It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Layout before prototype collection

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:34 AM
So strang! Why I see the last reply was written by Waynos, but I can't see that reply?

Strange enough, I can see now after I reply

[edit on 21-2-2006 by emile]

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:38 AM
sometimes when a reply goes 'over the page' it doesn't appear until someone else posts after it. Something ATS needs to have a look at.

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by waynos
The F-110 wasn't a development of the F-4 Phantom, it was just the USAF designation for those F-4's which it bought. In 1962 the new tri service designation system was introduced and 'F-110' was dropped and all Phantoms were just F-4's.

If you want to take the roots of the F-111 right back to the very beginning look into the Vickers 583 VG strike fighter project from 1958. This was also meant to produce a strike aircraft for the RAF and a carrier based interceptor for the RN just like the original TFX (from which F-111 was born) was supposed to do for the USA. This has almost no physical commonality with the F-111 but was the source of much tech transfer from Vickers to NASA who later assisted on the F-111 and thus it can be said to be directly relevant.

I got no idea about where the Aardvark develop from. F-111 developed from project of RAF?
Have you ever seen the layout of Vickers 583 VG?
Why you didn't post here?

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 09:23 AM
No, not directly emile. The TFX and F-111 that it spawned are all American, but in tracing the origins of the F-111 this is a fairly important footnote.

As well as the VG work that went on in America after the war Barnes Wallis undertook similar work in the UK for Vickers. After the hugely ambitious Swallow strategic bomber was shelved this tactical bomber was evolved under the designation Vickers 581 (not 583 - my error).

As you can see there are only the very vaguest traces of the F-111 present, these are the long extended gloves up to the cockpit, nothing else.

Vickers and Nasa then worked together to evolve the design with all the Vickers data being transferred to America with Nasa making very strong representations to Vickers than the tailless idea was too risky.

The final result of this work for Vickers was the unbuilt BAC 589 seen below, which led eventually to the Tornado while NASA fed its data (homegrown and imported) into the F-111 programme.

The F-111 then benefitted from this UK programme, I would never go so far as to say it was based on it. This would be wrong.

Finally, here is the Swallow strategic bomber design that Wallis was trying to develop in the first place;

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:26 PM
What's the first picture like? It looks like ee~ a swing-wing lightning! isn't it?
The 2nd one just a swing-wing TSR.2 no-one will suspect
So there is no pity to TSR.2 as it has been reboth become F-111, most of things UK got failure but her ally US done for her
a good couple

[edit on 21-2-2006 by emile]

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:04 AM
who can assort pictrue to this link?
I think most of these layout has been drawn before but why I have never found?

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:56 AM
Today, let's talk about Jaguar. Why we discuss Jaguar? Because Jagaur is the last Europ Fighter-Attacker jet in my opnion.
Second, I guess the aerodynemic layout of Jagaur influnced some important projects like India HF-73, PANAVIA 200, Chinese JH-7 etc.
Third, the other rival Mirage F.1 we've had known well about its resource, but we still don't know the layout before the first Jaguar.
Now, I'm waiting for expert teaching me.

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:04 AM
I've got loads of stuff on this if you promise not to laugh like you did with my last effort to teach you about Vickers VG work
(I'll post it later as it will take some puting together - pictures to dig out, facts to check etc)

[edit on 9-3-2006 by waynos]

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:08 AM
Why be so many suspicious? Even I laugh there is no lampoon in it. Ive had said British are really imaginful. A race with abundant imagination means having a good future. Do you want to be some Chinese makes movie always go around untrue history?

[edit on 9-3-2006 by emile]

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:34 AM

Is it me, or does the 3-D rendition of the BAC 589 you posted above look very much like a Tu-26 Backfire?

I wonder if the British design influenced the Soviets, or was some theft of ideas involved?

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:01 AM
I never noticed that before Pyros, I don't think its anything suspicious, just that it represents the stae of the art at the time and its more of a coincidence.

emile, sorry but I don't get what you mreant in your last post
I'll post the Jaguar info as a new thread as I think it merits it, give me a few minutes

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in