([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Artic/F5G-4.jpg[/url])
Why did they propose the high wing? Any particular benefits over the low wing?
In 1978 Northrop Advanced Design was at work developing the single F-404 engined F-5 which became the Tigershark. Lee Begin was working in the F-18L project but was scandalized that Northrop would consider a single engined fighter. He had us F-18L guys do this design for a SuperTiger with a shoulder wing (more pylons and stores capability) and a cobra LEX and inlet. We did not succeed in selling the idea except for the improved rearward visibility which appeared on Tigershark.
BillRo
High-winger built (sort of)!
([url]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/Northrop%20FA-5K/NorthropN300007.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/Northrop%20FA-5K/NorthropN300010.jpg[/url])
Out of a matter of interest, how did you do the undercarriage, Weaver? One of the things that has always worried me about the high wing model that Northrop showed was how the undercarriage folded up. From my understanding of the internal structure of the standard F-5, there isn't much room in that fuselage for anything.
We've got some but it will take a few days I think to find where the pics were archived.Four bolts tying the wing to the fuselage? Interesting!! Both the P-51 and the Learjet are set up that same way.
These below though I took when I was coming up with an idea on how to make a much better fixture. The bolt hole I'm measuring is one of four where the wing gets bolted to four corresponding lugs sticking out the bottom of the fuselage.
Incidently, how the aircraft comes apart is almost how Airfix has the way the kit gets assembled, I found that very interesting.
We've got some but it will take a few days I think to find where the pics were archived.Four bolts tying the wing to the fuselage? Interesting!! Both the P-51 and the Learjet are set up that same way.
These below though I took when I was coming up with an idea on how to make a much better fixture. The bolt hole I'm measuring is one of four where the wing gets bolted to four corresponding lugs sticking out the bottom of the fuselage.
Incidently, how the aircraft comes apart is almost how Airfix has the way the kit gets assembled, I found that very interesting.
Persian Independence Air Force markings?
Persian Independence Air Force markings?
A couple of T-38 proposals (courtesy of http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.de/2012/09/talons-in-space-northrops-n-205-proposal.html (http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.de/2012/09/talons-in-space-northrops-n-205-proposal.html)):
Supersonic VIP transport:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DsCIqSyKbkw/UF_1sLKj-TI/AAAAAAAABDU/IpkuO5Wx0Q0/s1600/1137-102w.jpg)
T-38 VTOL variant:
1/32 T-38 would make into cool 1/72 transport !
But there aint one far as I know.
1/32 T-38 would make into cool 1/72 transport !
But there aint one far as I know.
Rather than the N-156NN, it likely would've been a later design development, the N-251B which had a raised cockpit compared to the N-156 and increased wing area.
Unfortunately, I didn't borrow and copy that brochure when I had the chance (co-worker on a classified program there had it and getting things in and out was a pain at times).
Regarding a 1/48 T-38, didn't Fujimi do one?
Am I the only one who thinks that naval concept looks a bit like the outcome if an F-5 knocked up an Su-25 Frogfoot?
X-29 with F-20A cockpit and nose with vectoring LO nozzle on a F414. Four or six underwing stores points with pylons shaped to avoid the moving portions of the wing.
The X-29 has a flex wing wherein the forward and aft sections of the wing flex as flaps etc. to improve performance; the intention would be for the pylons to not interfere with that. The pylons would attach to the fixed iddle portionof the wing and be shaped to miss the maximum deflections of the flexing parts.
Basically, I'm thinking of a GE equivalent of the combined AVEN and LOAN programs (both of which used P&W engines). I'm certain GE has similar efforts and I'd wager that the F136 used at least the LOAN aspect. you'd mainly end up with s trimmed rear edge of the nozzle much like what is on the F-35's nozzle and the nozzle would be a "glossy metallic black" in color, showing the "special coatings" applied.
<...> Still, with the MLG trunnions where they are, I'm not sure how large a store you could carry on the centerline.
If memory serves me correctly, take a look at the tanks under the wings of the F11F-1. Too, though they are small, look at the tip tanks for the F-5.<...> Still, with the MLG trunnions where they are, I'm not sure how large a store you could carry on the centerline.
Yeah, that needs to be taken into consideration. I figure an ECM pod wouldn't be too much of a problem. A drop tank might be more difficult. Maybe it would need to be waisted/tapered at some point to allow the gear to pass. I think some trainer uses a tapered drop tank. I want to say it's the BAe Hawk, but I'm not sure.
How about a F-20 with some of the developments of the late model F-16s? E.g avionics spine and/or conformal fuel tanks?That could get a bit problematical in some ways, given the internal structure. If I was going to add a conformal tank, I'd work it around the centerline pylon on the underside of the aircraft, though you'd also need to stay clear of the MLG bays and doors. You could modify the existing upper fuselage somewhat, but you've got that heat exchanger intake at the base of the vertical fin with a hydrazine bottle for the remote start system aft of it.
AFAIK, they're all photoshopped images. :icon_crap: In rickshaw's last picture, you can see there's a bit of a problem with the IFR probe, simply vanishing where it should merge into the CFT and cast a shadow on the CFT. And there's no upper vent/bypass for the boundary layer.I'd be inclined to agree with this. There definitely should be a hard indication of where the refueling probe and the tank intersect. AFAIK, you'd need to make some structural changes to mount these tanks, but it wouldn't be impossible (I am familiar with the structural changes to mount the F-16's conformal tanks); it would, however, require a complete rebuild of the fuselage from the FS284 bulkhead (aft end of the cockpit for all versions) on aft. You could scab it on, but that would add rather more weight than doing it cleanly and take just about as much labor.
Maybe we could have an F-20C or F-20E with the larger wing and all of the other developments etc. To allow for the necessary structural changes etc, we say that during the development of the new version there was a major redesign so as to allow for far more expansion of capability.that works for me. I'll have to see what can be developed. Now, if I can just find some of those notes I copied....
AFAIK, they're all photoshopped images. :icon_crap: In rickshaw's last picture, you can see there's a bit of a problem with the IFR probe, simply vanishing where it should merge into the CFT and cast a shadow on the CFT. And there's no upper vent/bypass for the boundary layer.
I'd love to hang a wing on Monogram's F-20 kit like we see in the very first post on page one of this thread.I'd have to check on how similar a F-18 wing is; that's the first option I'd consider for the greater span wing. Add the enlarged LERX of the navalized version in the first entry and you'd have a good start.
And toss some resin fiddly bits here and there about it.
I'd have to check on how similar a F-18 wing is; that's the first option I'd consider for the greater span wing.
First look in 1/144 ('cause it's what was immediately available) says "Yeah, but you don't want to use the entire F-18 wing." I'll check 1/72 next (I'd hoped to do that this past afternoon, but ended up spending it at the ER with a very sick wife).I'd have to check on how similar a F-18 wing is; that's the first option I'd consider for the greater span wing.
Look forward to your analysis
Would a navalized version of the X-29 been possible or would the forward swept wings caused problems? Have ideas for one of DML's 1/144 kits...Quite possibly. The wing flexes to give the effect of leading edge and trailing edge flaps, that's why you need to be careful in mounting pylons on the wing.
Anyone know much about the 1/48 GIIC Resin T-38 kit from Brazil?
Using the Monogram F-5E kit, put the recce nose on and have Khemed use it alongside their F-100s.Are you referring to the simple recce nose that replaces the radome, a carary-over from the F-5A, or the full-out recce fit of the Rf-5E Tiger Eye?
Is that the same mob who do the Super-Tucano in 1/72 and 1/48? I've only seen them on Evilbay and they seem to have disappeared at the moment.
Are you referring to the simple recce nose that replaces the radome, a carary-over from the F-5A, or the full-out recce fit of the Rf-5E Tiger Eye?
I can appreciate that. I'm thinking, still, that said small recce nose, with the guts of a Sniper pod replacing the cameras and the radar boxes behind it, would make a good fast - FAC aircraft.QuoteAre you referring to the simple recce nose that replaces the radome, a carary-over from the F-5A, or the full-out recce fit of the RF-5E Tiger Eye?
The kit-included little nose. The reason why? I don't want to buy the Tigereye kit. :o ;D ;D ;D
Complete whiif idea: fit a tailless delta wing and then fill out the area-rule waisting in the fuselage.
Complete whiif idea: fit a tailless delta wing and then fill out the area-rule waisting in the fuselage.
A delta would need the waisted portion to be further aft, the idea of area ruling being that the overall frontal area at any point along the airframe should be constant, or close to it anyway. Thus the bumps either side of the exhaust on an F-102 etc.
Is the wing of the F-20 too low to the ground to be put into the role of a F/A-18L-like aircraft?
Complete whiif idea: fit a tailless delta wing and then fill out the area-rule waisting in the fuselage.
Something like this?
([url]http://i.imgur.com/lzKCSmA.jpg[/url])
(taken from a thread on Secret Projects about alternatives to the ATF program, in this case an upgraded F-20 design)
Norwegian F-20 loadout:I'm thinking of something like that, but with a Harpoon on the centerline and, possibly IRIS-T's on the wingtips since Norway is part of that program. Know where I can get some suitable 1/144 Norwegian decals? I've got all the rest of the pieces.
AIM-132. Wingtip
Penguin
Fuel
Penguin on center or fuel.
Repeat other side.
I'm thinking of something like that, but with a Harpoon on the centerline and, possibly IRIS-T's on the wingtips since Norway is part of that program.
Are you implying that the MIG 28 is a rip off of the F-5, reverse engineered from captured South Vietnamese examples?well it does have stroking similarities
There's a nice detailing set in 1/48 I'm tempted to add to a 1/48 F-20 and do in Canadian markings.
Belcher Bits CF-5A Update and Weapons Set in 1/48 - refueling probe and rocket pods; would look good on either a CF-5E/F or a CF-20.There's a nice detailing set in 1/48 I'm tempted to add to a 1/48 F-20 and do in Canadian markings.
Which set is that Evan?
Would I say that... ;DAre you implying that the MIG 28 is a rip off of the F-5, reverse engineered from captured South Vietnamese examples?well it does have stroking similarities
But speaking of, look what AFV Club have announced as a future release......
Look what I just found:
([url]http://www.essmc.org.au/Members%20Models/airmil/Post%20WW2/Jamie_McDonald_whatif_F5E_tiger/Jamie_McDonald_whatif_F5E_tiger%202%20large.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.essmc.org.au/Jamie_McDonald_whatif_F5E_tiger.html[/url])
Click on image for more details.
Look what I just found:
([url]http://www.essmc.org.au/Members%20Models/airmil/Post%20WW2/Jamie_McDonald_whatif_F5E_tiger/Jamie_McDonald_whatif_F5E_tiger%202%20large.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.essmc.org.au/Jamie_McDonald_whatif_F5E_tiger.html[/url])
Click on image for more details.
Interesting, that an IAI marketing model?
Yeo, based on some co-development studies Northrop did with IAI early in the Lavi program (when the baseline Lavi still had a F404). My last lead there worked on that study for the propulsion side.Interesting, that an IAI marketing model?
Northrop model I believe
Northrop F-5G/F-20 derived Lavi Developments:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/IMG_0005A_zpsupkncv3i.jpg[/url])
Viggen wing?
Viggen wing?
yeh and it fits lovely
At least one naval T-38/F-5 variant was the N-285B (I do wish I'd copied that brochure when I had the chance to read it in a co-worker's cubicle).
Now, as part of the early history of the Lavi, IAI approached Northrop about a joint-venture (this was early one when they contemplated using a F404 for power; weight growth led to the PW1120). Northrop came back with some Tigershark/Lavi hybrids. The first version used much of the F-20's structure; see below.
The N-285B or the Tigershark/Lavi hybrid? The first had a raised rear cockpit and a larger and slightly more swept wing while some of the different variations of the latter did have canards.At least one naval T-38/F-5 variant was the N-285B (I do wish I'd copied that brochure when I had the chance to read it in a co-worker's cubicle).
Now, as part of the early history of the Lavi, IAI approached Northrop about a joint-venture (this was early one when they contemplated using a F404 for power; weight growth led to the PW1120). Northrop came back with some Tigershark/Lavi hybrids. The first version used much of the F-20's structure; see below.
Is this a canard config? I had no idea about this project.
Am I hallucinating when I see traces of heritage from the F-5 family on Northrop's T-X demonstrator ([url]https://twitter.com/David_Kern/status/766720972376281089[/url])?
Am I hallucinating when I see traces of heritage from the F-5 family on Northrop's T-X demonstrator (https://twitter.com/David_Kern/status/766720972376281089)?No, I wouldn't say you were, the family resemblance is there; clearly some "DNA" carried over. Their demonstrator is an attractive aircraft but I'm not sure how well the costs of an all-new design will compare with adapting an existing recent trainer design.
Following the suggestions mentioned above ...Needs more asymmetry. One of them could be F-20, at least.
Actually how about an attack coded A-5, no radar but all the warrie air to ground sensors, say a Jag or Harrier GR3 nose and various lumps and bumps for night attack and navigation sensors.
Actually how about an attack coded A-5, no radar but all the warrie air to ground sensors, say a Jag or Harrier GR3 nose and various lumps and bumps for night attack and navigation sensors.
A bit like this one from the first page of this thread:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/f5ejag.jpg[/url])
Actually how about an attack coded A-5, no radar but all the warrie air to ground sensors, say a Jag or Harrier GR3 nose and various lumps and bumps for night attack and navigation sensors.On a F-5E, start with the short recce nose of the RF-5A, replace the front glass and lower portion with the chisel nose from a Jaguar; for a "Fast FAC" OF-5F, do it to a F-5F but use the sensor element of a suitable pod (Sniper or Lightning occur to me).
Actually how about an attack coded A-5, no radar but all the warrie air to ground sensors, say a Jag or Harrier GR3 nose and various lumps and bumps for night attack and navigation sensors.
A bit like this one from the first page of this thread:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/f5ejag.jpg[/url])
Israel takes over the F-20 once the Lavi is cancelled?Or perhaps goes forward with one of the F-20/Lavi hybrids Horthrop proposed?
A beautiful model thanks The Big Gimper!
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46501925_10213125718119070_5431309758692851712_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=b4fca1edd73fc8ac02a3f4661ea6ee59&oe=5C76EB4E)
Now just imagine if Piggy had bought the F-20 instead of the RANs Skyhawks and the ANZAC frigates...…..
Now just imagine if Piggy had bought the F-20 instead of the RANs Skyhawks and the ANZAC frigates...…..
Well the F-20s would have been better than Skyhawks though arguably nether offered NZ anything realistically useful. The ANZACs on the other hand did.
Now just imagine if Piggy had bought the F-20 instead of the RANs Skyhawks and the ANZAC frigates...…..
Well the F-20s would have been better than Skyhawks though arguably nether offered NZ anything realistically useful. The ANZACs on the other hand did.
Not a fan of the ANZACs, I do like the RAN ASMD upgrades but not impressed with the platform it was shoehorned into. Now the OHP FFG on the other hand has actually worked out cheaper to own and operate than the much less capable ANZACs (though the FFGUP is now a case study on how not to run a project). My personal opinion is the Type 23 would have been the best option but I know an Admiral who literally voted for the M Class. ;)
Sorry deviating off topic, but I too thought the M Class was also the better option.....but then again, I would have been very happy with the sensible proposed joint Australian/Malaysian OPV (along with a Hi/Lo.mix of F-18L's and F-20's :-*)
M.A.D
Tasty!! Are those missiles available in 1/72 or 1/48?
Was the F-5E cleared to carry anti-ship missiles? Asking for a friend. :o
I did see this: [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1696.msg23264#msg23264[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1696.msg23264#msg23264[/url])
Was the F-5E cleared to carry anti-ship missiles? Asking for a friend. :o
I did see this: [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1696.msg23264#msg23264[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1696.msg23264#msg23264[/url])
Was the F-5E cleared to carry anti-ship missiles? Asking for a friend. :o
How about a British F-5K.Or an F-20K powered by a RB.199 to ease the logistics "tail".
How about a British F-5K.
How about a British F-5K.
You mean like this one, Greg? ([url]https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=32234.msg498228#msg498228[/url])
([url]http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/394/1001694h.jpg[/url])
([url]http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1350/1001695p.jpg[/url])
How about a British F-5K.Or an F-20K powered by a RB.199 to ease the logistics "tail".
| General Electric J85-GE-13 (if based upon F-5A/CF-5) | General Electric J85-GE-21 (if based upon F-5E) | Rolls-Royce Viper Mk 633-41/47 (same engines as Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur) | RB199 Mk 103 | F404-GE-101 (F-20 engine) | ||||
| Length: 2.776m Diameter: 0.559m Dry weight: 271kg Dry thrust: 12.099KN (2729lb) Thrust with afterburner: 18.149KN (4080lb) Total Propulsion Weight: 542kg Total propulsion Thrust: 5458 - 8160lb | Length: 2.858m Diameter: 0.663m Dry weight: 290kg Dry thrust: 16.041 KN (3600lb) Thrust with afterburner: 22.241KN (5000lb) Total Propulsion Weight: 580kg Total propulsion Thrust: 7200 - 10,000lb | Length: 4.44m Diameter: 0.709m Dry weight: 553kg Dry thrust: 17.659KN (3970lb) Thrust with afterburner: 22.241KN (5000lb) Total Propulsion Weight: 1106 kg Total propulsion Thrust: 7940 - 10,000lb | Length: 3.232mm Diameter: 0.734m Dry weight: 1061kg Dry thrust: 40.7KN (9150lb) Thrust with afterburner: 71.5KN (16,074lb) Total Propulsion Weight: 1061kg Total propulsion Thrust: 9150 - 16,074lb | Length: 4.034mm Diameter: 0..881m Dry weight: 1035kg Dry thrust: 48.9KN (11,000lb) Thrust with afterburner: 75.619KN (17,000lb) Total Propulsion Weight: 1035kg Total propulsion Thrust: 11,000 - 17,000lb |
Well, it was an F-5 derivative, but there were major changes to meet the USN's requirements. It is covered in Specialty Press book on Northrop designs.
You mean like this one, Greg? (https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=32234.msg498228#msg498228)
My reference was to doing a F-20K with an RB.199, not converting a F-5E. For a F-5K, I'd likely stay with the same engines (though I do know that at one time Northrop was talking with a couple engine companies about low-bypass turbofans that would be interchangeable with the J85's in fit and form to improve performance and range - my understanding is that they didn't see enough market to be worth the effort, never mind that a dry version of such an engine could be used to re-engine 20-series Learjets and bring them into compliance with latter-day noise standards which would be an additional large market).How about a British F-5K.Or an F-20K powered by a RB.199 to ease the logistics "tail".
You would have to use a single RB.199 I think (early F-20?) given the size of this engine vs the J85. I suppose it also depends on the era and if this would be a F-5A derived version (maybe even a FC-5 buy?) or a F-5E derived version. Looking at some engine options:
General Electric J85-GE-13
(if based upon F-5A/CF-5)General Electric J85-GE-21
(if based upon F-5E)Rolls-Royce Viper Mk 633-41/47
(same engines as Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur)RB199 Mk 103 F404-GE-101
(F-20 engine)Length: 2.776m
Diameter: 0.559m
Dry weight: 271kg
Dry thrust: 12.099KN (2729lb)
Thrust with afterburner: 18.149KN (4080lb)
Total Propulsion Weight: 542kg
Total propulsion Thrust: 5458 - 8160lbLength: 2.858m
Diameter: 0.663m
Dry weight: 290kg
Dry thrust: 16.041 KN (3600lb)
Thrust with afterburner: 22.241KN (5000lb)
Total Propulsion Weight: 580kg
Total propulsion Thrust: 7200 - 10,000lbLength: 4.44m
Diameter: 0.709m
Dry weight: 553kg
Dry thrust: 17.659KN (3970lb)
Thrust with afterburner: 22.241KN (5000lb)
Total Propulsion Weight: 1106 kg
Total propulsion Thrust: 7940 - 10,000lbLength: 3.232mm
Diameter: 0.734m
Dry weight: 1061kg
Dry thrust: 40.7KN (9150lb)
Thrust with afterburner: 71.5KN (16,074lb)
Total Propulsion Weight: 1061kg
Total propulsion Thrust: 9150 - 16,074lbLength: 4.034mm
Diameter: 0..881m
Dry weight: 1035kg
Dry thrust: 48.9KN (11,000lb)
Thrust with afterburner: 75.619KN (17,000lb)
Total Propulsion Weight: 1035kg
Total propulsion Thrust: 11,000 - 17,000lb
Therefore, based on this, if one wanted to do a F-5K, I see two main options:
- Minimal option - go with a standard F-5/CF-5 with no engine changes; or
- Radical Change - go with a single engine, perhaps the RB.199.
Note that the engine change will necessitate a lengthening of the fuselage to accomodate the longer engine.
Maybe replace the 20mm M39 cannons as well. - maybe a single 30mm ADEN?
More Iranian modifications (found HERE (https://iran-military.com/thread-185-page-5.html))
Hmm, are there any detail sets of that LITE pod?
I could see several uses for it.
Does anyone else know about it?
(https://www.thairath.co.th/media/Dtbezn3nNUxytg04Oak5VAtpwmz7vobXCxA2FijNag2bdj.webp)
It would also require a larger wing to get the wing loading down to something reasonable where you didn't have to make high-speed level turns and risk G-LOC.
Love the F-5/F-20 family but I'm stuffed if I can think where to put them in my alt (over the top) ADF.
I have the RAAF going US (RAAF Reserves going Swedish), the Marines following the USN/USMC, the RAN going UK/Aust/US (and maybe a dash of French) and the Army going French. No room for Northrop except maybe advanced trainers and dissimilar air combat training.
Maybe I need a fifth arm, a Customs and Excise / Coast Guard or a Gendarmerie, that could eventually have its own air arm, including fighter / light attack aircraft? Maybe the Australian Gendarmerie (or a more appropriate Anglicised name) could be Australia's primary HADR and Peace Keeping organisation but has its own easy to support air power, including F-5A/B, replaced by F-5E/F and then by F-20A/B. Just a couple of squadrons, never more than about 50 airframes in service, but used throughout the world from the late 60s onwards supporting UN interventions where first line forces weren't required.
Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, RAAF chief in 1957-1961, said in an ANZUS meeting in 1958 that "We are willing to build it (Northrop F-5), we are willing to operate it, and we are very willing to supply it, if we can manufacture it, to the whole SEATO area, if they can afford to buy it and if arrangements can be made for them to get them and use them."
[url]http://www.history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v16/d19[/url] ([url]http://www.history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v16/d19[/url])
Minister Casey: Have you come to the end of the military?
Secretary Dulles: I thought we were approaching the end of that.
Minister Casey: I wonder if we would have Air Marshal Scherger have a word on that?
Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger:10 Perhaps I should stand to make myself seen and heard, sir.
One of our most pressing problems is to find airplanes with which we can replace our present operation infantry. If we want them and buy them in small numbers, we buy them from the manufacturing country, as we have with transports. We have bought the C–130, as with maritime antisubmarine we have bought the P2V5, and I hope we will have some P2V7. But our real difficulty is with the airplane which is now designed as the technical [tactical?] fighter. The Tactical Air Command here use extremely big airplanes; they are complex, they are sophisticated, and they are tremendously expensive both in cost and in the ground environment you need from which to operate them effectively. Both the airfield’s length and the strength of the airfield is such that in the Southeast Asian theater there are about five airfields from which they can operate. And if you add Admiral Felt’s four carriers, that makes nine. But it still leaves the opponent with a fairly easy problem, and we have been desperately seeking a small, versatile airplane which can range over the whole area and which can operate from the thousand and one 6000-foot strips left over from the last war and which still are there and from which commercial airplanes are still operating.
We believe we have found the airplane in a project which has been raised and was having a little difficulty here, the Northrop–156, which is a development of the T–38 supersonic trainer. It is a light airplane and can have a lot of sophistication in it, but we don’t want a lot of sophistication. We want it in a fairly cheap and uncomplicated form. It is the kind of thing we can build and build relatively cheaply, and it is the kind of airplane which could be used right throughout that area, where we ourselves are perhaps the most capable in the use of modern equipment. But we know that the Filipinos and Thais and the Pakistanis are having more than a little trouble in operating the F–86’s. They can fly them all right, but even they require a fairly good airfield, and their ferry range isn’t all that much. We want an airplane that can go across Australia and from the top end of Australia, across the Philippines, up to Singapore.
I found the philosophy in airplanes here is to build a single-seater airplane which costs over two million dollars a copy, which demands, if you are going to make it mobile, in-air refueling capabilities, which we can’t afford, and which requires an eight-to-eleven thousand foot runway. That kind of airplane is beyond our capabilities.
We find ourselves approaching now the time when it looks as though we are going to be priced out of being able to buy airplanes with which we can suitably arm ourselves. It is a fairly disturbing proposition, sir. And it is one which I thought perhaps, and Mr. Casey agreed, should be aired here, because it is the kind of military problem which I believe ANZUS could solve and I believe should solve. We are willing to build it, we are willing to operate it, and we are very willing to supply it, if we can manufacture it, to the whole SEATO area, if they can afford to buy it and if arrangements can be made for them to get them and use them. That is our problem, sir: How to get the airplane and where to get it—where to get it, rather than how to get it. Europe has nothing. The small NATO fighter which has been proposed to me, the F–91, is just like the Australian boomerang. It is never out of sight. It won’t go far enough. You have these F–105 airplanes, which are over $2,000,000 a copy. Even if we could afford them or build them in sufficient numbers, we couldn’t afford to operate them.
The same applies to the naval tactical fighter, the thing that carries ordinary, or shall I call them conventional bombs. I don’t know why these airplanes are so complex and so sophisticated unless perhaps it is that they are all designed around a nuclear capacity, which of course we don’t possess. We have to base whatever we have on a conventional capacity. I think that is it.
Secretary Dulles: Do you want a reply?
Mr. Irwin: Marshal Scherger brings up a very difficult type of air operation which has been under consideration by the Pentagon for some time in connection with the Northrop F–156 aircraft. I am not completely up to date as to what the current status of the studies are on it, Air Marshal. We had thought of it at one time in connection with NATO and the European countries as well as in the Far East and the Pacific. From the point of view of assisting and financing the manufacture and sale of the planes, the question really revolved around finding a market for it after you had gone all through the expense of development and production in large enough quantities to justify the expense. It was thought at one time that Germany might be interested in the N–156, and possibly Japan. Japan has decided against it and went to Grumman, I believe. Germany also appeared to have rejected it, although I am not sure whether that is completely final or not. So the problem is, if it were available, it is still on the drafting board or has not even been produced in prototype. The question really is, by the time you produce it, is it an adequate airplane for the period of 1961–1962, the period that it is coming in? There is question about it in Europe, and I think there is also considerable question, at least as far as Japan and that part of the Far East area goes. There is undoubtedly a need for a less-sophisticated aircraft that can meet the problem. Of course, you run into the question, then, as to the control of the air. It would be useless in an area when you are facing a MIG–17 or MIG–19, although obviously you aren’t going to have a big MIG–17 or MIG–19 everywhere you are going to need another airplane. It poses a great problem of financing as well as the tactical application of it. I think the Air Marshal is coming over to the Pentagon tomorrow, I understand.
Air Marshal Sir Fredrick Scherger: That is right; yes.
Ambassador Beale: Mr. Secretary, could I supplement what Air Marshal Scherger said. This is quite a serious problem for Australia. We have got a first-class aircraft industry in the country. We have a profound political and military necessity for maintaining that aircraft industry in Australia. It is in danger of languishing because we just haven’t got aircraft to make and we can’t plan ahead. A year or two ago we made a decision to buy and probably also to build to sell the F–104, but when a mission came over here,11 we were, I think, very rightly told, “Don’t be silly. Don’t build that one. It is far too sophisticated for you. If that type of aircraft has to be used in a war which you are planning to participate in, we in the United States will be there with that aircraft.” And quite rightly we would have made a great mistake to build the F–104. And we were also told at the same time, ”Why not have a look at the Northrop and one or two others?” This was on the technical level.
The minister in charge of aircraft at the time we were agonizing over this agreed. Now we are told by our air force advisers that this is the type of plane which will suit Australia’s needs. It is not yet, as you say, Mr. Irwin, quite off the drawing board. I think something like one dozen prototypes ought to be made and flown and tested before anybody can say for sure that it is the aircraft. Now what I think the Air Marshal has said is, will the United States give some consideration to making the funds available to take that airplane up to that stage, because if it proves itself I think it is pretty likely, I think it is certain that the Air Force would be advising the Australian Cabinet that “This is the airplane we want and this is the airplane we should build in Australia.” I think New Zealand might become interested in the same sort of aircraft, because it has a characteristic to suit our particular needs. And if we can’t get that one or something very like it, we just have nowhere else to turn for another one to build. We were told to build the Sabres for another year or two or three more. But in the meantime we have a real fight, we have a real professional difficulty in making up our mind as to what type of aircraft it should be.
Mr. Irwin: We have maintained at least to date going ahead on the N–156, trying to resolve this question or problem, but in large measure, it comes down to the financial problem with us, because it is financed by military assistance funds. The question is whether or not if you finance it through the ultimate to have enough prototypes to decide whether it is worth going ahead, are you going to have enough customers to justify the research and development and production of it when you have diminishing military assistance side to keep it up. [sic] They cut the program three hundred million dollars this past year, and we anticipate this next year it will be more difficult.
We have a great many calls on the program throughout the world. We are going to have the situation with Taiwan, and Taiwan has eaten into the program a great deal more than the normal expectancy would have been if there had not been the Taiwan crisis, because equipment had to go to the Chinese Nationalists because of the ammunition situation, etc. So you have a choice of not only do you have a question as to the people that actually would buy this airplane in the time frame of the early 1960’s but you have also the question of priority of the use of the military assistance funds over these few years until there would be production. So it presents a grave complication that the enthusiasm for the airplane itself has to date not been sufficient to justify final decision to go ahead with it.
Minister Casey: So far as the United States is concerned.
Mr. Irwin: The most likely customers had seemed to be Japan and Germany.
Minister Casey: If these aircraft were brought to the prototype stage, isn’t it likely that you would have potential customers in the Asian-SEATO partners in the smaller countries, and it would suit Australia and New Zealand, and there would be more generalized use than your highly-specialized aircraft now.
Mr. Irwin: That seems to be a possibility.
Minister Casey: I think the Air Marshal is seeing Mr. Quarles and Mr. Douglas tomorrow.
Mr. Irwin: I would suggest he also speak to our MAP people.
Minister Casey: I think that is worth raising.
Secretary Dulles: Yes.
Close enough. I'd probably clone the wing bits from a 1/48 F-5/F-20 and mix with a 1/72 kit to keep the same planform. As I understood it, the larger wing would have been increased in span enough to add another hard point to each side.It would also require a larger wing to get the wing loading down to something reasonable where you didn't have to make high-speed level turns and risk G-LOC.
I've got a F-20 in the stash, also got a spare set of F-18 wings, would they do Evan ----
A nice conversion of that is at [url]http://worldinminiature.blogspot.com/2009/05/recently-completedwasp-arrowhead-sf.html[/url] ([url]http://worldinminiature.blogspot.com/2009/05/recently-completedwasp-arrowhead-sf.html[/url])
Martin
Just thought of this. Why not an F-5, etc with extended wings? Poor mans U-2? Might need different engines at some point along the line.
Just thought of this. Why not an F-5, etc with extended wings? Poor mans U-2? Might need different engines at some point along the line.If you are going for high altitude, keeping the existing pure jet engines makes sense. As for the extended wings, I can see two approaches, reducing the sweep of both the leading and trailing edges and going for a longer wingspan until you reach the same wingtip chord or add-on extensions that fit in place of the Sidewinder rails or tip tanks and extend the wing, either keeping the same sweep for leading and trailing edges out to a very narrow tip or keeping the trailing edge sweep and reducing the leading edge sweep out to the same narrow tip (somewhat like the later J-7 wings).
Just thought of this. Why not an F-5, etc with extended wings? Poor mans U-2? Might need different engines at some point along the line.If you are going for high altitude, keeping the existing pure jet engines makes sense. As for the extended wings, I can see two approaches, reducing the sweep of both the leading and trailing edges and going for a longer wingspan until you reach the same wingtip chord or add-on extensions that fit in place of the Sidewinder rails or tip tanks and extend the wing, either keeping the same sweep for leading and trailing edges out to a very narrow tip or keeping the trailing edge sweep and reducing the leading edge sweep out to the same narrow tip (somewhat like the later J-7 wings).
Interesting options. Probably easier to just cut sheet plastic to extend the wings than try to find kit parts to use. Hmmmm......
Those Kiwi Tigers are great! :-*
Um......
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/tacair-f-5-aggressors-to-get-the-garmin-g3000-flight-deck/