Vought V-1000 International Fighter Aircraft

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
688
Mark Nankivil said:
Greetings All -

From the Vought Archives, a drawing of the V-1000B.

Enjoy the day! Mark

Thank you for sharing Mark!

Interesting that in this drawing, that Vought incorporated additional outer hardpoints!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,336
Reaction score
6,325
elmayerle said:
V-1000 competed with the F-5E for official USAF support and lost. I'm not sure how well it would've sold without that (cf. F-20A).

It should be noted (and I will endeavour to find the source!!), that the V-1000 submission was the USAF's preferred choice to meet the U.S Governments IFA (International Fighter Aircraft) competition.
The USAF acting on behalf of the United States Government, wanted a fighter with expanded performance (over that of the Northrop F-5A/B Freedom Fighter!), able to fly airsuperiority missions against such aircraft as the MiG-21 'Fishbed'.
From what I can recall (I think it was from book the great book - 'Pentagon Paradox')- the USAF's choice of the V-1000 over that of the Northrop, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed (Request for Proposal (RfP) went out to eight U.S manufacturers on 26 Feb 1970.) was stated over and over again -but for some unknown reason the then U.S Secretary of Defence overrode the USAF's choice and selected the Northrop F-5E Tiger II!

Regards
Pioneer

Pentagon paradox... isn't that famous book damning the F/A-18 Hornet procurement ?
Which I could know more about this.
I think that, with the F-5A having sold like hot cakes, the F-5E even with lower performance than MiG-21 (or V-1000) made more sense that starting from a clean sheet of paper. A lots of countries that bought F-5A then bought F-5E (Iran, cough, cough).
And fact is that Iran - Iraq showed that F-5Es could kick MiG-21 arses, plus USN agressors of course. Pilots skills had become more important than raw performance.
Still the V-1000 sounded like a terrific aircraft.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
688
elmayerle said:
V-1000 competed with the F-5E for official USAF support and lost. I'm not sure how well it would've sold without that (cf. F-20A).

It should be noted (and I will endeavour to find the source!!), that the V-1000 submission was the USAF's preferred choice to meet the U.S Governments IFA (International Fighter Aircraft) competition.
The USAF acting on behalf of the United States Government, wanted a fighter with expanded performance (over that of the Northrop F-5A/B Freedom Fighter!), able to fly airsuperiority missions against such aircraft as the MiG-21 'Fishbed'.
From what I can recall (I think it was from book the great book - 'Pentagon Paradox')- the USAF's choice of the V-1000 over that of the Northrop, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed (Request for Proposal (RfP) went out to eight U.S manufacturers on 26 Feb 1970.) was stated over and over again -but for some unknown reason the then U.S Secretary of Defence overrode the USAF's choice and selected the Northrop F-5E Tiger II!

Regards
Pioneer

Pentagon paradox... isn't that famous book damning the F/A-18 Hornet procurement ?
Which I could know more about this.
I think that, with the F-5A having sold like hot cakes, the F-5E even with lower performance than MiG-21 (or V-1000) made more sense that starting from a clean sheet of paper. A lots of countries that bought F-5A then bought F-5E (Iran, cough, cough).
And fact is that Iran - Iraq showed that F-5Es could kick MiG-21 arses, plus USN agressors of course. Pilots skills had become more important than raw performance.
Still the V-1000 sounded like a terrific aircraft.
Archibald, more from that damning book Pentagon Paradox...:


Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20210105_152437.jpg
    IMG_20210105_152437.jpg
    777.3 KB · Views: 380

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,688
Reaction score
8,000
It's fair to say that this version is disputed. According to Air Force testimony before Congress, the most capable design was the Lockheed CL-1200, not the V-1000, but it was also the most expensive, while the F-5E was last but cheapest and met the overall requirements.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
688
It's fair to say that this version is disputed. According to Air Force testimony before Congress, the most capable design was the Lockheed CL-1200, not the V-1000, but it was also the most expensive, while the F-5E was last but cheapest and met the overall requirements.
I'd be interested in reading this testimony overscan if you could direct me with a link please.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,336
Reaction score
6,325
I would not be surprised... the Crusader airframe had some limits the Starfighter did not had. For example, the "bullet nose" above the intake - not practical to fit larger radar antennas. Although in the IFA / F-5E context it was probably not a major issue.

As far as engine cost go - nothing beat a diminutive and rugged J85. Certainly not the V-1000's J79 or (far worse) the CL-1200 TF30 big complicated and unreliable turbofan.

Also, with F-5A already in the place in very large numbers, (AFAIK) IFA was done deal for the F-5E no ? I can't see foreign customers like South Vietnam or Iran going from F-5A to a whole new, entirely different aircraft with larger and more expensive engines...
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
609
Reaction score
676

Attachments

  • IMG_0852.jpg
    IMG_0852.jpg
    254.4 KB · Views: 135
  • IMG_0853.jpg
    IMG_0853.jpg
    251 KB · Views: 108
  • IMG_0854.jpg
    IMG_0854.jpg
    391.5 KB · Views: 124

Yankee_Aviator

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
28
What I want to know is whether the variable incidence wing was retained or omitted on the V-1000. I've heard it was a structural weakness that limited the F-8's maximum G loading, I would assume that for the sake of reducing weight and complexity and improving performance, the aircraft would not have the VI wing, if anyone knows, please inform me.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,336
Reaction score
6,325
That's a very good question !

Since it was to be a rather uncomplicated export fighter and with a shorter and lighter J79... I often assumed (since 2006 !) it was to be deleted but... combing this thread, I'm not sure at all now.
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
609
Reaction score
676
The variable incidence wing was retained still raising 7°. The leading edge cruise droops. both inboard and outboard would increase from 7° to 10°. The major changes to the wings would be replacing magnesium skins of the droops and outer wing panels, deletion of the wing fold system.
 
Last edited:

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
609
Reaction score
676
Here are some pages from the Technical Proposal that will thrill some and scare others! They show the empty weight derivation of the V-1000 in comparison with the F-8. Through these line items you can see the changes planned to create the V-1000 from the F-8 baseline.
 

Attachments

  • 71.gif
    71.gif
    34.6 KB · Views: 80
  • 70.gif
    70.gif
    36.1 KB · Views: 78
  • 69.gif
    69.gif
    37.4 KB · Views: 79
  • 72.gif
    72.gif
    23.9 KB · Views: 201

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
609
Reaction score
676
At first blush it looks like the V-1000 was offered up for the International Fighter Competition and a V-1000B version was offered to the USAF, Royal Netherlands Air Force, West German Airforce as well. Most everything is the same with the alternative of an M61A1 cannon in place of the two M39A3 cannons. (not illustrated in the attached V-1000B General Arrangement)
 

Attachments

  • V-1000B-General-Arrangement.gif
    V-1000B-General-Arrangement.gif
    57.8 KB · Views: 239

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
688
Here are some pages from the Technical Proposal that will thrill some and scare others! They show the empty weight derivation of the V-1000 in comparison with the F-8. Through these line items you can see the changes planned to create the V-1000 from the F-8 baseline.
Brilliant find thank you Bill S
Alas, a lot of tweeking to derive reduction in weight and complexity.
I'm very surprised that Vought/LTV went to the effort of eliminating the twin fuselage-mounted Sidewinder missile arrangement.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747
"Delete internal plumbing for IFR system"
Sounds like an odd choice for only a nine-pound loss?
Sure the "export" nations wouldn't have tankers on hand, but why would future proofing and interoperability be tossed out?
 

drejr

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
259
Reaction score
240
"Remainder of system was useful load" and pointing to a reference implies it was only a partial removal, most likely related to the deleted fuel cells.

The retractable probe is certainly going to weigh much more than nine pounds and it's not mentioned as deleted.
 
Last edited:

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747
"Remainder of system was useful load" and pointing to a reference implies it was only a partial removal, most likely related to the deleted fuel cells.

The retractable probe is certainly going to weigh much more than nine pounds and its not mentioned as deleted.
Good point!
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
688
At first blush it looks like the V-1000 was offered up for the International Fighter Competition and a V-1000B version was offered to the USAF, Royal Netherlands Air Force, West German Airforce as well. Most everything is the same with the alternative of an M61A1 cannon in place of the two M39A3 cannons. (not illustrated in the attached V-1000B General Arrangement)
Thank you once again Bill S

This picture makes a lot of sense in relation to the documents you kindly supplied.
Good to see the M39 cannons, although it has me beat why Vought/LTV would have incorporated the modified A-7 Corsair II underfuselage airbrake? Seems a lot of work and complexity when one considers the F-8 already had an airbrake system, which appeared to have work well enough.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,336
Reaction score
6,325
A Crusader (last of the gunfighters) with a M61 Vulcan... makes a lot of sense. Would turn MiGs into flaming shards of metal.
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
609
Reaction score
676
Here are some pages from the Technical Proposal that will thrill some and scare others! They show the empty weight derivation of the V-1000 in comparison with the F-8. Through these line items you can see the changes planned to create the V-1000 from the F-8 baseline.
Brilliant find thank you Bill S
Alas, a lot of tweeking to derive reduction in weight and complexity.
I'm very surprised that Vought/LTV went to the effort of eliminating the twin fuselage-mounted Sidewinder missile arrangement.

Regards
Pioneer
Not sure the reason other than drag and simplicity, does anyone know if the original spec was for only two sidewinders? The F-5 did end up with only two.
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
609
Reaction score
676
"Remainder of system was useful load" and pointing to a reference implies it was only a partial removal, most likely related to the deleted fuel cells.

The retractable probe is certainly going to weigh much more than nine pounds and it's not mentioned as deleted.
Useful load considerations were not in what I posted, I will see if I can find those documents. The IFR probe, actuator and fuselage fairing were to be removed/not installed on the V-1000
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
609
Reaction score
676
Here are a couple more images revolving around the fuel system changes from F-8D to V-1000
 

Attachments

  • V-1000-Fuel-system-differences.gif
    V-1000-Fuel-system-differences.gif
    5 KB · Views: 156
  • F-8D-vs-V-1000-Fuel-System-Comparison.gif
    F-8D-vs-V-1000-Fuel-System-Comparison.gif
    18.2 KB · Views: 177

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,688
Reaction score
8,000
GENERAL SUMMARY.

To enhance the demonstrated combat capability of the F-8 and to provide superior combat maneuverability, the V-1000B will differ from the F-8 in these significant areas.

  • The J79-GE-17 engine replaces the J57 engine for an installed weight savings of 952 pounds and an improvement in specific fuel consumption (SFC).
  • The two M39A3, 20 mm cannons replace four MK-12 cannons for an installed weight savings of 61 pounds.
  • The F-8 avionics suit will be reduced with an installed weight savings of 125 pounds
  • A total of 349 gallons of internal fuel will be deleted by removing six fuel cells.
  • A three degree increase in leading edge maneuvering droop has provided an increase in maneuvering capability. Use of landing droop at low speeds has further expanded the maneuvering envelope.
  • The center of gravity has been shifted aft to 29% M.A.C.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top