General Dynamics F-111 Ideas and Inspiration

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I have seen a build of a stealthy vark somwhere....

See reply #9, page one of this topic for two images of a stealth F-111

[taiidantomcat]

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-111-Supercruise-2001.html

There are also some really good profiles of super F-111s and I have seen a build of a stealthy vark somwhere....

Just be careful using Carlo Kopp as a serious reference - he is widely viewed by those actually in the industry as a nutter (there is a reason he is referred to as Carlo Kook by some)!  He trys to sound convincing and fools a lot of people but at the end of the day many of his ideas are totally impractical.  Moreover, he fails to grasp the realities of technical, financial or operational constraints.

Regards,

Greg

Preaching to the quire! I think since this is all about being imaginative he is the perfect source 

[ChernayaAkula]

Squared off intakes as seen on Vigilante, Foxbat, Eagle, Tomcat, Super Hornet to name several examples.

... or maybe an F-35-style DSI inlet?

[elmayerle]

Squared off intakes as seen on Vigilante, Foxbat, Eagle, Tomcat, Super Hornet to name several examples.

... or maybe an F-35-style DSI inlet?

if we're talking about reworking or even CILOP-ing existing airframes, I rather like the idea of using scaled up "Super Bug" inlets (they are actually "stealthier" than the F/A-18A-D inlets) as an update.   It's got the same speed range and works with the existing airframe geometry.  A DSI inlet would require rather more airframe redesign.

[elmayerle]

The usual I expect.  Radar upgraded to one of the newer APG sets, modern engines along the lines of the F404, glass cockpit instead of analog dials, etc.  Perhaps even replace the cockpit escape module with conventional bang-seats like they did with the B-1B.

The real problem is the airframe fatigue which I believe was the killer for the type in USAF & RAAF service.

Regards,

John

It would take a full-up CILOP (Conversion In Lieu Of Procurement) program to properly upgrade them and "zero time" the airframe.  The engines I can see going with F110-GE-132s as the most powerful and suitable fit out there, though I might consider "borrowing" the fan design from the B-2's F118 since it's very highly tolerant of inlet distortion.  If you are re-doing the airframe, you could probably redesign the cockpit for standard ejection seats in the process.  Radar upgrades would be interesting because you've got a very large radome that would allow a very large array of Transmitter-Receiver Modules; this would go along well with a general avionics upgrade that would most likely also see all the wiring and cabling replaced.  Other demands for volume permitting, you might also look at fitting the F-35's EOTS, with suitable windowed housing, to replace bulkier electro-optical systems.  I'd say that replacing the inlets depends on a cost/benefit analysis and, unless you really need maximum speeds in the Mach 2.5 range, I'd go with my suggestion above of scaled Super Hornet inlets.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Squared off intakes as seen on Vigilante, Foxbat, Eagle, Tomcat, Super Hornet to name several examples.

... or maybe an F-35-style DSI inlet?

That might work if you can use 48th scale F-35 intake parts on a 72nd scale F-111 otherwise it might require building from scratch.

[GTX_Admin]

Cool photo of one of the F-111B prototypes:



From Tommy H. Thomason's Blog

[M.A.D]

Hey great F-111B photo find Greg!!
She sure looks different to our F-111C/G's 

Any chance of a 3-view profile drawing of the basic F-111 fuselage, mated to the wings and tail plane of the North American A-5 Vigilante??? (Two of my favourite planes in the one  )


M.A.D

[GTX_Admin]

The usual I expect.  Radar upgraded to one of the newer APG sets, modern engines along the lines of the F404, glass cockpit instead of analog dials, etc.  Perhaps even replace the cockpit escape module with conventional bang-seats like they did with the B-1B.

The real problem is the airframe fatigue which I believe was the killer for the type in USAF & RAAF service.

Regards,

John

It would take a full-up CILOP (Conversion In Lieu Of Procurement) program to properly upgrade them and "zero time" the airframe.  The engines I can see going with F110-GE-132s as the most powerful and suitable fit out there, though I might consider "borrowing" the fan design from the B-2's F118 since it's very highly tolerant of inlet distortion.  If you are re-doing the airframe, you could probably redesign the cockpit for standard ejection seats in the process.  Radar upgrades would be interesting because you've got a very large radome that would allow a very large array of Transmitter-Receiver Modules; this would go along well with a general avionics upgrade that would most likely also see all the wiring and cabling replaced.  Other demands for volume permitting, you might also look at fitting the F-35's EOTS, with suitable windowed housing, to replace bulkier electro-optical systems.  I'd say that replacing the inlets depends on a cost/benefit analysis and, unless you really need maximum speeds in the Mach 2.5 range, I'd go with my suggestion above of scaled Super Hornet inlets.

I think Evan has covered it comprehensively.  I hate to allow the real world to interfere here but it really does come down to the cost effectiveness ( in fact some upgrades might be driven purely by that requirement).  If you were looking at both the RAAF and USAF then it is easier.  If just the RAAF, it becomes very difficult ( trust me, I know from experience).  The best way to make the business case is to aim to have the upgrade take you through to about 2030.

One advantage/requirement you might have is to use the upgraded EO targeting system (either the EOTS or even a Sniper or similar system either in pod form or even repackaged into the airframe) to all the internal weapons bay to be reinstated.

Apart from that, introduce some LO features and make greater use of stand-off weapons such as AGM-158.

[GTX_Admin]

One Chris did for me:

[GTX_Admin]

F-111B Phoenix Trials (click on picture for larger view):

[GTX_Admin]

Has anyone ever tried to model Boeing's contender for the TFX program?

[finsrin]

First thought I got about Boeing's contender is if there was a model, it might bash well into a seaplane.

[GTX_Admin]

I'm wondering if you could take a standard F-111 and some parts such as the intakes from an F-14 and bash them together with enough putty to make Ron (aka sotoolslinger) proud ...and get a close approximation of it.

[GTX_Admin]

Could almost pass as an operational photo:

[Empty Handed]

^ Nice photo! I have 2 F-111Bs in the stash (the Revell one?). One will be VF-96, the other, who knows?

[GTX_Admin]

I've been hoping HobbyBoss might release a F-111B in 1/48...

[GTX_Admin]

Bob Cunningham Artwork of FB-111H originally posted over on Secret Projects and sourced via Mark Nankivil.

[GTX_Admin]

 :)

[elmayerle]

Has anyone ever tried to model Boeing's contender for the TFX program?

Well, I know where, 40 years ago, the Boeing TFX wind tunnel models were, complete with lots  of stores options.

[M.A.D]

Here's some along that line that I drew a while back:

Long time no play mate!! Thanks for your message.......... I've always liked your 'advanced' Pig designs! I would love to see these in colour!!

M.A.D

[M.A.D]

Upnorth - I also think a redesign of the main landing gear, in the vein of the proposed F-111H would also be part of the deal. That would certainly free up some internal space for avionics, fuel or an extended weapons bay.

Agree 100% my friend!!!!
A landing gear arrangement like that of the Su-24 Fencer, Jaguar and Mirage F1 would look and be very practical - as you said freeing up the under fuselage for weapons/stores - allowing wing pylons to either be clean or used to carry drop tanks! The landing gear of the actual Pig must be significantly heavy in its own right!!

M.A.D

[M.A.D]

Another variation - this time with a tandem cockpit:

Always thought that a tandem-seat cockpit arrangement would allow for an all-over lighter aircraft! But its partly due to the side-by-side cockpit arrangement of the Pig, which dictated its overall fuselage width - hence its great internal fuselage capacity = the F-111 excellent operational range!

Here is an actual General Dynamics desk-top model of a tandem-seat F-111 study.

M.A.D

[Maverick]

Regarding the Pig's landing gear, could the weight have been a carry over from the original TFX requirement?  After all, the F-111B didn't have major changes to its main gear, which would suggest a heavier-than-required landing gear for a land-based machine.

Regards,

John

[M.A.D]

G'day John ..... long time no talk 
You could be right mate, as the TFX landing gear (I'm assuming!!) would have been more of a want / requirement of the USAF. But saying this as I know you already well appreciate, the heavy duty landing gear would have (again I assume) would have served the F-111B well in its controlled crash landing - aka carrier landings! The other thing that I could never get my head around was the Pig's massive air-brake system .... like this was literally the size of the proverbial barn door, which in itself was tied up with the main landing gear (similar I suppose to that of the A-7 Corsair II) - This arrangement, along with the massive 'through-type' landing gear truly negated the use of the under fuselage 

P.S. Great to hear from you again Mav!!

M.A.D