XF-103 Thunderwarrior

[robert arndt]

Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
there" when compared to the technology of the time:

XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.jpg
XF-103 Cut-Away: http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/republic/xf/103/images/xf103v.gif
XF-103 Colors: http://www.alpha-net.ne.jp/users2/kura1/mswkits/inst103color.jpg
XF-103 Model: http://www.collectaire.com/modelpages/xf103/xf103.html

The modeling page is all color with all views. Truly ahead of its
time, but only ranked 8th out of 9 design proposals that led to the
F-102.

Rob

[Dave Kearton]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
| Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
| there" when compared to the technology of the time:
|
| XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.jpg
| XF-103 Cut-Away:
http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/republic/xf/103/images/xf103v.gif
| XF-103 Colors:
http://www.alpha-net.ne.jp/users2/kura1/mswkits/inst103color.jpg
| XF-103 Model: http://www.collectaire.com/modelpages/xf103/xf103.html
|
| The modeling page is all color with all views. Truly ahead of its
| time, but only ranked 8th out of 9 design proposals that led to the
| F-102.
|
| Rob





Would certainly keep the runways clean.







Cheers


Dave Kearton

[robert arndt]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> | Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
> | there" when compared to the technology of the time:

Correct link to Mock-up:
XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103-1.jpg

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/14/2004 10:53 AM Central
>
>"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
>message >...
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> | Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
>> | there" when compared to the technology of the time:
>
>Correct link to Mock-up:
>XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103-1.jpg
>
>Rob
>
Try http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.htm

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[PosterBoy]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message >...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > | Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
> > | there" when compared to the technology of the time:
>
> Correct link to Mock-up:
> XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103-1.jpg
> Rob

Nope. Wrong, again.
It's:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.htm

(Or, if you like it short and sweet, it is:
http://tinyurl.com/25ktk .

Cheers.

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 2/14/2004 10:53 AM Central
> >
> >"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
> >message >...
> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> | Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
> >> | there" when compared to the technology of the time:
> >
> >Correct link to Mock-up:
> >XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103-1.jpg
> >
> >Rob
> >
> Try http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.htm
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hopefully, a better link...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-103-1.jpg

Rob

[Paul F Austin]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 2/14/2004 10:53 AM Central
> >
> >"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
> >message >...
> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> | Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
> >> | there" when compared to the technology of the time:
> >
> >Correct link to Mock-up:
> >XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103-1.jpg
> >
> >Rob
> >
> Try http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.htm
>

Thanks.

Looking at it, the aircraft would likely have had the same sort of
performance shortfall that the F102 prototype had because of lack of area
ruling. During that period, transonic aerodynamics were very poorly
understood and engine development failed a lot. The J-67 was one of those
failures IIRC.

[Brett]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote:
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: (robert arndt)
> > >Date: 2/14/2004 10:53 AM Central
> > >
> > >"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
> > >message >...
> > >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > >> om...
> > >> | Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly
"out
> > >> | there" when compared to the technology of the time:
> > >
> > >Correct link to Mock-up:
> > >XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103-1.jpg
> > >
> > >Rob
> > >
> > Try http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.htm
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looking at it, the aircraft would likely have had the same sort of
> performance shortfall that the F102 prototype had because of lack of area
> ruling. During that period, transonic aerodynamics were very poorly
> understood and engine development failed a lot. The J-67 was one of those
> failures IIRC.

The XJ67 was a US license built Bristol Olympus engine and was also proposed
as an F-102 powerplant.
Versions of the Bristol Olympus powered the Vulcan, the TSR-2 and it was the
basis of the Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus that developed almost 40,000 lb at
sea level installed in the Concorde.

What was supposed to give the XF-103 mach 3+ performance was the XRJ55
afterburner/ramjet.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:26:45 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>> >Date: 2/14/2004 10:53 AM Central
>> >
>> >"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
>> >message >...
>> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> >> om...
>> >> | Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
>> >> | there" when compared to the technology of the time:
>> >
>> >Correct link to Mock-up:
>> >XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103-1.jpg
>> >
>> >Rob
>> >
>> Try http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.htm
>>
>
>Thanks.
>
>Looking at it, the aircraft would likely have had the same sort of
>performance shortfall that the F102 prototype had because of lack of area
>ruling. During that period, transonic aerodynamics were very poorly
>understood and engine development failed a lot. The J-67 was one of those
>failures IIRC.
>

AFAIK the "coke bottle" fuselage shape is only an indicator of area
ruling. There are many high speed aircraft over the years that didn't
have a coke bottle shape to the fuselage. Area ruling takes in the
whole package, not just the fuselage.

[Paul F Austin]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:26:45 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: (robert arndt)
> >> >Date: 2/14/2004 10:53 AM Central
> >> >
> >> >"Dave Kearton" > wrote
in
> >> >message >...
> >> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> >> >> om...
> >> >> | Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly
"out
> >> >> | there" when compared to the technology of the time:
> >> >
> >> >Correct link to Mock-up:
> >> >XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103-1.jpg
> >> >
> >> >Rob
> >> >
> >> Try http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.htm
> >>
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Looking at it, the aircraft would likely have had the same sort of
> >performance shortfall that the F102 prototype had because of lack of area
> >ruling. During that period, transonic aerodynamics were very poorly
> >understood and engine development failed a lot. The J-67 was one of those
> >failures IIRC.
> >
>
> AFAIK the "coke bottle" fuselage shape is only an indicator of area
> ruling. There are many high speed aircraft over the years that didn't
> have a coke bottle shape to the fuselage. Area ruling takes in the
> whole package, not just the fuselage.

Yep but doing an eyeball-analysis of the F103 picture makes it look like the
cross section graph would have multiple humps and jumps starting at the
inlet with a ramp starting at the begining of the wing root, a sharp drop at
the aft extent of the wing, then another ramp with bumps for the tail..
"Coke-bottling" was the first-generation effort and applying the area rule
but the people designing the F102 and F103 certainly weren't beyond that
first generation.

[David E. Powell]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Check out one of the F-102's competitors. This aircraft is truly "out
> there" when compared to the technology of the time:
>
> XF-103 Mock-Up: http://wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f103.jpg
> XF-103 Cut-Away:
http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/republic/xf/103/images/xf103v.gif
> XF-103 Colors:
http://www.alpha-net.ne.jp/users2/kura1/mswkits/inst103color.jpg
> XF-103 Model: http://www.collectaire.com/modelpages/xf103/xf103.html
>
> The modeling page is all color with all views. Truly ahead of its
> time, but only ranked 8th out of 9 design proposals that led to the
> F-102.
>
> Rob

The wing and tail show striking similarities, IMO, to the MiG-21. The
intake, however, looks like the F-100 follow-on (F-107?) that people were
developing..... One incredible machine, however. Truly a fighter that 1950s
comic book/cartoon types would have flipped over!

DEP