XF-103 Thunderwarrior

"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/resea...ghter/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.