What is on this F111 Aardvark?
- Thread starter jwp_145
- Start date
SurferLucas
Southern Gentleman
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
The straight 111's, in the beginning in the '60s, had two pilot-rated guys just like the F-4s then had.......Pilot and PSO, or Pilot Sensor Operator. During 1968ish, both F-4s and F-111s went with the Pilot and Navigator-rated WSO. The F-111 attack birds have always had two sets of flight controls, just not the EF-111A.
The straight 111's, in the beginning in the '60s, had two pilot-rated guys just like the F-4s then had.......Pilot and PSO, or Pilot Sensor Operator. During 1968ish, both F-4s and F-111s went with the Pilot and Navigator-rated WSO. The F-111 attack birds have always had two sets of flight controls, just not the EF-111A.
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
Funny you mention, as the F-111D-model was one of the first glass airplanes, with having a partial-glass cockpit. And was one of the first of the F-111 series retired due to the work needed to maintain it back then.
There's not much glass in that thing. Clearly wasn't safe flying nap 'o the earth above the speed of sound. Flying Magazine would be aghast!
Funny you mention, as the F-111D-model was one of the first glass airplanes, with having a partial-glass cockpit. And was one of the first of the F-111 series retired due to the work needed to maintain it back then.
Attachments
Apophis
Resident Iconoclast
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
And that makes it unsafe!
See, it wasn't a G1000!
And that makes it unsafe!
WacoFan
Bigly
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
Robert Goyer wouldn't approve. If it were up to him we'd fly those missions in G1000 equiped Cirrus airplanes.
See, it wasn't a G1000!
Robert Goyer wouldn't approve. If it were up to him we'd fly those missions in G1000 equiped Cirrus airplanes.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
G1000 is a lot more "gucci" than any of the displays I have ever seen in a warplane......save maybe the F-22/JSF.
See, it wasn't a G1000!
G1000 is a lot more "gucci" than any of the displays I have ever seen in a warplane......save maybe the F-22/JSF.
BeRich
Very Special Agent
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
Hehe....One day I will learn to think before I post things. Not for a while I'm sure.
Hehe....One day I will learn to think before I post things. Not for a while I'm sure.
Jimmy_Norton
Well-Known Member
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
I remember seeing FB-111's flying around Pease AFB when I was growing up. Those things were so awesome.
I remember seeing FB-111's flying around Pease AFB when I was growing up. Those things were so awesome.
DV8Pilot
DPE
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
As cool as the F-111 looks, it's performance was abysmal. Based on EM theory it couldn't out-perform any foe that it would have encountered. The book "Boyd" by Robert Coram goes into some pretty cool detail about it, as well as the development of the F-15 and F-16.
As cool as the F-111 looks, it's performance was abysmal. Based on EM theory it couldn't out-perform any foe that it would have encountered. The book "Boyd" by Robert Coram goes into some pretty cool detail about it, as well as the development of the F-15 and F-16.
Oxman
Well-Known Member
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
My uncle went down in an F-111 in the North Sea when he was based out of Lakenheath, UK. Picked up wet and pissed by a fishing boat. Went on to be boss at Monthan-Davis.
There's not much glass in that thing. Clearly wasn't safe flying nap 'o the earth above the speed of sound. Flying Magazine would be aghast!
My uncle went down in an F-111 in the North Sea when he was based out of Lakenheath, UK. Picked up wet and pissed by a fishing boat. Went on to be boss at Monthan-Davis.
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
Nor was it designed to out-perform anything turn-wise. It's key was its speed, and it high-tailed its ass out of bad situations more than once.
Worrying about an EM diagram for an F-111, is akin to an O-2 Skymaster pilot worrying about how the aircraft will operate in a transonic range.
Though interestingly, the first kill of Desert Storm in '91 was by an EF-111A that maneuvered an attacking Mirage F1 into the ground.
Nor was it designed to out-perform anything turn-wise. It's key was its speed, and it high-tailed its ass out of bad situations more than once.
Worrying about an EM diagram for an F-111, is akin to an O-2 Skymaster pilot worrying about how the aircraft will operate in a transonic range.
Though interestingly, the first kill of Desert Storm in '91 was by an EF-111A that maneuvered an attacking Mirage F1 into the ground.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
EM theory didn't exist as a developed and accepted theory when the F-111 was designed, and it wouldn't have mattered even if it did based on the multi-service requirements. The Eagle and Viper were the first aircraft that actually used EM in the entire design process. Even the much-vaunted F-14 wasn't designed with EM theory in mind.
As the USAF ended up using it, the 'Vark was a phenomenal deep-strike bomber.
EM theory didn't exist as a developed and accepted theory when the F-111 was designed, and it wouldn't have mattered even if it did based on the multi-service requirements. The Eagle and Viper were the first aircraft that actually used EM in the entire design process. Even the much-vaunted F-14 wasn't designed with EM theory in mind.
As the USAF ended up using it, the 'Vark was a phenomenal deep-strike bomber.
Fencer
Experimentalist
Orange Anchor
New Member
Re: What is on this F111 Ardvark?
I often thought of those exact conundrums as I droned around III Corps at 1500ft, 23" and 2400RPM.
The -111 started out as the TFX (tactical fighter experimental) under McNamara and his 'whiz kids'. It was to be a do-all, be-all everything for the USAF and Navy. It was a real porker in the Navy configuration and the Navy quickly bailed. The USAF soldiered on with it as the F-111 when everyone knew it was anything but a fighter. It had a difficult start and had a bad habit of going on a mission and not coming back. Operating out of Thailand for a while, it was assigned low level penetration and again, the not coming back thing popped up again. I read that the autopilot had a bad tick where it could pitch up resulting in a loss of control. Also they were flying on autopilot at very high speed and low level. A few wound up making holes in the karst west of Hanoi.
Later as the FB- it began coming into its own and one of the confidence builders was a run through the Grand Canyon, low level on autopilot. And then as the EF- it's low level penetration speed plus its ability to carry a butt load of E-gear added to its history.
The Aussies are retiring theirs soon if they have not already done so. Great airplane with a very challenging introduction.
Note too.. the airplane NEVER had an official USAF name like Fighting Falcon, Raptor or that other silly crap which no self-respecting aviator ever used.
I often thought of those exact conundrums as I droned around III Corps at 1500ft, 23" and 2400RPM.
The -111 started out as the TFX (tactical fighter experimental) under McNamara and his 'whiz kids'. It was to be a do-all, be-all everything for the USAF and Navy. It was a real porker in the Navy configuration and the Navy quickly bailed. The USAF soldiered on with it as the F-111 when everyone knew it was anything but a fighter. It had a difficult start and had a bad habit of going on a mission and not coming back. Operating out of Thailand for a while, it was assigned low level penetration and again, the not coming back thing popped up again. I read that the autopilot had a bad tick where it could pitch up resulting in a loss of control. Also they were flying on autopilot at very high speed and low level. A few wound up making holes in the karst west of Hanoi.
Later as the FB- it began coming into its own and one of the confidence builders was a run through the Grand Canyon, low level on autopilot. And then as the EF- it's low level penetration speed plus its ability to carry a butt load of E-gear added to its history.
The Aussies are retiring theirs soon if they have not already done so. Great airplane with a very challenging introduction.
Note too.. the airplane NEVER had an official USAF name like Fighting Falcon, Raptor or that other silly crap which no self-respecting aviator ever used.