Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of
the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

Northrop developed the F-20 on speculation and all aviation is politics.
Some have lamented the F-16 being made available, as some sort of conspiracy
against Northrop, but export law changes were a part of the times for the
entire arospace industry.

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

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Here's a few:

TBD Devastator
F2A Buffalo
B-32 Dominator
F-111B
F11F Tiger
AM-1 Mauler
F-20 Tigershark
YB-40 and YB-41 gunships of B-17 and B-24
Mitushibshi A7M
Me-163 (killed more of its own pilots than Allied aircrew)
TBY Seawolf
F-90
F-107
F-108

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


Scott Ferrin a loser?

That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.

This is unprovoked.

Hardly.


Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something
doesn't it?

Not if they are a loser.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:59 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


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

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Here's a few:

TBD Devastator
F2A Buffalo
B-32 Dominator
F-111B
F11F Tiger
AM-1 Mauler
F-20 Tigershark
YB-40 and YB-41 gunships of B-17 and B-24
Mitushibshi A7M
Me-163 (killed more of its own pilots than Allied aircrew)
TBY Seawolf
F-90
F-107
F-108


The F-108 was cancelled because 1. $$$$ and 2. that's about the time
something better came along - the YF-12A. Which was also never
purchased.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:59 GMT, "Matt Wiser"

wrote:

F-107

One of my favorite "what if?" planes, just for the intake placement
alone...

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-107_ultra_sabre.pl

Pretty little thing, though. Great pic at the bottom of that page.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:48:22 -0200, "Vicente Vazquez"
wrote:

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

There's a lot of truth in the sequence. The policy, pre-Carter, was to
provide second level (similar to Soviet "export" version) aircraft to
third-world/developing nation AFs. These were the folks that were
principal customers for the NF-156 Freedom Fighter (AKA F-5A program).

Northrop developed a follow-on to the F-5 to sell to existing
customers who were not eligible for US equippage, i.e. F-15/F-16
aircraft. There were other contenders, such as the F-16/79--a Viper
without advanced avionics and pushed by a J-79 engine. It was a viable
market for an arguably competitive airplane.

When Carter breached the dike by contracting for F-16As to Pakistan
and then S. Korea, the list of potential F-20 customers disappeared as
they all demanded first level equipment, i.e. F-16s.

Later Northrop tried to flog the airplane to Air Defense Command and
as a potential diversification airplane for TAC, but it simply
couldn't compete against the already existing Viper base.

Having flown the F-20 cockpit (albeit not with F-20 flight models)
during F-23 Dem/Val, I would say that the F-20 was not ready to
compete with the ergonomics of F-16.

Throw in a couple of demo aircraft prangs and you have all the
ingredients of a failed program.

On or about Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:37:43 GMT, "Ed Majden"
allegedly uttered:


"Chad Irby"
Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't
"incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even
one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of
these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no
worse than getting shot down in the first place.

Good thing we didn't have to go through a nuclear war to see who is
right! One of our base hospitals had an appropriate sign at the entrance.

"What to do in case of a nuclear attack: Answer: "Stick your head
between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!"

Nuke is an acronym.....

Notice Flash
Unzip trousers
Kiss Ass Goodbye
Evaporate.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Matt Wiser" wrote:

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

Regards,
Here's a few:

TBD Devastator
F2A Buffalo
B-32 Dominator
F-111B
F11F Tiger
AM-1 Mauler
F-20 Tigershark
YB-40 and YB-41 gunships of B-17 and B-24
Mitushibshi A7M
Me-163 (killed more of its own pilots than Allied aircrew)
TBY Seawolf
F-90
F-107
F-108

The beautiful (but flawed) Chance-Vought Cutlass

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:vKKyb.541308$9l5.70736@pd7tw2no...

Fortunately we didn't find out what their accuracy was! If it was as
bad as you seem to suggest, what the hell were we scared iof them for.


Because we didn't live in hardened shelters.



Long
before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London. The first strike would have
been ICBMs in any event, not bombers.


What Soviet ICBMs had the accuracy to destroy hard targets when Bomarc
entered service?

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:iTLyb.541516$9l5.417832@pd7tw2no...

"Keith Willshaw"
Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have
the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have
even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put
their
strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only
made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to
expend them on possible Bomarc sites.

If what you say is correct, you can't say much for the American
intelligence community. Either that, or Ike was right! "Beware of the
military industrial complex in America". The military build up was not
for
security but to keep industries running.

I think thats overly cynical. The Russians were claiming they had the
weapons , the experts knew they could be developed in the time
frame since the USA had done so. Overestimating your enemies
capabilities and sizing your forces to match is usually less of a
problem than the converse so Intelligence analysts tend to take
the pessimistic view.

Glad we didn't have to carry out a test to see which concept was the
correct
one!


Indeed.

Keith