General Dynamics F-111 STGB Chat

[Mountain goat]

On 20/12/2016 at 9:59 PM, Mountain goat said:

Was sold on a 366th TFW A model but I'm flirting with the idea for

 

 

Hi, I'm becoming more and more enchanted to build the above option, namely the first production FB-111A (67-0159). I am playing with the idea of converting it from my 1:72 Hasegawa F-111A.

 

This aircraft was apparently the only full production FB-111A with Triple Plow I inlets delivered to the USAF. It never went into active service but instead spent most of its days at Edwards and Mclellan AFBs as a test airframe. But - am I correct in understanding that this specific Aardvark had essentially the same aft fuselage section as the F-111A?

 

Jay

 

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Mountain goat
Got an air base wrong

[trickyrich]

4 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

 

Is this of any help?

 

 

I'll keep looking and see if I have anything else.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

Thanks for that Bill, it gives me a better idea of the main faired shape of the recon "panel". Gosh that photo brings back some memories of working in there! I don't remember what the round bit at the rear of the door was for...I don't think there was anything fitted there, though I could be wrong!

 

The other photo I have and is what I'll use to translate the measurements from. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mountain goat said:

 

Hi, I'm becoming more and more enchanted to build the above option, namely the first production FB-111A (67-0159). I am playing with the idea of converting it from my 1:72 Hasegawa F-111A.

 

This aircraft was apparently the only full production FB-111A with Triple Plow I inlets delivered to the USAF. It never went into active service but instead spent most of its days at Nellis and Mclellan AFBs as a test airframe. But - am I correct in understanding that this specific Aardvark had essentially the same aft fuselage section as the F-111A?

 

Jay

 

 

 

Hopefully some one will be able to help you out with a bit more info Jay, I would love to see her in the build!

[trickyrich]

Ok I've had a wee dig among some of my photos and found these, all RAAF aircraft.

 

A 1 Sqn. bird during ATA refuelling exercises.

 

 

Our research F-111C, she was based in Adelaide at RAAF Base Edinburgh with ARDU (Airforce Research & Development Unit), I didn't get to work on her.

 

 

she would be an interesting build...

 

 

now a couple of golden oldies, Pitch Black 88, this was a joint exercise held up in RAAF Base Darwin with the Americans (Airforce & Marines), can't remember if there was anyone other countries present for this one.  We (6 Sqn) had 7 aircraft up there for this exercise (3 RF-111Cs & 4 F-111Cs), for use as a workup for the "Giant Voice" Recon meet later in the year as well as a deployment to Singapore.  We had a couple of B-52G's (?) beside us (both were Vietnam veterans as well, one was used in the "Arc Light" raids in 65!), plus a couple of KC-135s. In the top LH corner, a bit hard to see, were a squadron of F-15's, they aways love to show off as they went past! The B-52 crews were cool!

 

 

and finally....... It's normally pretty well impossible to get a photo with the flight crews, but for some reason this day they wanted to join us for the photo...strange huh! Plus most of the flight crew also sported very dodgy 80's Mo's, thigh they all though they were Tom Seleck! I was still a very young a and sort of naive CPL back then......      (2nd right front). Got to love the standard flightline gear back then, shorts, T-shirts, and sunnies! Oh and that's one of our Recon birds as well......got to stay on topic!

 

 

[trickyrich]

ok one more as I just found this one and it's probably the most unique of the lot.

 

It's and air to air shot of A8-129 during an ATA refuelling exercise. There are actually no note for this photo but I know it's this aircraft for a rather unique feature. All RAAF F-111's carried their practise bomb pods (SUU-20) on a LH wing station except 129. She had it fitted to the RHS to help keep her trim, she had a habit to want to roll to the left all the time and required quite a bit of extra trim to keep her level, especially if the SUU-20 was fitted on the other side. It was suspected that her wing carry-through box wasn't 100% square and that her right wing had an ever so slightly twisted to it. Early in her life they tried all sorts of horrible things to help try and straighten her wings, but in the end decided it was easiest to just fit the pod on the RHS. Other then that she was just like the rest of the fleet. So any photo's around of an F-11C with the SUU-20 pod on the RHS will be of A8-129!

 

[Romeo Alpha Yankee]

Great shots Rich, I have a 1/72 recon bay fairing I can photograph for you if you want?

 

 

I am tempted to my build as an RF-111C as well, most likely A8-134 in the SA Aviation Museum. I have a few shots of it that may show some recce pod details. It is displayed with the recce pallet doors open as well.

[trickyrich]

oooo that'd be lovely Ray!!

 

 

[Dr Plastic]

deleted

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Dr Plastic

[Dr Plastic]

On 11/23/2016 at 9:01 AM, Navy Bird said:

We start on April 1st, right? April Fool's Day - kind of appropriate since I plan on building the F-111B.  

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

Bill if you need any assistance get with me. My father worked at Grumman on the F-111B program and Tommy was a great help in assisting me in my build a few years back. The Pete's hanger parts were fraught with problems and I only used the tires and decals. The nose has to be severely reshaped

 

 

http://public.fotki.com/ScottABregi/my_modeling_projects/f-111b/

Edited February 3, 2017 by Dr Plastic

[Navy Bird]

10 minutes ago, Dr Plastic said:

 

Bill if you need any assistance get with me. My father worked at Grumman on the F-111B program and Tommy was a great help in assisting me in my build a few years back. The Pete's hanger parts were fraught with problems and I only used the tires and decals. The nose has to be severely reshaped

 

 

http://public.fotki.com/ScottABregi/my_modeling_projects/f-111b/

 

Thanks for the link to your photo album - nice job! Did you cast your own resin radome, or just reshape Pete's?

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Dr Plastic]

Reshaped it. Tommy provided me with some great profiles that I scaled and created templates to get the shape correct. I am on FB  if you need to contact me off board.

I also scratchbuilt the nose landing gear and modified the rear landing gear. Just about every prototype and pre-production bird was different.

[Smudge]

Hi guys,

I might like to join in with this one, if I may. I'm a big fan, remember them well from Lakenheath and Upper Heyford. Is anyone doing an early F-111A from the first Vietnam deployment 'Combat Lancer' in 1968? That would be my first choice.

I have the 1/72 ESCI 'A which I think should be nice for this. Anything I should be aware of about this kit?

[trickyrich]

welcome aboard. 

 

To be honest I didn't know Esci made a 1/72nd scale F-111A, I'm sure someone here will be able to help you.

[Tailspin Turtle]

23 hours ago, Smudge said:

Hi guys,

I might like to join in with this one, if I may. I'm a big fan, remember them well from Lakenheath and Upper Heyford. Is anyone doing an early F-111A from the first Vietnam deployment 'Combat Lancer' in 1968? That would be my first choice.

I have the 1/72 ESCI 'A which I think should be nice for this. Anything I should be aware of about this kit?

I used it to create an F-111B. My notes from once upon a time: This kit is disappointing in accuracy and fit although the individual pieces look great, molded with detail and fine engraved lines. The intakes are "closed" and inaccurate, principally too long. The tail cone/exhaust dvider has to be shimmed or trimmed so that it won't be cocked down, separating away from the vertical fin. Both ventral fins fit okay on the right side and neither on the left side. The engine exhaust nozzles are too short and their shape is suspect.

 

The wings sweep but the pivot point appears to be slightly aft of where it should be. The internal mating/gearing may not interface properly so the right wing droops.

 

Note that the AMT Ertl kit is the Esci kit with a Triple Plow II intake, the Pave Tack FLIR/laser target designator pod, and the GBU-28 laser-guided bomb.

[Smudge]

Hi Tailspin,

Thanks for the information on the ESCI kit. I appreciate that it will never be comparable in accuracy or detail to a Hasegawa F-111, but as you say it doesn't look too bad in the box.

 

Thanks for the heads up on the various fit issues, forewarned and all that. Shame about the nozzles. 

 

My main concern would be the intakes. By 'too long' do you mean that they come to far forward towards the wing glove leading edge?

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

13 hours ago, Smudge said:

Hi Tailspin,

Thanks for the information on the ESCI kit. I appreciate that it will never be comparable in accuracy or detail to a Hasegawa F-111, but as you say it doesn't look too bad in the box.

My main concern would be the intakes. By 'too long' do you mean that they come to far forward towards the wing glove leading edge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I built that kit about 20 years ago so I don't remember what the specific problem was. My guess is that the front of the intake was where it should be if the sliding cowl was all the way forward, but there was no opening between the sliding cowl and the fixed part of the nacelle as there should be in that configuration. It may be that all you have to do is shorten the sliding cowl by cutting off a portion of its aft end. That's apparently what I did on my model. There's an illustration of the various inlets here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/grumman-f-111b.html

[Smudge]

Cheers Tailspin. The link to your F-111B stuff was interesting. I have the old Revell kit with the option to do the B version. Disappointing to read that you think the nose is incorrect, that's the most important part! I may still use it, or maybe not, the kit is more of a collectable classic.

 

Do you have any drawings of the differences between intakes for A, E, F and FB- ? These can be an issue, I feel.

[Tailspin Turtle]

5 minutes ago, Smudge said:

Cheers Tailspin. The link to your F-111B stuff was interesting. I have the old Revell kit with the option to do the B version. Disappointing to read that you think the nose is incorrect, that's the most important part! I may still use it, or maybe not, the kit is more of a collectable classic.

 

Do you have any drawings of the differences between intakes for A, E, F and FB- ? These can be an issue, I feel.

Actually, I'm certain that the Revell nose is incorrect, at least in terms of the transition from the lower side of the fuselage (as depicted in the blog, you can't just cut the nose off the F-111A on a vertical line at the front of the windscreen). That said, it is probably usable with some rework.

 

I haven't created any illustrations of the various Air Force F-111 intakes since my focus was on the B. I'm sure that others are more informed about them than me in any event.

[Smudge]

I was at my aged P's house for the weekend. Why don't you take your Dad out somewhere, said my Mum. Well...I have been thinking about a trip to Duxford says I.

 

Had a great day out, and while I was there took a few pictures for my F-111 GB. Thought I would share a few with you guys.

 

F-111E 67-120, from an initial batch of 10. Not sure why the data block has been changed to A7 120?

 

 

Those pesky intakes.

 

 

 

 

Suck-in/Auxiliary air doors.

 

 

 

Shame about the blanks being fitted, maybe no engines?

 

 

This one shows the 'gap' on top of the intake (I am not an aerospace engineer, just clearing that one up)

 

 

Exhaust? outlets on top of the fuselage.

 

 

I have a few more, but Photobucket is very slow, and I still have to get my tea. I'll try and put a few more on, in a bit. 

 

Cheers, Aardvark fans.

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Smudge
pictures added

[Smudge]

A few more.

 

 

Arrestor Hook and extended tail bumper.

 

.

 

 

The cans.

 

 

 

 

Centreline rear equipment/stores rack. 

 

 

I've got more! 

[Navy Bird]

Although this FB doesn't have her engines, I always thought it was a neat view. This was taken at Wings Over The Rockies in Denver, CO. Lousy photo quality, I bought a real camera not long after this trip!

 

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Smudge]

I was impressed by how smooth and aerodynamically clean the airframe was/is. She looks as smooth as a baby's.

[trickyrich]

Despite what is sometimes said of her, she was a very sleek and aerodynamic aircraft, especially in the Recon form with no pylons fitted. I always loved watching them come in really low and fast with the wings back. Generally they'd be just under the sound barrier and if you weren't watching the first you knew they were there was this incredible noise as she thundered across over head, a trick they loved to do at airshows. Would scare the pants off anyone who hadn't seen them coming in!   

[Rob Thompson]

On 1/22/2017 at 11:04 AM, Mountain goat said:

 

Hi, I'm becoming more and more enchanted to build the above option, namely the first production FB-111A (67-0159). I am playing with the idea of converting it from my 1:72 Hasegawa F-111A.

 

This aircraft was apparently the only full production FB-111A with Triple Plow I inlets delivered to the USAF. It never went into active service but instead spent most of its days at Edwards and Mclellan AFBs as a test airframe. But - am I correct in understanding that this specific Aardvark had essentially the same aft fuselage section as the F-111A?

 

Jay

 

 

I used to work on this aircraft at McClellan AFB in the mid 80's.  The fuselage was identical to an A model; it was converted to an FB.  It was generally referred to as Bomber-1.  The major difference between this aircraft and an A model was the longer FB wings and the avionics; I don't recall whether it had the P3 or the P7  engines, but they looked the same from outside, anyway.  

 

When I worked on this aircraft, it was painted in a white-red-black scheme as seen at the bottom of the page here - https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/13-july-1968/ - you can clearly see the translating cowls.  The aircraft is now on static display at the McClellan aerospace museum, and can be seen on Google maps.  That view might be useful, as the wings are swept back and really show the difference between the fighter and fighter bomber wings.  It has been repainted in the old FB paint scheme, unfortunately.

 

One other difference - it did not have the 20mm cannon in the weapons bay, as most A models did.  Instead, it had the plain doors and the mount for the SRAM inside.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Rob Thompson
weapons bay

[Mountain goat]

23 hours ago, Rob Thompson said:

I used to work on this aircraft at McClellan AFB in the mid 80's.  The fuselage was identical to an A model; it was converted to an FB.  It was generally referred to as Bomber-1.  The major difference between this aircraft and an A model was the longer FB wings and the avionics; I don't recall whether it had the P3 or the P7  engines, but they looked the same from outside, anyway.  

 

When I worked on this aircraft, it was painted in a white-red-black scheme as seen at the bottom of the page here - https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/13-july-1968/ - you can clearly see the translating cowls.  The aircraft is now on static display at the McClellan aerospace museum, and can be seen on Google maps.  That view might be useful, as the wings are swept back and really show the difference between the fighter and fighter bomber wings.  It has been repainted in the old FB paint scheme, unfortunately.

 

One other difference - it did not have the 20mm cannon in the weapons bay, as most A models did.  Instead, it had the plain doors and the mount for the SRAM inside.

 

Mighty interesting, thank you for your reply. I was coming to that conclusion but it's great to hear your conformation that it was a standard A fuselage. Did the paint job have any special significance other than to denote it was used for testing?

 

-Jay

[Rob Thompson]

4 hours ago, Mountain goat said:

 

Mighty interesting, thank you for your reply. I was coming to that conclusion but it's great to hear your conformation that it was a standard A fuselage. Did the paint job have any special significance other than to denote it was used for testing?

 

-Jay

It was a testbed; the ECM equipment had been removed from the right-hand forward bay and replaced with the Fairchild-Schlumberger FDAPS system and an Ampex 16 track tape recorder for data acquisition.  But I remember it was mainly used for chase and photo of other test aircraft, specifically the 1st production FB-111 AMP aircraft we were testing at the time.  We also had a similarly painted T-38 for chase and photo for things like the A-10 test aircraft, that didn't go all that fast. The paint was automotive Imron, and it would come back with the paint peeling off in strips after high speed flight.

 

The reasons for the race car paint job are partly tradition, partly high visibility.  Just as the NASA aircraft got custom paint, so did ours; but it also needed to stand out in photos, hence the outrageous colors. 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Rob Thompson
Forgot to answer the question