SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Farewell to the F111

12731 views
49 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Hobart, Tasmania
Posted by Konigwolf13 on Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:14 AM

That and only that. Cool Factor AFAIK.

Most modern military jets (or at least naval ones) can dump fuel so their landings can be lighter, in the case of the F-111 that fuel dump just so happens to be between the tail pipes. So if you combine a fuel dump with afterburn you get wow effect.

Andrew

 

  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Hobart, Tasmania
Posted by Konigwolf13 on Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:18 AM

IIRC the Tomcats fuel otlet in in a similar spot, cat it do same?

IIRC many airliners also have the ability to dump fuel if needed, but its rare to do so, dump fuel means dump money = bad business. Also with no afterburner its a bit hard to light it up of the engines were near the dump pipes, would be a sight to see it happen LOL

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Rothesay, NB Canada
Posted by VanceCrozier on Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:19 AM

So the engineers at GD were finalizing the fuel dump location on a Friday afternoon, after a couple of Beer, and said "let's put it between the pipes baby!!!" Yes

Just ran a quick search for RAAF images and found this page - try modeling THAT damage!
http://www.hemmy.net/2008/04/20/aussie-f-111-shattered-by-pelican/

On the bench: Airfix 1/72 Wildcat; Airfix 1/72 Vampire T11; Airfix 1/72 Fouga Magister

  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Hobart, Tasmania
Posted by Konigwolf13 on Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:31 AM

I believe the correct term would be "bugger". Though I assume there were a few more choice words than that used.

Andrew

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by Bockscar on Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:05 PM

echolmberg

So does anyone know what planes will be replacing them?

Eric

 

It'd be blast if it was F117's, okay, I like F117's, and they're gone too. Crying

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:51 PM

Super Bug

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Friday, December 10, 2010 10:50 AM

Konigwolf13

IIRC many airliners also have the ability to dump fuel if needed, but its rare to do so, dump fuel means dump money = bad business. Also with no afterburner its a bit hard to light it up of the engines were near the dump pipes, would be a sight to see it happen LOL

Might be an issue for the passengers, LOL.

Fuel dumps used to be mandated for aircraft where the max takeoff weight was greater than 105% of the max landing weight. In general that applied to aircraft that fly longer distances and/ or had 3 or 4 engines. It's not so much the case with the big efficient twins any more. But 747, DC 10, Tristar and that ilk had it. On a 747 it's located out by the wingtips.

In practice, it takes a while and creates a big mess, so pilots would probably opt to go ahead and land because the a/c isn't going to fail. It'd just be up for a lot of time and money consuming inspections,

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Green Bay, WI USA
Posted by echolmberg on Friday, December 10, 2010 11:46 AM

That's interesting that the RAAF will be switching to a Navy plane.  I didn't think a Hornet would ever wear the words "Air Force" anywhere on its surface.

As for the coolness factor and the fuel dump between the burners, that's why the Western planes will always be the coolest planes around!  For pete's sake people!  We actually engineer the coolness into each airplane!!!

Eric

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by Bockscar on Friday, December 10, 2010 1:15 PM

We've been flying them up here in Canada. We are probably going to replace them with the F-35.

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by Bockscar on Friday, December 10, 2010 1:22 PM

To be specific, the RCAF has been flying the CF-18 from the early '80s. Our government placed an order with Lockheed-Martin, but we'll see if it survives the next general election.

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Rothesay, NB Canada
Posted by VanceCrozier on Friday, December 10, 2010 1:43 PM

Bockscar

To be specific, the RCAF has been flying the CF-18 from the early '80s. Our government placed an order with Lockheed-Martin, but we'll see if it survives the next general election.

After the money we spent "not buying" the latest generation of helos, I don't think any government would dare pay to shut down the F-35 contract. Oh no, am I bringing logic into this equation??

On the bench: Airfix 1/72 Wildcat; Airfix 1/72 Vampire T11; Airfix 1/72 Fouga Magister

Moderator
  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: my keyboard dreaming of being at the workbench
Posted by Aaron Skinner on Friday, December 10, 2010 1:52 PM

echolmberg

That's interesting that the RAAF will be switching to a Navy plane.  I didn't think a Hornet would ever wear the words "Air Force" anywhere on its surface.

As for the coolness factor and the fuel dump between the burners, that's why the Western planes will always be the coolest planes around!  For pete's sake people!  We actually engineer the coolness into each airplane!!!

Eric

The RAAF replaced its Mirage IIIs with F/A-18As in the mid-1980s. IIRC, the F-35 is planned to replace both the F-111 and -18 in Australian service. The Super Bug is not the first interim airplane the RAAF has operated. During delivery delays in the F-111 program, the RAAF operated Phantoms.

Cheers, Aaron

Aaron Skinner

Editor

FineScale Modeler

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by Bockscar on Friday, December 10, 2010 2:40 PM

VanceCrozier

 

 Bockscar:

 

To be specific, the RCAF has been flying the CF-18 from the early '80s. Our government placed an order with Lockheed-Martin, but we'll see if it survives the next general election.

 

 

After the money we spent "not buying" the latest generation of helos, I don't think any government would dare pay to shut down the F-35 contract. Oh no, am I bringing logic into this equation??

I'ld be happy to see Super Hornets if only because of the twin engines.  I suppose the Official Opposition might want to drag the allegedly untendered contract up as an election issue. As for politics and logic, rarely do their paths cross. --I sure hope that doesn't count as a rant! Whistling

 

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Rothesay, NB Canada
Posted by VanceCrozier on Friday, December 10, 2010 2:49 PM

Well, twin engines mean twice as much engine maintenance cost, that could be an issue. Besides, Lockheed already has a mockup on their website...

On the bench: Airfix 1/72 Wildcat; Airfix 1/72 Vampire T11; Airfix 1/72 Fouga Magister

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by Bockscar on Friday, December 10, 2010 2:57 PM

Nice shot Vance;

Yeah, maintenance..., Lindberg has a new kit out. If my wife gets me one for Christmas, I think I could become a big fan for sure!

  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Hobart, Tasmania
Posted by Konigwolf13 on Friday, December 10, 2010 3:19 PM

I liked the look of the XF-32 myself, kinda like an A-7 crossed with mean. The f-35  just looks like a F-16/F-18 Hybrid with F-22 intakes.

Andrew

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Phil_H on Friday, December 10, 2010 5:30 PM

echolmberg

That's interesting that the RAAF will be switching to a Navy plane.  I didn't think a Hornet would ever wear the words "Air Force" anywhere on its surface.

Hi Eric,

Australia has been flying the earlier F/A-18A Hornets since the mid-80's. Other air forces (ie. non-naval) operating the earlier Hornets include (as mentioned) Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain and Switzerland.

However, as with the F-111, Australia is currently the only non-US operator of the Super Bug.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Phil_H on Saturday, December 11, 2010 4:20 AM

Konigwolf13
The f-35  just looks like a F-16/F-18 Hybrid with F-22 intakes.

Hi Andrew,

If you want to see something that looks like an F-16/F-18 hybrid, check this out. Taiwan's AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-Kuo

Looks like something that could have come out of Eddie Miller's workshop. Smile

  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Windy city, US
Posted by keilau on Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:23 AM

Phil_H

 

 Konigwolf13:
The f-35  just looks like a F-16/F-18 Hybrid with F-22 intakes.

 

Hi Andrew,

If you want to see something that looks like an F-16/F-18 hybrid, check this out. Taiwan's AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-Kuo

http://www.aircrafts.com/aircraft/images/AIDC-F-CK-1-Ching-Kuo.jpg

'); // -->

 

Looks like something that could have come out of Eddie Miller's workshop. Smile

It could have been a different fighter if the US allowed the export of a more powerful engine of modern design.

If you can understand Chinese, here is a good summary of its 20th anniversary.

Vne
  • Member since
    September 2010
Posted by Vne on Saturday, December 11, 2010 5:27 PM

Bockscar

 

 

 

I caught part of a show and if I recall this right, in a computer reenactment, an unarmed F-111 was being pursued by a manoeuvrable Russian built jet, but the F-111 pilot managed to force the opponent into the ground, I didn't catch the theatre. .

 

That would have been an EF-111, over the desert forcing an Iraqi Mirage F1 into the dirt... if I'm not mistaken.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.