helicopter responding quickly in that situation.

Finally, McNamara's direction that settled the requirement deadlock on 1 September 1961 was that "Changes to the Air Force tactical version of the basic aircraft to achieve the Navy mission shall be held to a minimum". My guess is that one or more of the subsequent proposals included the side-by-side escape capsule as an unrequested feature that the Air Force decided was an excellent idea.

Does anyone have a TFX requirements and/or proposal document that proves otherwise?

 

[GTX]

It is frequently stated that the side-by-side cockpit and crew-escape capsule were Navy requirements. I do not believe either to be correct. It is true that 1) the F3D and F6D had side-by-side cockpits and 2) achieving minimum length (a Navy requirement) favors them (but was not required on the F-14).

Indeed - look at the North American A-5 Vigilante for an example where the USN was quite happy with the tandem approach.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIiOy6zisu0

Boeing 818 TFX; The Actual Aardvark? - Forgotten Aircraft - Military Matters

The 818 was Boeing's entry into the TFX competition for a new USAF bomber and interceptor for the Navy. Despite winning, it was not built.

militarymatters.online

 

[apparition13]

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

No, but -

The F-111 story began in the late 1950s, when Tactical Air Command (TAC) of the US Air Force (USAF) was looking for a new flagship high-performance nuclear strike aircraft. 5 The US tactical nuclear arsenal was growing and TAC saw the need to replace its F-105 strike fighters. Originally, the replacement was to have vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) to aid dispersal, because only a dozen or so airfields in the whole of western Europe could support the heavy F-105. In the summer of 1959, however, TAC HQ staff were briefed by NASA researchers at Langley Field in Virginia on their research into variable geometry or “swing wings”. The research had been stimulated, to some extent, by studies in late 1958 of the exotic and impractical Swallow aircraft conceived by British designer Sir Barnes Wallis.


Variable geometry was of immediate interest to the new TAC commander-in-chief, General Frank F Everest USAF, because it offered the chance of excellent performance in different flight regimes – in particular short take-off and landing, high speed at high and low level, and long ferry range. Hence requirement number SOR.183 was issued by TAC in July 1960, calling for an advanced variable-sweep, turbofan-engined strike fighter with a two-man crew, capable of M2.5 at 60,000 ft, with an 800-mile combat radius at low level, including 400 miles terrain-following at M1.2, and a 3300-mile trans-Atlantic ferry range.

Airpower Review, 01/11/2015, Volume 18, Issue 3, F-111K: Britain’s Lost Lost Bomber Richard Moore.

https://raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-power-studies/aspr/apr-vol18-iss3-1-pdf

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1943078725945270767

View: https://x.com/UnwantedBlog/status/1943078725945270767

https://twitter.com/x/status/1943504394407833967

View: https://x.com/UnwantedBlog/status/1943504394407833967

 

[hesham]

From Interavia 1963

 

[hesham]

From Interavia 1963.

In color.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

In color.

It is in fact, NOT in colour.

 

[hesham]

It is in fact, NOT in colour.

OK my dear PaulMM.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, unless you consider yellowed paper to be "in colour', it isn't. What exactly did you mean?

 

[hesham]

Well, unless you consider yellowed paper to be "in colour', it isn't. What exactly did you mean?

As you mentioned,but you are right, we can say only it's a clearer view.

 

[hesham]

From Interavia 1963/8.

 

[Pioneer]

In the interested of knowledge pertaining to the TFX/F-111 program, I stumbled upon the following U S. General Accounting Office - The F-111 Aircraft Program:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/094456.pdf

I did a search on this form to see if it has already been posted, to no avail. So if it does exist, Admin, please delete......

P.S. I can't see a date associated with this, unfortunately.


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dew]

P.S. I can't see a date associated with this, unfortunately.

1971 according to this :

More generally, the joint effort proved problematic. According to Elmer Staats, the comptroller general at the time, “Program costs were undoubtedly increased by the effort to procure an aircraft with a high degree of commonality to serve the needs of both the Air Force and the Navy” (Statement by Elmer B. Staats, 1971, p. 3).

Tenuosuly backing this up is the crossed out 710112 at the bottom of the first page - Jan 12th '71 ?

 

[Pioneer]

1971 according to this :

Tenuosuly backing this up is the crossed out 710112 at the bottom of the first page - Jan 12th '71 ?

Thank you Dew!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[blackkite]

There are some Boeing 818 plans in this book.

US Supersonic Bomber Projects Vol 1 – The Unwanted Blog

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also, do you have any info on a design that Scott (Orionblamblam) had at his site of a plane that looks like a single seat small F-111?

I'd suspect it's related to the F-14.

But I'm surprised that nobody has found an answer in the ~15 years since you posted this!

 

[hesham]

From Technika Lotnicza 1962