Northrop F-5G / F-20 Tigershark

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
32,875
Reaction score
12,255
Hi,

In 1985 the Northrop designed a new project called F-5S (by that
time),it was proposed as a version of F-5G (F-20) for Sweden,
with 30 percent larger wing,do you know it ?.
 
If memory serves me correctly, and it's been some 15 years since I've seen the data, the enlarged wing kept the same span but shifted the leading edge forward and the trailing edge aft to get the increased wing area (they may have kept the main structure the same and gone with larger leading edge flaps and trailing edge flaps; I honestly don't remember). There was another proposal floating around about the time the F-5G/F-20 program started for a version with an enlarged fuselage, powered by two afterburning J97s, and with a wing that retained the same planform but had the span increased sufficiently to add one more stores station to each wing. Sadly, because this proposal came up through the Service Engineering area rather than Advanced or Preliminary Design, it was ignored. It also had a stretched fuselage to maintain the basic aerodynamics while getting the wing loading of a two-seater down to that of the original F-5A.
 
Hi,

The F-5S was a really project,but I can't imagine its drawing.
 
Thought we'd had a topic already.

Some nice photos from SDASM archive:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=f-5G&w=49487266%40N07
 
Hello
Any one can help me please.
I'm looking for more precise 3-view drawings and fuselage sections (if it's possible) of the Northrop F-20 TigerShark because I want make a radio controled aircraft of this plane.
Many thanks
 
http://www.f20a.com/f20foto.htm
http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=19977
 
Thank you for your reply flateric.
I knowed first adress but not second adress.
Anyone have fuselage cross sections please?
 
if my memory serves me well, never see these released...
 
gilslo said:
Thank you for your reply flateric.
I knowed first adress but not second adress.
Anyone have fuselage cross sections please?
Sections were on this factory drawing but recently it normally doesn't open! :'(
tnf20inboard.jpg

But here the address where is.......The last REAL....F-20 Tigershark :eek:
http://www.californiasailplanes.com/Real%20F-20.htm
 
Aardvark said:
But here the address where is.......The last REAL....F-20 Tigershark :eek:
http://www.californiasailplanes.com/Real%20F-20.htm

I've been there and it is a bit disappointing as a museum. It's in the mold of many American "science centers," focused entirely on kids and usually emphasizing very basic stuff. When they get historical artifacts like this plane or spacecraft, they put them on display in well-lit rooms with a small sign saying what they are, and that's it. No context or explanation. Nothing. If you want to know more about the plane, or the spacecraft, you'll have to go look it up on the internet, because you won't find anything useful in the museum--er, "science center"--itself.
 
blackstar said:
I've been there and it is a bit disappointing as a museum. It's in the mold of many American "science centers," focused entirely on kids and usually emphasizing very basic stuff. When they get historical artifacts like this plane or spacecraft, they put them on display in well-lit rooms with a small sign saying what they are, and that's it. No context or explanation. Nothing. If you want to know more about the plane, or the spacecraft, you'll have to go look it up on the internet, because you won't find anything useful in the museum--er, "science center"--itself.

Well it after all a scientific museum instead of aviation! ::)
Possibly from the point of view of scientists that the plane that the butterfly all one and too... ;D
Therefore F-20 also looks as the caught butterfly! ;D
(Well or as the big model of the plane suspended on a thread under a ceiling)
 
Aardvark said:
gilslo said:
Thank you for your reply flateric.
I knowed first adress but not second adress.
Anyone have fuselage cross sections please?
Sections were on this factory drawing but recently it normally doesn't open! :'(
tnf20inboard.jpg

But here the address where is.......The last REAL....F-20 Tigershark :eek:
http://www.californiasailplanes.com/Real%20F-20.htm

They could have at least tried to make the fake nozzle a little more accurate. However, it is nice to know the plane still exists.
 
That is not a fake nozzle, and as it is original flight hardware, it is by definition, accurate. What you are looking at are the flexible "fingers" that provided the aerodynamic transition between the fixed fuselage structure and the F404 nozzle assembly (which is missing from the display as the F404 for this jet went back to GE).
 
By the way accident F-20 in Korea has been removed on video....
[flash=200,200]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWtpdsfwq3w[/flash]
Similar on that that at it has occurred pompage the engine (see flash in a nozzle?)
that was fatal at such height...shocking shots! :eek:
 
aim9xray said:
That is not a fake nozzle, and as it is original flight hardware, it is by definition, accurate. What you are looking at are the flexible "fingers" that provided the aerodynamic transition between the fixed fuselage structure and the F404 nozzle assembly (which is missing from the display as the F404 for this jet went back to GE).

O.K., It's actually missing the nozzle then. My point is, they could have at least built something that represented how it actually looks.
 
Aardvark said:
By the way accident F-20 in Korea has been removed on video....
Similar on that that at it has occurred pompage the engine (see flash in a nozzle?)
that was fatal at such height...shocking shots! :eek:

It's pretty much been established, I believe, that both F-20 crashes were due to G-LOC, a phenomena not that well understood at the time. From the video it's obvious that the pilot is not providing any useful input during the inverted descent.
 
Gentlemen, F-20/F-5G "Aggressor" and it is truth or fiction of ours turkish the friends making chewing gums?
t_f5g_821.jpg

(About a sticker to a chewing gum bought and eaten somewhere in the nineties.)
 

Attachments

  • 060810-F-1234S-025.jpg
    060810-F-1234S-025.jpg
    202.6 KB · Views: 477
  • 060810-F-1234S-031.jpg
    060810-F-1234S-031.jpg
    257.4 KB · Views: 375
  • 060810-F-1234S-030.jpg
    060810-F-1234S-030.jpg
    346.9 KB · Views: 339
  • 060810-F-1234S-029.jpg
    060810-F-1234S-029.jpg
    374.5 KB · Views: 297
  • 060810-F-1234S-028.jpg
    060810-F-1234S-028.jpg
    199.5 KB · Views: 388
  • 060810-F-1234S-027.jpg
    060810-F-1234S-027.jpg
    169.2 KB · Views: 383
  • 060810-F-1234S-026.jpg
    060810-F-1234S-026.jpg
    242.1 KB · Views: 472
lastdingo said:
The Iranians are claiming to produce their copy of the F-5, maybe they'll join it with a J79 copy by 2020 ?

Are you talking about the Saegheh? http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3399.0
 
Northrop promotional film for the F-20 Tigershark

http://youtu.be/6BDgQwlfHII


Another Northrop promotional film for the F-20 Tigershark

http://youtu.be/8FD_EufwRdA
 
Does anyone know what, if any, style of aerial refueling system might have been planned for the F-20? I would assume probe for the most part but if seriously pushed for the USAF might boom have also been considered?
 
GTX said:
Does anyone know what, if any, style of aerial refueling system might have been planned for the F-20? I would assume probe for the most part but if seriously pushed for the USAF might boom have also been considered?

For export, probe and drogue was planned. There was some look at a removable fixed probe ala F-5. however, for those market countries that had a regular requirement for IFR (most didn't) a retractable probe was designed. it would have been in the nose and would pivot up for extension. Think of the A-6's refueling probe. I can't remember if it was enclosed when retracted, I think it was.

If an unbelievable miracle had happened and USAF actually order the F-20 for the ADF role, I'm sure you would have sen a boom receptacle shoehorned in there somewhere.
 
If we had to have a UARRSI (Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation) it would have had to go in the dorsal area reducing fuel capacity a little.

BillRo
 
Sundog said:
More F-20 related documents;

The Competition Study
Interesting Sundog!Thanks for sharing this study with us.
I found General Dynamics 'F-16SC' proposal (a down rated variant of the F-16D) of interest! This makes it sound like the F-16 / LWF the way in which the originally intended LWF was supposed to have been before the USAF got hold of it and 'technofied' it which added both weight and complexity to what was a simple and cost effective design!
As a side note, wouldn't it be interesting to see a so-called lightweight fighter design (which today seems so popular and practical!) designed for the USAF. But the USAF was not allowed to touch it, change its mind throughout the development, let alone change the whole design once it was selected ::) . Lets face it, with the demise of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, the United States found itself with excessive firepower and capability. There is no reason the likes of the more cost effective (both purchase and operating costs) F-20 Tigershark could not be patrolling the aerospace of the United States, which for the past couple of decades has been done with overkill with the likes of the F-15 and F-16. The threat of Soviet intercontinental bombers was not there (although it can be argued that America's 'perpetual war' since the end of the Cold War has driven Russia to continuously sabre rattle and continue a pseudo Cold War.). Even with the new perceived threat of terrorism by airliner attack against the USA post 9/11 attack, could easily and more cost effectively be done by the F-20 Tigershark. Even with the irony of the U.S Military Industrial Complex and Pentagon's manipulation of the perceived PRC/PLA threat to U.S. dominance (which in my opinion the United States themselves ignorantly dropped the ball in ignoring whilst they fought and focused on the 'War on Terrorist' obsession), the USAF would undoubtedly being banging on for the need of a more advance, more complex, more costly air dominance fighter design, with supercruise, stealth.......so as to counter the Sukhoi T-50 and J-20 designs :mad: .
I've said it once and I'll say it again - I think it's a travesty that the F-20 was never put into production and operational service (not just necessarily with the USAF either). It's cost/capability would have made it a winner had politics (U.S. politics) not overshadowed it :-X
Sorry to bang on .........

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Northrop F-20 trade show display model, showing internal components on one side ("cutaway").
 

Attachments

  • Northrop F-20 Cutaway R.jpg
    Northrop F-20 Cutaway R.jpg
    316.5 KB · Views: 900
  • Northrop F-20 Cutaway L.jpg
    Northrop F-20 Cutaway L.jpg
    149.5 KB · Views: 950
Interesting with the refueling probe between the 20mms. I would have thought it would have used the same set up as the F-5 with a fixed probe next to the cockpit. I have some F-20 docs I should look through and see if I can find more info on this. Thanks for posting the pics.
 
I got some pics lying around that you may want to have from Le Bourget 83. Enjoy!
 

Attachments

  • 19830528-063.JPG
    19830528-063.JPG
    363.6 KB · Views: 778
  • 19830528-053.JPG
    19830528-053.JPG
    382.2 KB · Views: 704
  • 19830528-051.JPG
    19830528-051.JPG
    338.1 KB · Views: 842
  • 19830528-049.JPG
    19830528-049.JPG
    343.4 KB · Views: 890
  • 19830528-048.JPG
    19830528-048.JPG
    327 KB · Views: 1,001
Splendid contributions, circle-5 and Bazinga. Thanks a lot for sharing!

1983 was one of the years I didn't attend, Le Bourget... too bad!
 
By the way,


the F-20 was offered to Egypt,but my country prefered the F-16.
 
Back in 1982, when all was looking good for the Tigershark.... a celebration of the first flight.
 

Attachments

  • Northrop_F-20_0008.jpg
    Northrop_F-20_0008.jpg
    234.8 KB · Views: 463
  • Northrop_F-20_0007.jpg
    Northrop_F-20_0007.jpg
    405.1 KB · Views: 442
  • Northrop_F-20_0006.jpg
    Northrop_F-20_0006.jpg
    441 KB · Views: 420
  • Northrop_F-20_0005.jpg
    Northrop_F-20_0005.jpg
    339.3 KB · Views: 785
  • Northrop_F-20_0004.jpg
    Northrop_F-20_0004.jpg
    389.7 KB · Views: 835
  • Northrop_F-20_0003.jpg
    Northrop_F-20_0003.jpg
    314.6 KB · Views: 899
  • Northrop_F-20_0002.jpg
    Northrop_F-20_0002.jpg
    389.5 KB · Views: 984
  • Northrop_F-20_0001.jpg
    Northrop_F-20_0001.jpg
    282.9 KB · Views: 1,060
Cy-27, to say that you rock would be an understatement! This topic is becoming quite the thing for Tigershark-related stuff!
 
Have some F-20 material, will post more when I have some time.
 

Attachments

  • scan0003.jpg
    scan0003.jpg
    108.5 KB · Views: 477
I have unearthed a bunch of F-20 pix; here are a few of the more interesting showing armament captive carry and testing. They are images from 1983.
 

Attachments

  • F-20 AIM-9.jpg
    F-20 AIM-9.jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 493
  • F-20 Gunpod.jpg
    F-20 Gunpod.jpg
    81.1 KB · Views: 554
  • F-20 Harpoon1.jpg
    F-20 Harpoon1.jpg
    17.1 KB · Views: 614
  • F-20 Harpoon 2.jpg
    F-20 Harpoon 2.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 650
Nice pics thanks BillRo
I haven't seen the F-20 configured with a Harpoon missile before! There's really nothing this baby couldn't do! :eek:
It looks as if the second pic you've posted, shows the carrying and test firing of the GPU-5_A gun pod (equipped with a single 30mm 4 x barrel GAU-13_A rotary cannon) - nice!!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom