Your 'What If' TFX design and profile?

[MAD]

Very interesting!
I did always admire North American engineers

M.A.D

[Mossie]

TSR.2.  Somebody had to say it, although it might have a few problems:
First problem you've got is the TF-30's as fitted to the F-111 are significantly down on thrust comared to the Olympus.  You'd need to up-rate them or get new engines.
Second, it didn't have VG, although a version was proposed.  Third, the interceptor would cause some problems, as outlined elswhere, without a substantial re-design.
Which leads me to the last & biggest problem, it wasn't American.  It might be possible with a liscence build & a re-design to give it that 'Made in USA' stamp, which ties in the third point.

Modern TFX?  FB-23 would fit the bill:

[KJ_Lesnick]

Were the Variable-Sweep wings actually a requirement in the TFX program? 
I just thought VG was used to meet all the requirements (low-speed long endurance, high speed high/low altitude)?

KJ Lesnick

[elmayerle]

Were the Variable-Sweep wings actually a requirement in the TFX program?  e
I just thought VG was used to meet all the requirements (low-speed long endurance, high speed high/low altitude)?

If memory serves me correctly, 'most all the entries did have variable-geometry wings.  At the time, that was building on considerable research by NASA that, in turn, started from data previously collected by Vickers on the Swallow et al.  I won't say that it was necessary, but i suspect that it was the only technology proven at the time with sufficient test data to design from.  The biggest drawback the whole TFX program had was the insistence on TF30 engines; those engines had originally been developed in dry form for the F6D-1 and had rather too high a bypass ration to be good supersonic engines.

I do believe that there were studies of v-g Vigilante variants as well as BAC's studies of v-g TSR.2 variants.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Mr. Mayerle,

Why was there such an insistence on the TF-30's anyway?  Also, what was the bypass-ratio of the TF-30's?


KJ Lesnick

[elmayerle]

As I remember, the main advanced engine choices at the time were the TF30 or a GE engine that was still in development and definition.  Secretary McNamara had a distinct preference for the TF30 since it was more developed.  I don't have the data immediately available, but a quick search of the 'net gives a 1.1:1 bypass ratio whereas most other supersonic turbofans have a somewhat lower bypass ratio.

[uk 75]

I think I have probably got the wrong end of this thread, and as I cannot
draw or make models, I shall have to try and describe the imaginings of a
crazed mind.

It seems to me that BAC and General Dynamics/Boeing should have worked
together to produce a TFX design combining the best features of TSR2 and
F-111.   BAC tried to do this with its famous 1964 mini-show swing wing
TSR 2, but I think this was probably too big.

Tornado (MRCA) was a damn good shot at a TFX, but it needed to be bigger
and carry more fuel and have longer range.  It has the Vigilante style
intakes.

I am not sure which is better, a side by side cockpit or a tandem one. The side
by side makes the training version cheaper, but may distract the weapons/navigator.

Tornado and TSR2 were high off the ground, F111 squatted on its undercarriage. I think
Tornado may have got it right, but TSR 2 would have been difficult to work on.

All I need now is an old Vigilante kit and a Tornado kit, and a bit of F-111

Matron says I must stop now

UK 75

[KJ_Lesnick]

Did the USAF really want the side-by-side seating layout?  What was the length requirements for the Naval Variant?

BTW:  The ejection capsule was a requirement right?

[overscan]

For ultimate coolness, you need the Republic/Vought TFX design. Posted on Secret Projects Forum by Mark Nankivil. GO MARK