F-111, FB-111, EF-111, Aardvark, Merlin, Raven, Sparkvark, and Pig

[Shasper]

The F-111B was actually lighter than the F-111A. . . The F-111B weighed around 84,000 lbs by the time they cancelled it.

The F-111B was a compromise to meet the Navy's different needs with an aircraft largely configured for the USAF's need for a supersonic strike aircraft. These compromises would harm both Air Force and Navy versions. The side-by-side seating was preferred by the Navy. The F-111B was shorter than the F-111A, in order to enable it to fit on aircraft carrier deck edge elevators. The F-111B also had a longer wingspan than its USAF counterpart (70 ft/21.3 m compared to 63 ft/19.2 m) for increased range and cruising endurance. Although the Navy had wanted a 48-inch (122 cm) radar dish for long range, they were forced to accept a 36-inch (91.4 cm) dish for compatibility. The Navy had requested a maximum takeoff weight of 50,000 lb (22,700 kg), but then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara forced the Navy to compromise at 55,000 lb (24,900 kg). This weight goal proved to be overly optimistic.

The F-111 offered a platform with the range, payload, and Mach 2 performance to intercept targets quickly, but with swing wings and turbofan engines, it could also loiter on station for long periods. The F-111B would carry six AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles, its main armament. Four of the Phoenix missiles mounted on wing pylons and two in the weapons bay.

Excessive weight plagued the F-111B throughout its development. The prototypes were far over the requirement weight. Design efforts reduced airframe weight but were offset by the addition of the escape capsule. The additional weight made the aircraft underpowered. Lift was improved by changes to wing control surfaces. A higher thrust version of the engine was planned.

Now if the Bravo already offered Mach-1 performance in prototype form (thats a pure guestimation), I'm guessing the production version with the higher-thrust engine then Mach-2 would be the standard, but even at Mach-1 on the deck it would still be a leap over the subsonic Intruder.

[GTX]

Yeah very nice Greg!
I can not but help of what internal space this may have allowed in the actual F-111 design!
Although kitnut617 has a good point with the Grumman approach with its F-14 main gear arrangement
Any chance of you utilizing that skill of yours and incorporate the F-14 main gear arrangement into a drawing of the actual F-111 (VG-wing) design, with no lift engines - with the  space saved being utilized for either more internal fuel (freeing up wing pylon space!) or an enlarged and more useful weapons bay?
Or even better incorporating a 'Martin' type revolver bomb bay door/fuel tank arrangement as used by their XB-51, B-57 and later the Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer!
Now that what I would call a true strike/interdiction F-111!!!!

Like this?



Note - it has errors since I threw it together very, very quickly.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Now in a alternative universe, even though the B flunked Fleet Defense U, why not re-role it as a strike bird? I'm sure the A-6 guys would've preferred something that could out-run a tossed rock . . .

Stop reading my mind  (you never know what you might stumble onto there )- something along this theme is already in the works!!!

Regards,

Greg

[kitnut617]

Like this?




Regards,

Greg

YEAH!!!! just like that --- what a cracker    Just a slight adjustment I think though, the outside edge of the main leg should be in line with the fuselage side and the diagonal strut would be hidden a bit by the fuselage

[MAD]

Ah yeah Greg that looks soooo gooood..................
Now if I can only ask that you do a 4-view drawing of your modified three-view F-111A, showing an underside-view of your baby!
Showing the Martin rotary bomb bay/fuel tank arrangement!

I hope you do not mind but I've taken the liberty of using your drawing to give a little indication of what I'm thinking!
With this Martin rotary bomb bay/fuel tank arrangement, I'm guessing we may be able to get a payload of something like 6 x 750 lb iron bombs or 4 x 750 lb Paveway bombs carried internally
Look forward to your refinements!

M.A.D

[MAD]

Like this?




Regards,

Greg

YEAH!!!! just like that --- what a cracker    Just a slight adjustment I think though, the outside edge of the main leg should be in line with the fuselage side and the diagonal strut would be hidden a bit by the fuselage

I have to agree with kitnut617, as the main strut looks like its outside the wing glove area somewhat!
Oh and we still have the issue of where the airbrake(s) are to be located with this new landing gear arrangement!

M.A.D

[GTX]

An idea that just popped up.  What if the F-111B was also adopted by standard air forces (i.e. non Carrier based) as a dedicated interceptor.  Say, USAF and US ANG Squadrons replacing the F-106 with the F-111B interceptor.  Think of it as pre-empting the entire USAF 'Improved Manned Interceptor' (IMI) Program.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Of course, add to the above:  Canadian replacement for CF-101 as well as possibly RAF and RAAF...

[kitnut617]

Of course, add to the above:  Canadian replacement for CF-101 as well as possibly RAF and RAAF...

I've got an F-111B in the stash, you've just given me an idea ---- 

[GTX]

Which one?

[kitnut617]

I'm not sure, but I bought it because it said it was the F-111B.  Esci maybe --    It shows an F-111B in the box art, does that help ?

[dy031101]

Back in the '60s, both the VG wing and various Jet lift V/STOL concepts were equally in vogue.  The F-111 went the VG way, but what if it went the other way with 4 lift jets and fixed wing (with landing gear moved to wings).  It wouldn't really be VTOL capable, but maybe extreme STOL

Would its TF30 have been adequate if converted into vectoring lift/cruise jets for vertical landing?

[GTX]

I'm not sure, but I bought it because it said it was the F-111B.  Esci maybe --    It shows an F-111B in the box art, does that help ?

Sorry, I meant which idea.

[GTX]

Back in the '60s, both the VG wing and various Jet lift V/STOL concepts were equally in vogue.  The F-111 went the VG way, but what if it went the other way with 4 lift jets and fixed wing (with landing gear moved to wings).  It wouldn't really be VTOL capable, but maybe extreme STOL

Would its TF30 have been adequate if converted into vectoring lift/cruise jets for vertical landing?

Not sure what you mean?

[dy031101]

Back in the '60s, both the VG wing and various Jet lift V/STOL concepts were equally in vogue.  The F-111 went the VG way, but what if it went the other way with 4 lift jets and fixed wing (with landing gear moved to wings).  It wouldn't really be VTOL capable, but maybe extreme STOL

Would its TF30 have been adequate if converted into vectoring lift/cruise jets for vertical landing?

Not sure what you mean?

Like giving the main engines in your liftjet Aardvark drawing vectoring nozzles.