Northrop F-5G / F-20 Tigershark

A few months ago I met and chatted with Graeme Goldsmith, an RNZAF pilot who got to fly the F-20 when we were looking at it as a potential A-4 replacement. He was full of praise for it and, had I not been working, I would've grabbed out my phone to record his thoughts for posterity. It was fascinating to hear first-hand what she was like to fly.
 
ZacYates said:
A few months ago I met and chatted with Graeme Goldsmith, an RNZAF pilot who got to fly the F-20 when we were looking at it as a potential A-4 replacement. He was full of praise for it and, had I not been working, I would've grabbed out my phone to record his thoughts for posterity. It was fascinating to hear first-hand what she was like to fly.
Click to expand...
Just to bring a tear to your eye Zac:

F20A_NewZealand99.jpg
F20A_NewZealand91.jpg


More here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...the-f-20-tigershark-went-into-production.256/
 
I've noticed that there were very few models posted in this particular forum, soooooooooooo I thought that for your viewing pleasure find my Northrop in-house 1:40th F-5G in aggressor camouflage. Yummy!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0011.jpg
    IMG_0011.jpg
    479.6 KB · Views: 160
  • IMG_0010.jpg
    IMG_0010.jpg
    451.4 KB · Views: 153
ZacYates said:
A few months ago I met and chatted with Graeme Goldsmith, an RNZAF pilot who got to fly the F-20 when we were looking at it as a potential A-4 replacement. He was full of praise for it and, had I not been working, I would've grabbed out my phone to record his thoughts for posterity. It was fascinating to hear first-hand what she was like to fly.
Click to expand...
How about tracking Graeme Goldsmith down and asking for an interview "for prosperity"?
From personal experiance, there's nothing to lose.

Regards
Pioneer
 
From, Lotnictwo Aviation International 1992 Nr 18
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 119
  • 2.png
    2.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 115
  • 3.png
    3.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 108
  • 4.png
    4.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 144
Some payload information from a 1984 Northop document.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 123
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    596.1 KB · Views: 130
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    747 KB · Views: 125
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    1,011.1 KB · Views: 129
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    719.9 KB · Views: 126
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    983.2 KB · Views: 117
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 146
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to win many contracts.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to win many contracts.
Click to expand...
But then would you not effectively have the F-16?
 
hesham said:
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to win many contracts.
Click to expand...

The Northrop P-600/YF-17/F-18L was exactly that, yet didn't attract any customer either (and the following F/A-18 is no longer the same concept).
 
The single engine projects was the P-610.

But back to the F-20. If we take an F-20 and scale it up to an F-16A to the same fuel and payload, then F-20 might be slightly lighter and so cheaper in the mass production than the F-16A. But regarding to the development analysis of the YF-16, the F-20 would be inferior to the scenario in those time 1970.

Further, the production of a F-20 would be more expensive for the initial costumer compaired to the order and mass production of the F-16A.
Today perhaps it would be different.
 
I think we can split this discussing in another topic at the Bar section,
and we can give it a title; Northrop F-20 vs General Dynamics F-16.
 
I think the slightly bigger wing would have improved performance a bit, but not enough to make a difference to sales prospects.

In avionics and weapons the F-20 was comparable to or better than the F-16C when the F-20 target customers were getting offered F-16A. However, the F-16A was in production where the F-20 was just a prototype.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to win many contracts.
Click to expand...
But then it wouldn't have been "an upgraded F-5," when it was still the F-5G.

Once it went to the F-20 as "a whole new plane" it was too late to change the outer mold line that much.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to
Click to expand...
We have had this discussion before in this thread. The whole reason the F-20/F-5G existed was because there was a gap in the market for customers blocked from receiving F-16's, but that the US wanted to keep on its side while being able to beat them in conflict should they change sides. As soon as that block on F-16 sales was lifted it killed the F-20. Yes it had BVR capability which the F-16A of the time did not, but it (the F-16) was being ordered in large numbers. Many users went for the F-16A at the time even with its BVR shortcoming over types with BVR. Lower cost, large user support pool etc. - i.e. less risk to the user.
 
Once Taiwan was blocked it was dead on arrival. Had they bought it and taken the risk which they were willing it would have had success. Bahrain had a small order they abandoned when the program ended. The first block 25 F-16 aircraft were rolling off the assembly line when the Tigershark was being tested so its technical advantages were never going to be long lived. It was always a political plane and it was politics that would save or kill the plane rather then it’s wing size.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom