F 111 B

Flagon · **Joined:** Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:32 am **Posts:** 74

Photographs,please,the most elusive of all variants.
Thank you.

Old SAR pilot · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Few odds & ends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-111 ... ly1968.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-111 ... ly1968.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pFfni3gJ_0

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/genedyna/f-111b.htm

The Inspector · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:08 pm

Wasn't it Adm Morrer who responded to a question from a Senator during a hearing into the 111B about if if it possessed enough thrust to make it a viable fighter, the Adm. deadpanned 'Sir, there isn't enough thrust in Christendom to make this thing a fighter' :shock:

And wasn't there a running joke that the second guy aboard's aim better be dead on so he could make sure to land in the hole the first one made in the flight deck?? :lol:

RareBear · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Quote:

The early assessments of some observers--that it was as big as a General Dynamics F-111 and also a potentially effective fighter--reminded me of an incident that helped put an end to the U.S. Navy’s F-111B, a fighter version of the old strike bomber. It was recounted by Vice Admiral Thomas Connolly in E. T. Wooldridge (ed.), “Into the Jet Age: Conflict and Change in Naval Aviation 1945-1975, An Oral History”, Naval Institute Press, 1995.

Connolly recalled a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Sen. John Stennis, who asked Connolly whether he would prefer to persist with the F-111B or switch to a new fighter.

“I said, ‘I’d go for the new fighter.’

“Then he said to me, ‘How would you feel about the F-111B if new engines were put in to overcome the lack of power?’

“I said, ‘There isn’t enough thrust in all Christendom to make that airplane a fighter.’"

The Inspector · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:20 pm

Thanks for the correction :supz:

, I disremembered it wrong as to who made the statement, bt thats what happens when your head is full of tidbits and snippets. :lol:

seaknight15 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:34 pm

The Inspector wrote:

Thanks for the correction :supz:

, I disremembered it wrong as to who made the statement, bt thats what happens when your head is full of tidbits and snippets. :lol:

I remember when I was young in the 60's and 70's when my dad ( flew PB4Y-1"s) had drawings on his drafting board downstairs with F-111 drawings , He worked with HONNEYWELL for 35 years. I looked at the drawings and thought WOW what an Aircraft. Well I guess I'm going to say Thank's for Honeywell to help making a great A/C.

m50a1ontos · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:25 pm

Here's the one currently in storage at NAWC China Lake.

Tailspin Turtle · **Joined:** Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:11 am **Posts:** 103

Hmmm - no hole and this wasn't an F-111B with all the modifications to provide better carrier suitability.

And it wasn't all that much bigger or heavier than a Tomcat. It was heavier on landing but approached slower so the arresting gear saw about the same load. It could however, land with six Phoenix (the Tomcat couldn't) and stay on station longer an F-14 loaded with external fuel tanks even though it had a heavier missile control system, an escape capsule, and a structure built to withstand an on-the-deck supersonic ingress, not to mention including the Phoenixes in the design weight as opposed to being an overload like the F-14 FAD mission was, among other onerous design requirements. I'll also note that it was never intended to be a "fighter" per se: unfortunately for its reputation, there wasn't a separate designation for all-weather, hours on station, six-humongous-missile carrying, giant-radar-equipped airplane that had to be virtually common with an Air Force-specified airplane that wasn't a "fighter" either but a bomber. Or any allowance for the Navy's hatred of a joint program imposed on them by OSD and led by the Air Force. So the F-111B is doomed to be the butt of jokes by those who only know about it from the Navy's PR campaign to kill it. Yes, it was overweight, but in large part because the Navy's spec weight was developed independently of the mission requirement or possibly set far too low to insure that their airplane would be "overweight" and susceptible to cancellation.

For more, see

http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/10/douglas-f6d-missileer.html

http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/01/f- ... -time.html

That's not to say that the F-14 wasn't a better airplane for the Navy's requirements.

Flagon · **Joined:** Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:32 am **Posts:** 74

So,of the very few (five ?) built at least one survives ,minus its engines.
Pity that no one will ever want to put it in a museum.
Also,the Tomcat inherited the same TF 30 Engines,among other things,and the Navy hated those.
What they really wanted were the F101 DFE/110,development of wich was funded thanks to the massive order for the Tomcat by a certain rogue nation.

Tailspin Turtle · **Joined:** Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:11 am **Posts:** 103

Flagon wrote:

So,of the very few (five ?) built at least one survives ,minus its engines.
Pity that no one will ever want to put it in a museum.
Also,the Tomcat inherited the same TF 30 Engines,among other things,and the Navy hated those.
What they really wanted were the F101 DFE/110,development of wich was funded thanks to the massive order for the Tomcat by a certain rogue nation.

Seven F-111Bs flew. A few more on the Grumman production line when the program was cancelled.

The major pieces of a second surviving F-111B, BuNo 152714, is now with the Wings and Wheel Museum at the Silver Springs Airport, Nevada, which is between Carson City and Fallon. It is part of the Cactus Air Force. See http://cactusairforce.com/home.html

Their web site doesn't mention the F-111B yet but it is now there, having been rescued from a Mohave, California junk yard. I'm on call for what little information I can provide. So far they've asked about tire sizes and how to get the radome open (it was powered for folding).

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:19 pm

During the design accessment period prior to issuing the contract to a manufacturer, the accessment board selected the Boeing proposal three straight times as being cheaper to buy per unit, faster, better range, and more adaptable to future modifications, and three times in a row the decision was nixed by R.S. McNamara and the contract issued to CONVAIR/GENERAL DYNAMICS on the very strong 'recommendation' of a certain large eared Texan who was sitting in the most powerful seat in the world.
CONVAIR lost $425Million in the 880/990 airliner program, and what a coincidence! It was given a $425 Million dollar contract advancement to start on the F-111 and that is in the Congressional Record.

What are the odds??

junkman9096 · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:44 pm **Posts:** 255

You may find this helpful although it is geared to aircraft modelers.
http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/search?q=f-111b
And if you're REALLY interested get the book, its still available and pretty cheap
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDet ... a&para_l=0

Warbird Information Exchange

F 111 B

Who is online