Other F-111 Projects Left to Do

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

sweet, wast expectingthe B to be included.... or the K for that matter. Thanks much :)

 

Craig

[Spinners 15,981]

[Spinners 15,981]

The 'B' is a most welcome surprise and fantastic news. The Gulf of Sidra incident might have had a slightly different outcome to it!

 

Dave/FastCargo - The 'A' LOD is fine for the 'K' - I think we need to have a design freeze!

[+SkippyBing 8]

Reference the K, I don't think it got as far as having the probe fitted

 

This might help

 

This shows where the probe went

 

Model with a probe

[+Julhelm 266]

I actually like the B. It's no Tomcat but rather a poor replacement for the Missileer that eventually someone would figure to be a good supersonic bombtruck.

[Spinners 15,981]

 

F-111K of No.14 squadron, Operation Desert Storm 1991 (skin by Syrinx)

[FastCargo 412]

Models A, C, D, G, FB updated.

 

FC

[+malibu43 142]

FYI, there's a typo in the loadout.ini for the D. For the strike loadout, the rack type is MER and the quantity is BRU3A. Results in no loadout on strikes.

[+Dave 2,319]

FYI, there's a typo in the loadout.ini for the D. For the strike loadout, the rack type is MER and the quantity is BRU3A. Results in no loadout on strikes.

 

Thanks for the heads up. Its fixed.

[MKSheppard 4]

F-111B!

 

Hey, If you need additional help to do the F-111B; I suggest you consult it's standard aircraft characteristics sheet

 

SAC Depository on my website

Link to PDF

Edited February 2, 2009 by MKSheppard

[MKSheppard 4]

You guys all forgot the ULTIMATE VARK:

 

FB-111H!

 

By Comparison:

 

FB-111A:

2 x Turbofans, 12,500 lb dry, 20,350 lbs with afterburner.

1,453 MPH @ 50,000 feet max speed clean

1,320 MPH @ 36,000 feet max speed clean

838 MPH @ Sea Level Max speed clean

50,263 ft service ceiling

2,500 mile range with four SRAMs and internal fuel.

2 x SRAM internal bay.

 

FB-111H:

2 x F101 Turbofans; 17,000 lb dry, 30,000 lb with afterburner.

1,055 MPH @ 36,000 feet maximum speed

650 MPH @ 200 Feet maximum speed

5 x SRAM Internal bay (one source)

or

12 x SRAM Internal Bay (one source)

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

looks comparable with the su-24 fencer never saw some infos about the "H"

[+Gunrunner 313]

That "thing" does compete with the F-111B for the title of ugliest vark...

 

Let me guess, it was a backup plan if/when the B-1A project collapsed (salvaging the power plant and probably the parts of the avionics that were working as per specifications) ?

[MKSheppard 4]

Let me guess, it was a backup plan if/when the B-1A project collapsed (salvaging the power plant and probably the parts of the avionics that were working as per specifications) ?

 

It started out as a sort of indepenent project by the manufacturer I think to compete with AMSA specifications, and it sort of gained traction when the B-1A program collapsed -- the commander of SAC actually did support it -- I think his thinking was:

 

"This will get me a plane that will be 2x better than a FB-111A, and capable of at LEAST some shallow penetration of Soviet Russia; but when it comes time to buy a new manned heavy bomber (like B-2), it won't compete for funding since it's in a totally different weight class."

[MKSheppard 4]

Found some more information on the project in my files:

 

[+Dave 2,319]

Here is the book I got on the F-111. It is the reference for the Vark.

 

http://www.f-111.net/books/donlogan.htm

 

We don't have any plans to H. FC has 3 other projects he has to get done. We talked about it the other night and it would be a major rebuild so we scrapped the idea. If any other version gets done it will be an RF-111A. But as I said we have other projects to get done and really want to get these Varks over with.

[FastCargo 412]

Like the man said. Unlike the other Varks which were rebuilds/remaps of existing meshes (which in itself was not a small project), the H model would have required a damn near whole new mesh, which majorly adds to the time needed for very little return.

 

We didn't forget anything...we made a conscious decision to not build it. We do in fact do quite a bit of research on this stuff.

 

Quite frankly, I'm amazed anything gets done considering the time constraints a lot of us are under.

 

FC

[+Typhoid 231]

The 'B' is a most welcome surprise and fantastic news. The Gulf of Sidra incident might have had a slightly different outcome to it!

 

as in two semi-blind Floggers making it back home?

 

I rather doubt that!

 

but probably more of an even fight after the merge. It will be interesting to refly that mission with the F-111B.

 

very impressed with these F-111's. A nice package.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Typhoid

[+Dave 2,319]

The B was a miserable failure and it was a good thing the Navy didn't buy them. I am having a hard time even trying to put the package together to release. Talk about all the plane I really really dislike. Er, I would of rather flown the F7U Gutlass than the F-111B. Both rank up the as terds of Naval aviation.

[+Typhoid 231]

The B was a miserable failure and it was a good thing the Navy didn't buy them. I am having a hard time even trying to put the package together to release. Talk about all the plane I really really dislike. Er, I would of rather flown the F7U Gutlass than the F-111B. Both rank up the as terds of Naval aviation.

 

nicely put.....

 

[MKSheppard 4]

Actually, I read a book once that made the case that the Navy unfairly handicapped the F-111B. Sure, it was no F-8 Crusader in dogfighting, but neither was the F-4 or F-14A.

 

It also pointed out that the F-14A suffered from cost and weight growth issues to the same extent that the F-111B did; and was handicapped by engine problems -- like the F-111B.

 

It also pointed out the fact that the Navy played tricks with the loadouts for the F-111 and F-14 in ACM; the F-111 was expected to do ACM with a warload of at least four Phoenixes; that results in about 4,000 lbs of weight; versus four sparrows and two winders on the F-14; bout 2,400 lbs of weight.

 

In the end, the Navy killed the F-111B because they really really hated the fact that McNamara had forced it on them from outside their regular procurement channels.

[+Crusader 2,077]

blame McNamgagaarra and consorts, not the guys who want the challenge to sink a carrier.. err.... to land that beast on a carrier ...

[+Dave 2,319]

Everything McNamara touched turned to crap. That is for damn sure.

[sugarblues 0]

I've read many of the same comments, but have also read reports from the flight tests; The Sea-Vark was simply downright deadly "behind the boat". Yes, there's always going to be arguments if the F-111B would've ever made it, but in the end, it comes down to apples and oranges: The Tomcat was designed from the outset to be a fleet defender, the F-111B was a politicians idea to save money... thank your lucky stars the "Experts" won the day and the F-111B was allowed to die the natural death it did... Now maybe it could've made it's mark as an Intruder replacement...(Runs and ducks for cover!)

 

SB

[+Typhoid 231]

Actually, I read a book once that made the case that the Navy unfairly handicapped the F-111B. Sure, it was no F-8 Crusader in dogfighting, but neither was the F-4 or F-14A.

 

It also pointed out that the F-14A suffered from cost and weight growth issues to the same extent that the F-111B did; and was handicapped by engine problems -- like the F-111B.

 

It also pointed out the fact that the Navy played tricks with the loadouts for the F-111 and F-14 in ACM; the F-111 was expected to do ACM with a warload of at least four Phoenixes; that results in about 4,000 lbs of weight; versus four sparrows and two winders on the F-14; bout 2,400 lbs of weight.

 

In the end, the Navy killed the F-111B because they really really hated the fact that McNamara had forced it on them from outside their regular procurement channels.

 

not quite. Not to start a flame war here, but we cancelled the F-111B because it was;

 

too heavy,

 

too big

 

for carrier operations.