A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aircraft that never lived up to their promise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old December 6th 03, 05:37 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Earl Watkins" wrote in message
om...

Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the
air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force,
It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF,
and never even made Navy service.


The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and powerplants
but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range, low-level
supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was to be an
all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.


  #102  
Old December 6th 03, 03:48 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Earl Watkins" wrote in message
om...

Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the
air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force,
It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF,
and never even made Navy service.


The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and powerplants
but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range, low-level
supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was to be

an
all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.


There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.

Keith


  #103  
Old December 6th 03, 04:23 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.


Yes, they weren't exactly alike. The USAF versions had differences among
them as well, the FB-111A/F-111G had a longer wing as did the Australian
F-111C. The point was the USAF and Navy versions were never intended to
perform the same mission in their respective services. The F-111B nose
could be shorter because the AN/AWG-9 radar and associated equipment used in
the Phoenix missile system required less space than AN/APQ-113 attack radar
and AN/APQ-110 terrain-following radar used to deliver air-to-ground stores.


  #104  
Old December 6th 03, 04:26 PM
Brett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
| nk.net...
|
| "Earl Watkins" wrote in message
| om...
|
| Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become
stars in
| the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be
the
| air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air
Force,
| It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the
USAF,
| and never even made Navy service.
|
|
| The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and
powerplants
| but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range,
low-level
| supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was
to be
| an
| all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.
|
|
| There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
| 8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
| was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
| upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.

You really should define "grossly overweight" since "the replacement",
the F-14 ended up with a similar maximum weight and similar engines. The
Navy's primary concern with weight in the 1960's would have been
elevator loading, arrested landing and catapult launch. Yet the F-111B
replacement aircraft based on weight and engines had similar issues and
it was accepted.


  #105  
Old December 6th 03, 05:07 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brett" wrote in message
...

You really should define "grossly overweight" since "the replacement",
the F-14 ended up with a similar maximum weight and similar engines. The
Navy's primary concern with weight in the 1960's would have been
elevator loading, arrested landing and catapult launch. Yet the F-111B
replacement aircraft based on weight and engines had similar issues and
it was accepted.


Every source I've seen shows significantly higher weight and less power for
the F-111B compared to the F-14A. From "The American Fighter" by Enzo
Angelucci with Peter Bowers:

F-111B empty weight of 46,000 lbs and a gross weight of 72, 421 lbs, and
TF30-P-1 engines rated at 11,500 lbs s.t. and 18,500 lbs AB.

F-14A empty weight of 40,070 lbs and a gross weight of 66,200 lbs, and
TF30-P-412A engines rated at 12,500 lbs s.t. and 20,900 lbs AB.

What source shows similar figures for these aircraft?


  #106  
Old December 6th 03, 05:58 PM
Brett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
|
| You really should define "grossly overweight" since "the
replacement",
| the F-14 ended up with a similar maximum weight and similar engines.
The
| Navy's primary concern with weight in the 1960's would have been
| elevator loading, arrested landing and catapult launch. Yet the
F-111B
| replacement aircraft based on weight and engines had similar issues
and
| it was accepted.
|
|
| Every source I've seen shows significantly higher weight and less
power for
| the F-111B compared to the F-14A. From "The American Fighter" by Enzo
| Angelucci with Peter Bowers:
|
| F-111B empty weight of 46,000 lbs and a gross weight of 72, 421 lbs,
and
| TF30-P-1 engines rated at 11,500 lbs s.t. and 18,500 lbs AB.
|
| F-14A empty weight of 40,070 lbs and a gross weight of 66,200 lbs, and
| TF30-P-412A engines rated at 12,500 lbs s.t. and 20,900 lbs AB.
|
| What source shows similar figures for these aircraft?

Putnam's Grumman Aircraft since 1929 gives the F-14A max weight at
74,300 and several sources quote the F-14A Standard Aircraft
Characteristics dated April 1977 that the F-14A in Fleet Air Defense
configuration has an empty weight of 44,700 lbs.
As for the engines, the TF30-P-412A is similar to the TF30-P-1, as for
the thrust of the P-412A I would imagine the F-111B developments would
have ended up with an engine similar to that put into the F-111D (the
TF30-P-9) or even F-111F (the TF30-P-100).
Weight is important but the characteristic that is probably most
important when the aircraft carries very expensive air to air missiles
is the required wind over deck in landing configuration for the aircraft
and the specific carrier it is landing on, at a landing weight that
includes those weapons still being there. How does the F-14A compare
with the F-111B under those conditions, I've seen several quotes that
the F-14A doesn't always come out as that "great" under those
circumstances and the F-14A isn't hauling around a "large" escape
capsule, an internal weapons bay and the capability of M1.2 on the deck.


  #107  
Old December 7th 03, 08:10 PM
Merlin Dorfman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ArtKramr ) wrote:
: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Don't tell that to the Russians, who got many via lend-lease and
made a great tank-buster of it with its 37 mm. cannon.

  #108  
Old December 7th 03, 08:46 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Merlin Dorfman
writes
ArtKramr ) wrote:
: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Don't tell that to the Russians, who got many via lend-lease and
made a great tank-buster of it with its 37 mm. cannon.


They used it as a fighter, not a tankbuster (though it did well in the
role: the Eastern Front was a low-level arena and the P-39 was in its
element).

The 37mm was actually fairly low velocity compared to a proper antitank
weapon (~600m/s muzzle velocity, compared to ~900 for antitank guns and
airborne 37s designed for tank killing)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
  #109  
Old December 9th 03, 01:11 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brett" wrote in message
...

Putnam's Grumman Aircraft since 1929 gives the F-14A max weight at
74,300 and several sources quote the F-14A Standard Aircraft
Characteristics dated April 1977 that the F-14A in Fleet Air Defense
configuration has an empty weight of 44,700 lbs.


What figures does it give for the F-111B?


  #110  
Old December 9th 03, 11:55 PM
Brett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Putnam's Grumman Aircraft since 1929 gives the F-14A max weight at
| 74,300 and several sources quote the F-14A Standard Aircraft
| Characteristics dated April 1977 that the F-14A in Fleet Air Defense
| configuration has an empty weight of 44,700 lbs.
|
|
| What figures does it give for the F-111B?

Putnam's Grumman Aircraft since 1929 doesn't quote a max carrier takeoff
weight for the F-111B (the F-111B was supposed to be fully operational
on a CVA-41 Midway class carrier, so any carrier max takeoff or landing
capability would depend on the limits imposed by the minimum required
lauch and recovery platform). Putnam's quoted empty weight for the
F-111B of 46,500 lbs would be close to the empty weight in Fleet Air
Defense configuration (which with wing pylons for Phoenix missiles would
be close to 47,400). Putnam's quoted loaded weight of 72,421 lbs would
be for an aircraft max fuel and a couple of Phoenix missiles. The
unquoted maximum carrier takeoff weight in Fleet Air Defense
configuration with full Phoenix load (the configuration quoted for the
F-14A) would be about 77,500 lbs (about 4% higher than the F-14A).
Putnam's quoted max weight of 86,563 lbs is the design gross weight and
isn't a figure that the aircraft would have ever operated from a carrier
at.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 40 October 3rd 08 03:13 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 October 1st 04 02:31 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 September 2nd 04 05:15 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 April 5th 04 03:04 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 1 January 2nd 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.