F-5, CF-5, T-38, and F-20

[Bryan H.]

What-if Northrop Grumman kept the F-5/F-20 tooling & production line up; mainly for sales to the small air forces as a simple, good all-around, sovereignty-enforcing, light fighter-bomber.  They could do periodic update studies of electronics/avionics, weapons and engines and put them into effect on new orders.  Examples of potential customers would be... Bolivia, Jamaica, Guatamala, New Zealand, the Philippines, the de-Baathified Iraq, Morocco, Madagascar, etc.

It might be more economical if NG, kept a small stable of good, simple, proven types for production (combat-types/fighter-bombers, transports, light COIN, liaison, basic trainers, light helicopters, maritime patrol, etc.)  The line could switch off from one type to the next so it's never idle.  For example, build 12 F-5's for customer A, then 6 light STOL transports for customer B, then 7 medium STOL transports for customer C, then 3 F-5 trainers for customer D, and so on...  

A navalized version could be sold to the Indian, Brazilian, Argentina (if they get their carrier back), likewise with Australian, the Netherlands, Japan and Canada (if they got back into carriers), the RAF or USN for a supersonic, lead-in carrier fighter trainer.

Bryan

BTW: In a like manner, you could put the A-4 in place of the F-5/F-20.  

[dragon]

Question: If the F-20 was proposed to be called (at least in other forums) F-5G Tigershark, what would a two seater X-29 with guns, missiles and bombs be called? I am thinking of building one for the ARC F-5 group build.    

[elmayerle]

The F-20 was originally, in Northrop's internal nomenclature, the F-5G - even the studies of derivative combinations of it and the early Lavi use that designation.  There was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.

The basic F-5 wing didn't work for the navalized versions because it made for too high an approach speed, that's where the N-285 came in with a bigger wing and, in the two-seat versions, a stepped fuselage.  Yes, I've had a chance to read that brochure, just wasn't able to "borrow" it for copying given exit security screening (though I later found how to handle that and do have the F-20/Lavi brochure).

[nev]

There was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.

Hey Evan, can you give us some more detail on why it needed a bigger wing and what kind of proposals there were for said bigger wing?  I'm thinking ahead for one of my F-20s the upcoming F-5 GB on ARC.

[P1127]

There was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.

Wasn't the YF-17/F-18 wing basically a bigger F5 wing?

[P1127]

My RAF F-5 senarios - all are either mutually exclusive or integrated.....


T-38 - bought as an interim trainer in mid 60s to bridge 'trainer gap' between the tiny Gnat and the shiny new F-4s - it was felt that the step from a matchbox size trainer to a supersonic fighter was just too great.

Remained in service after the Hawk came in 'aggressor' role.

F-5A/B - Ordered as Hunter replacement for RAF Germany etc in place of Harrier and/or Jaguar

F-5E/F - oredered as Aggressor squadron to mimic USAF role

[elmayerle]

There was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.

Hey Evan, can you give us some more detail on why it needed a bigger wing and what kind of proposals there were for said bigger wing?  I'm thinking ahead for one of my F-20s the upcoming F-5 GB on ARC.

I'd have to go digging through a ton of files to find the exact info (one sheet of paper), but the major reason for the larger wing was to get the wing loading down and improve turning performance.  With the existing wing, you had to maintain a fairly fast velocity in the turn to stay at a level altitude, which contributed the the g-loc that cost two of the three F-20's built.  Basically, the larger wing would have had the same planform, but the leading edges would've moved forward and the trailing edges, and trailing edge devices, would've moved aft.

*G* Before the F-20, there'd been another proposal, from the service engineering side rather than PD - hence it got shot down right quickly in the corporate "discussions" that followed, for a F-5F derivative with a larger wing (in both chord and span) that would allow another hard point under each side and two afterburning J97's.  Somewhere I've got copies of that data, too.

[Bryan H.]

What does the large wing F-20 look like.  There's so much good what-if potential in a modernized F-20; it's the perfect type for so many different counties & situations.  The only thing better is a modernized, new build A-4.

Bryan

[elmayerle]

What does the large wing F-20 look like.  There's so much good what-if potential in a modernized F-20; it's the perfect type for so many different counties & situations.  The only thing better is a modernized, new build A-4.

Bryan

As I remember, the enlarged wing was primarily an increase in chord with the sweep of the leading and trailing edges kept the same.  Actually, if you look at the systems, except for the airframe itself, the Korean T-50 is a modernized equivalent of the F-20 and uses just about all the exact same systems.

A new-build A-4, especially with the improvements in avionics, and powered by a dry-F414 would be a nice aircraft to have.

[Scooterman]

The only thing better is a modernized, new build A-4.
Bryan

A new-build A-4, especially with the improvements in avionics, and powered by a dry-F414 would be a nice aircraft to have.

Now you boys are speakin' MY language!!!!

SKYHAWKS FOREVER!!!!

[nev]

Well, I tried fitting the wings from an unbuilt F-16 to an F-20 fuselage, and its almost a perfect fit, but the problem is the landing gear - built into the wings on the F-20, right about where the inboard station is on the F-16 wing  

I s'pose I could hunt around for another one of those naff Italeri Hornets to scavenge the wings off, but then I'm left with the same problem of the gear bays in the wings.

Or I could scratchbuild a couple of new wings.............................................maybe not with my scratchbuilding "skills"  :dum:  

[elmayerle]

Well, I tried fitting the wings from an unbuilt F-16 to an F-20 fuselage, and its almost a perfect fit, but the problem is the landing gear - built into the wings on the F-20, right about where the inboard station is on the F-16 wing 

I s'pose I could hunt around for another one of those naff Italeri Hornets to scavenge the wings off, but then I'm left with the same problem of the gear bays in the wings.

Or I could scratchbuild a couple of new wings.............................................maybe not with my scratchbuilding "skills"  :dum:

Trim the gear bays out of the F-20 wing, cut suitable openings in the F-16 wing and insert, then glue, putty, and sand as needed.  My own inclination would be to go for the same aspect ratio and longer span with the added stores point on each side by using a set of trimmed 1/48 F-5F-20 wings (or clones thereof) ,trimmed as necessary to match things up, mated to 1/72 F-5/F-20 outer wings with the gear bays moved inboard,  though you'd likely need to shorten the LERX to do it right.

[elmayerle]

Got me thinking of F-5s all done up like Singapore or Kiwi Scooters !

Or perhaps developed F-20's done up like an A-4AR FightingHawk?

I like the idea of using Singapore's approach of replacing the A-4's J65 with a dry F404, though I'd be tempted to uprate both the F-20 and teh re-engined A-4 to variants of the F414 from the F/A-18E/F/G.

[elmayerle]

The F-20 was originally, in Northrop's internal nomenclature, the F-5G - even the studies of derivative combinations of it and the early Lavi use that designation.  There was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.

The basic F-5 wing didn't work for the navalized versions because it made for too high an approach speed, that's where the N-285 came in with a bigger wing and, in the two-seat versions, a stepped fuselage.  Yes, I've had a chance to read that brochure, just wasn't able to "borrow" it for copying given exit security screening (though I later found how to handle that and do have the F-20/Lavi brochure).

OK I'm a bit slow on the uptake here so bear with me please. A naval ie carrier capable F-5 would need the bigger wing for lower approach speeds? This could then be carried over to a carrier capable F-20. Have I got this right, cos I'm thinking of an F-5 for a small carrier, perhaps Spanish so they had some degree of commonality with the AF. Or how about a country with a unified defense force that operated F-5s? Thinks  "leafy roundels"!!!!!.

Yeah, the enlarged wing, such as was proposed for the N-285 carrier bird, would be quite ideal for the F-20, though a navalized F-20 might need a bit more, yet.  I can see the wing from a production version of the N-285 beign fitted to the F-20 to the great benefit of both programs.

[nev]

Trim the gear bays out of the F-20 wing, cut suitable openings in the F-16 wing and insert, then glue, putty, and sand as needed.  My own inclination would be to go for the same aspect ratio and longer span with the added stores point on each side by using a set of trimmed 1/48 F-5F-20 wings (or clones thereof) ,trimmed as necessary to match things up, mated to 1/72 F-5/F-20 outer wings with the gear bays moved inboard,  though you'd likely need to shorten the LERX to do it right.

Of course, I could make things easier by building it gear up (as was my plan all along for one of my F-20s), thus all I have to do is scribe some lines for the gear bay doors  B)