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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 09:02 PM |