A

[flyingheritage]

removed

Last edited by flyingheritage on Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[tom d. friedman]

this is a current pic???

[flyingheritage]

Yes i am told

[The Inspector]

Because the airframe was a t#rd! They came in far above max weight when empty, the Navy determined that the second F-11 pilot in the groove better be exceptional at placing his aircraft because it just might fall in the hole punched in the deck by the first one landing!
Thelonger wing was adapted to the Australian F-111's, the Mcnamara 'whiz kids' gave up on making that type airframe common to the USAF and the Navy after Adm. Morrer testified before congress about hat a smking pile the F-11B really was. When asked by a Senator if, in his opinion, the F-111B was a good fighter, the Admiral answered 'Senator, there isn't enough thrust in all of Christdom to make that thing a fighter'.

[muddyboots]

^best laugh today^

[The Inspector]

WOW! I didn't realize that I'd put on ten thumbs to type my response!

Other nifty things about the F-111, the USAF team in charge of selection actually prefered the Boeing design as being more flexible, better able to be modified and adapted to other missions, easier to maintain, faster, more range, etc. etc. BUT GD had just taken a major financial bath over the CV880 and 990 airliners. They lost way over $350 million on them. Coincidentally, when the contract was awarded to GD in Dallas (and lets remember which beagle ear puller Texan was the Prez then) they got a contract advance payment of over $350 million, ain't life strange? Those facts and others are in the Congressional Record from mid 1965 or so-

[SaxMan]

The irony of the F-111 "one plane for both services" concept was that the plane they were trying to design was already in existence in the F-4, and the F-4 performed exceptionally for both services. It just goes to show you the genius of the Phantom's design.