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

[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 ?

Sorry, I meant which idea.

The Canadian one ---- 

[Geoff]

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

Plus Iran and the UK?

[TsrJoe]

I recall geoff baker 'thorvic' built an f.111m based upon a mention in pro. Files, basically an f.111a with the radar of the b possibly a forum search might yield the original discussions and build to save going back over old territory ?

Cheers, joe

[Burncycle]

I understand why they would prefer the EA-6B for logistics and maintenance reasons, but is there any technical reason they couldn't have created a naval EF-111 since the F-111B was carrier capable?

[GTX]

Well they would have needed the F-111B in service to justify it, but no major reason.  In fact who said they didn't?



Regards,

Greg

[rallymodeller]

An older profile of mine, related to the land-based interceptor idea:

[GTX]

Now that's what I'm talking about!

[pyro-manic]

I actually built that one! Or at least, a very similar one. For the F-111 GB a little while back.

[Burncycle]

Awesome GTX!!!

[anthonyp]

Well they would have needed the F-111B in service to justify it, but no major reason.  In fact who said they didn't?



Regards,

Greg

LOL!!!  I've got one of these (sans wing pylons) recently built out to the point where I need to paint the interior before adding the cockpit glass.

[Gondor]

Ok, just partly to revive this thread as its rather good and also to try and make some sense out of what I have been reading over the last couple of hours.......

As I understand it the F-111K was to be an F-111A with the heavier FB-111A undercarriage and a retractable refuelling probe centrally located in front of the canopy?

If the above is right then a reasonable kit of the F-111 would have the correct intake as well.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

That's about right Alastair, but the only kit I know of that has the longer wings and the early Triple Plow intakes is the original Revell one, but that doesn't have the FB-111 landing gear. But then AFAIK no kits do, unless Hasegawa did an FB-111 amongst their range. If so you'll need a World Bank loan to get one...........

[Gondor]

That's about right Alastair, but the only kit I know of that has the longer wings and the early Triple Plow intakes is the original Revell one, but that doesn't have the FB-111 landing gear. But then AFAIK no kits do, unless Hasegawa did an FB-111 amongst their range. If so you'll need a World Bank loan to get one...........

Hasegawa did an FB-111 in their range of which I have enough to produce a model of an FB-111 an F-111G and an F-111B using Pete's Hanger conversion set PHD 72001. Honestly though I don't think that there would be enough of the main undercarriage visible for anyone to notice the difference.
However I am confused about the wing length. Some people are saying its long and some saying its short. If its short I would need to get an A model so I have the correct intakes, if long I need either an FB-111 or an F-111G.

Gondor

[rickshaw]

F-111Cs also had long wings...

[PR19_Kit]

F-111Cs also had long wings...

That's why the original Revell kit was easily adaptable into a C model, as they did a few years later. You even got the F-111B short nose as well, but it wasn't mentioned in the instructions.