Republic XF-103 Interceptor

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,273
Hi!
http://s77.photobucket.com/user/navyguy49/library/Republic%20XF%20103%20Thunderwarrior?sort=3&page=1
 

Attachments

  • F-103_DEVELOPMENT.jpg
    F-103_DEVELOPMENT.jpg
    114.4 KB · Views: 427

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,273
Hi!
I imagine that 1954 design had direct forward view through narrow slit.
1956 final design did not have missile bay.
 

Attachments

  • F-103 side cutaway.jpg
    F-103 side cutaway.jpg
    416.8 KB · Views: 445

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,273
Hi! I ordered this book.
 

Attachments

  • 41mgsnikZ0L__SX348_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    41mgsnikZ0L__SX348_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    25.9 KB · Views: 319

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,273
It seems to be a good book. I will check this carefully.(52pages printed in Japan)
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,273
Hi! Larger image of mockup in 1954 and power unit mockup.
 

Attachments

  • 200115-F-ZS999-001.JPG
    200115-F-ZS999-001.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 208
  • (U)%20XF-103%20Engine%20Mockup%2003.jpg
    (U)%20XF-103%20Engine%20Mockup%2003.jpg
    296.8 KB · Views: 285

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,449
Reaction score
1,408
A curious quote from the linked page, "It was sunk because it was sinking the convoy ships .My dad got that from a man on the convoy". Classic.
 

Skyraider3D

Aviation Artist
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
392
Reaction score
69
Website
www.aviationart.aero
Skyraider3D said:
Thanks for the heads-up, I won that item ;D
So, tried scanning any frames yet?

<drool>
I had this digitised in 2K-ish quality last summer as several heatwaves had caused the film to start smelling of vinegar :eek: I've stored it in a cooler place now but the damage is done, sadly. Luckily the digitisation was pretty much in time, with minimal deterioration of the film being visible.
The film itself was disappointing, however. Besides the few frames shown in the original eBay post, there isn't a lot of additional material. Some model shots last for 10+ seconds and seem completely pointless. Also the film has been edited weirdly and some parts of the film are backwards. I still need to decided what to do with it as digitising it was pretty expensive.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,824
Reaction score
2,362
Website
beyondthesprues.com
I'm curious too. The author, Hugh Harkins, has put out a lot of seemingly short publications. Are they originally researched though or simply coalitions on online data?
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,551
Reaction score
6,291
Hi,

I think there was a book from 1979,talked about Republic Aircraft,
and had a more drawings,can anyone remember me ?.
 

Hawk1270

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
2
Maybe i'm missing something...but how was the XF-103 supposed to takeoff with the landing gear that far back?
it looks like there's no room to rotate and at any rate the landing gear is way aft of the cg, requiring a lot of download. Was its stance on the landing gear nose high, such that the wing had some angle of incidence even without rotating the body?

AeroFranz, I'm glad I'm not the only one who was wondering that! Even in it's nose high configuration and coupled with a copious supply of JATO bottles the XF-103 would almost definitely had to have some type of variable incidence wing with leading edge slats to generate enough lift just to get airborne, especially in warmer climates.
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
918
Reaction score
1,205
As mentioned by Paul in Reply #140, the aircraft was meant to be nose high. That said, one must remember that this aircraft was still in the design phase, and that there would have likely been changes to the overall design had it been built.
 

Richard N

Lost in the Sky
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
931
Reaction score
1,232
From blackkite's post #150:

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-103
Wikipedia says that....
"Wings and control surfaces
All of the control surfaces were pure delta wings. The main wing was swept at 55 degrees, and could be rotated around the spar to provide variable incidence. For takeoff and landing, the wing was tilted upwards to increase the angle of attack while keeping the fuselage nearly horizontal. The length of the fuselage made it difficult to achieve the same end by tilting the entire aircraft upwards, which would have required a very long extension on the landing gear. The system also allowed the fuselage to fly flat to the airflow at various speeds, setting the trim angle independent of the aircraft as a whole. This decreased trim drag, and thereby improved range."
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,684
Reaction score
7,988
The more relevant quote is from Republic Engineer Boris Beltzer earlier in this topic:

Lead engineer: "We've got another 75 pound drop in take-off thrust. But I think Wright's shading the truth. It will probably be worse than that."
Weights and Balance engineer:" Not to mention another 53 pounds take-off weight increase this week."
Kartvelli:"What does that do to our take-off run?"
Lead Engineer: "We can manage that with more Jatos -- now that we're going to jettison the package and stuff after use."
Weights & Balance:" We've just got to lose 300 pounds. It has to be done!"
Structures Engineer:" Can't be done. There isn't 300 pounds to lose in the entire 60,000 pound aircraft."
Kartvelli: "What's the projected landing run?"
Aero: "10,500 feet -- but we've got four miles of paved runway at Edwards."
Kartvelli: "What's the landing run without the drag chute?"
Aero: "Ten miles --maybe twenty if you want to use the tires and brakes again."
Kartvelli: "What does the drag chute weigh?"
Structures:"312 pounds."
Kartvelli: "How miles of salt flats beyond the runway."
Flight Test:" Almost 40 miles."
Kartvelli: "Take out the drag chute!"

The entire design was unviable at cancellation.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,551
Reaction score
6,291
Hi,

I want to know the competitors from Lockheed and Convair ?.
 

Bazinga

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
172
Reaction score
201

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,551
Reaction score
6,291

Nik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
553
Reaction score
203
Read this thread with my jaw sorta-dropped onto cat sprawled across track-ball arm...

Then deja-vu struck: Okay, the turbo/ram jet is 'atop' fuselage rather than a pod to each 'quarter', but is X-103 any kin to Bomarc ??
 

Similar threads

Top