McNamara is a prime example of a smart fellow who thought he was far smarter than he was.

@vinh7251

11 ай бұрын

He was also a callous, heartless bastard. Read up on McNamara’s morons and tell me I’m wrong.

And at the end the TAC received THREE (!) aircrafts for these various roles: A7 Corsair II, light/medium attack A10 Thunderbolt II for AT/CAS F111 for long range attack. Pratically the antitesys of McNamara's ideas!

@matthewcaughey8898

Жыл бұрын

The A-7 was intended as a replacement for the A-4 skyhawk which was a 1950s design by the legendary Ed Heinman ( who ironically designed the A-4 to replace the venerable A-1 skyraider the only piston driven plane to score a MiG kill). The F-111 was built to be a long range nuclear armed penetration aircraft with a secondary mission of tactical precision air striker. Eventually SAC requested a special version of the F-111 called the FB-111 which was designed for long range deep penetration strikes in unfriendly territory. Then the F-111 moved into the EF-111 which was an excellent electronic warfare jet. ( it was the USAFs version of the EA-6B prowler). The A-10 was built to do one thing, pop Russian tanks as they came streaming over the fulda gap in Germany. Its secondary mission is close air support but it’s primarily supposed to be killing tanks. ( in Iraq in 1993 on a 1 day killbox mission a pair of hogs popped 27 Iraqi tanks). Now anti armor helicopters are an army thing as the USAF has opposed the army getting fixed wing jets, however nobody ever complained about choppers. For that reason the army has traditionally operated the AH-1s, Hueys and AH-64s

I love the F-111. But it's not without irony that it was delivered so incredibly late that Australia had to rent a bunch of F4 Phantom IIs to fill the role until they finally arrived. And when they did it was at 4 times the anticipated per unit price. And even then, it wasn't until the F model that it finally met the performance GD claimed in their initial proposal.

@peterjones4180

3 жыл бұрын

A lot of that additional cost was the result of trying to use a purpose designed high speed medium range low level bomber as a naval fighter interceptor ALL those development costs were added to the cost of the aircraft GD manufactured in the programme, and so WE paid for McNamara's incompetence, it should come as No surprise Macnamara was an EX USAF statistician, "Numbers never lie" ?.

The 818 looks like it would've been a poor substitute for the Tomcat to me. Dorsal engine intakes cause compressor problems at high angles of attack, which would mean pulling G's in a dogfight would probably not have been feasible. Same thing with the poor cockpit visibility. In the early 60s aircraft were designed for long range interception with missiles and dogfighting was thought to be obsolete. Vietnam showed that to be not the case, so when the Tomcat was designed it had high pilot visibility and was able to handle close in fighting as well as 80+ mile intercepts, so it probably worked out better for the Navy in the end.

@LRRPFco52

Жыл бұрын

My thoughts exactly about the intake locations. Especially in a hard ride TFR mode for the USAF version screaming along the deck at .8 - .9 Mach, auto TF sees a mountain and pitches up with max g, both motors stall.

@austinowings4904

Жыл бұрын

Which is why the Navy alternated between saying it was unacceptable, and encouraged its going forward. They wanted the TFX, the naval F-111B anyway, to crash and burn so that they could get their Tomcat. "Yes, give us the thing that will fail badly in testing, then we'll take it to Congress and get them to defund it, and then we can finally get around to making what we actually asked for" which is what befell the 111B later on.

@goddepersonno3782

11 ай бұрын

depending on the material and wing design, you could easily keep the flow attached to the wing (and therefore into the intake) at somewhat reasonable alpha, but it is ofc suboptimal

Ed I was aware of the General Dynamics F1-11 and Grumman F-14 history, but the Boeing 818 never heard of it till now. Keep it up buddy 👍 these obscure aviation history facts are much appreciated.

F-111s were iconic in Australia. Miss their afterburner shows.

@Hi11is

3 жыл бұрын

Fuel dump shows.

@superluminal89

3 жыл бұрын

Remember seeing one as it flew over Sunnybank in QLD.

@TITANIOFORT

2 жыл бұрын

How much cost the flight hour of an F-111 Aaardwark? The last notice about F-35 was they presents only 36% of disponibility, with more than 800 project problems, an promised flight hour of $20,000.00, and an real flight hour of $36,000.00, it's more than the flight hour of three BOEING F-18 SUPER HORNET, that costs each one $11,000.00, the flight hour. And the motor of F-35 are revealing an too short life. The F-35 are a real lie, an promise unfulfilled, and extremelly expensive. That's the hole without botton were goes 40% of heritage of each american citizen when their fathers dies. USA had the two too much good F-16 XL and an Grumman F-14, and put them in the waste basket of history. Now USAF is cancelling the F-35 production line, and doesn't have an proved substitute.

@echodelta2172

2 жыл бұрын

@@TITANIOFORT stop having a stroke or learn english

@jameslawrie3807

2 жыл бұрын

I hear a lot of techs got sick cleaning out the fuel bays of them though. I think it was poor RAAF procedures that had the unfortunate techs cleaning out bays without breathing gear when it was soaked in carcinogens. Poor bastards.

I had an opportunity to chat with a retired F-111 pilot. I asked how good the terrain following radar was for being 1970's tech. He said they used to do training flights over some mountains in Scotland. He said one time he was doing some night flying and was nearly blinded because his navigation lights were being reflected off the snow from the mountains and back into his cockpit. He didn't give me a number, but that's how low he could fly on automatic.

@starga-fr7qx

3 жыл бұрын

It wasn't that good from the start, they lost a couple of F111's that just flew controlled into the terrain. It only got fixed once there had been an effort to figure out where and how they lost planes.. The guy that did the investigation was part of the B52 crew that had a head on midair collision en route to Vietnam for arc light 1 , Major Don Harten, that resulted in the 996 Mod kzread.info/dash/bejne/laqJydtyo5TclrA.html

@aj-2savage896

3 жыл бұрын

It was said the nav system on the FB-111A was so good the plane could find it's way back to the same parking spot after a mission.

@dougball328

3 жыл бұрын

@@starga-fr7qx I worked in aerodynamics in Ft. Worth in 1975-1977. The F-111 accidents that happened during that time were either caused by CFIT or a TF-30 throwing a turbine blade into a fuel tank. And most of the CFIT accidents were found to not have the TFR turned on. Hot dogging it and they bought it.

@starga-fr7qx

3 жыл бұрын

@@dougball328 nothing to do with Aerodynamics.. Don Harten was the Safety officer in SEA who investigated it and figured out the TFR had glitches with the Altitude radar and would actively steer the plane in the ground.. He kicked it up to the whitehouse, a 4 star general came down, who agreed with the conclusions and Mod 996 was implemented on all F111's with TFR and even on all B52's F15's B1's and other planes who used it

@dougball328

3 жыл бұрын

@@starga-fr7qx I never said it did have anything to do with aerodynamics. But when the TFR is turned off, can't fault the system. Not saying it was perfect, either.

McNamara was brilliant and arrogant, making him his own worst enemy. He got as much wrong as he did right. His assessment of Boeing was probably correct. I spent four years working on an air defense program they honcho'd. It was beyond their level of expertise and it suffered for it.

@ajvanmarle

Жыл бұрын

But what is not mentioned here is the political issue: General Dynamics was based in Texas, which was the home state of then VP Lyndon B Johnson.

@Paladin1873

Жыл бұрын

@@ajvanmarle Houston, we have a problem.

@RCAvhstape

Жыл бұрын

@@Paladin1873 Yes, Houston, home of Johnson Spaceflight Center lol

@buenapilapil5513

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps, Boeing was right in that a joint service TFX wasn't viable. Plus, alot more money was probably spent overall on both the F111 and the F14

@charlestaylor253

Жыл бұрын

I agree with Robert Strange McNamara being arrogant, but 'brilliant'?... 🤣🤮

Those top mounted intakes look like there may well have been some interesting moments ahead in a rapid pitch up...

@BobbyGeneric145

3 жыл бұрын

You mean like intake interruption? Ya probably!

@joshuasavella6925

3 жыл бұрын

yea i kinda was thinking that to when i saw the schematics of the thing. intake disruption with high angle of attack and uneven airflow with the s-ducts and angled engines. still looks cool

@badlandskid

3 жыл бұрын

Looks like it should be a transformer

@rummerlinelmo

3 жыл бұрын

@@badlandskid It is.

@fredtedstedman

3 жыл бұрын

I seem to remember the F111 "triple-plow" intakes causing no end of problems till they sorted out the boundary layer ...................................?

The F-111 good but boy was it expensive to keep flying. Plus the TF-30 was got a great engine ever. A lot of people wished that the F-111 had gotten the same kind of rebuild that the F 14 did going all digital and updated to F110s. Imagine the missle truck that would make.

@TornadoADV

3 жыл бұрын

That was the F-111 in Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

The F111 was a beast, I remember seeing them flying up the coast of NSW when I was a kid, big loud and beautiful. Australia loved our F111's.

The Australian Commonwealth Aircraft labs in Melbourne was not only McDonald Douglas first customer but also fixed it's inherent wings falling off problem gratis as we wanted delivery and couldn't wait till the Americans fixed it . Was a fab plane . Many firsts in aviation and could take a lot of battle damage . From.a fan in Qld Australia

@MrDino1953

2 жыл бұрын

Shouldn't you be standing on one leg and playing a flute?

There's no music in these videos. There's no hype-ee over-wrought narration. There's no exaggeration or overstatement in the content. But there is a very high degree of accuracy, and a keen grasp of the dramatic ironies latent in the history of aviation development. This is some of the best aviation content available on KZread. Now if I could get YT to stop throwing up their idiotic ads every five seconds, I'd be happy. And just in case you're watching, KZread Bots, you couldn't be more wrong about my preferences. So much for AI.

It's it just me, or are Ed's videos getting even better?

@johnladuke6475

3 жыл бұрын

Steady improvement. Getting to the point where it's jarring to compare new with old because of the qualit difference.

@joeschenk8400

3 жыл бұрын

Yep!

Thanks Ed. I had no idea of this ....everyday's a school day !

The A7 and F4 are the only two aircraft that filled McNamara's requirements and they were designed before his time.

@vapsa56

3 жыл бұрын

And they were both designed for a navy requirement.

@lmj06

3 жыл бұрын

No, the F-4 was getting old, and it showed, that is why the navy needed a new aircraft in the first place, and the A-7 couldn't fly supersonic due to it not having an afterburner, it also couldn't carry nuclear weapons and with no terrain avoidence radar it couldnt fly as low as the F-111

@LRRPFco52

Жыл бұрын

@@lmj06 F-4 was brand new at the time, barely into production.

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, can not be cursed enough. Ever.

@loumencken9644

3 жыл бұрын

Worst Secretary of Defense ever, until the current one (I asked Joe Biden what his name is, but he couldn't remember).

@MrKentaroMotoPI

3 жыл бұрын

May he rot in hell.

@lexwaldez

3 жыл бұрын

Wise words. McNamara was a murderous twat-weezle of epic proportion.

@RCAvhstape

3 жыл бұрын

To be Devil's Advocate, McNamara was brought in to get control of the huge cost overruns, which were, and still are, a problem with government contracts. His background was in the Detroit automotive industry, though, and he was ill-suited for making defense policy. He hobbled the services' ability to evolve both technologically and personnel wise, he fucked up the Vietnam War in multiple ways and didn't understand the purpose or needs of the services. He might've made a good advisor to the Sec Def on cost cutting but he never should've had the job.

@hoilst265

3 жыл бұрын

@@RCAvhstape "McNamara's Morons" should be a war crime.

Nice clip of George C Scott from Dr Strangelove.

My Father directly worked on this Boeing proposal in the advanced engineering department. My Mother was a librarian in the secret blueprint library. Several times it was mentioned over dinner that the main reason Boeing ultimately lost this and most all other contracts of that time was the refusal to fund 'Ladies of the Evening' in Washington DC. My parents rarely even exaggerated so I have always figured it was true.

Military Thinkers: We've carefully considered our needs and goals to create a plan that best achieves them. Sec. McNamara: That's cute, didn't anybody tell you that we're doing my thing?

@edl617

3 жыл бұрын

McNamara was a putz

@taylorc2542

3 жыл бұрын

One size fits none.

@hikerbro3870

3 жыл бұрын

McNamara was Charlie's not-so-secret weapon.

Love the clip of Gen. Buck Turgidson shaking his head about joint services aircraft.

Great video wasn’t aware of the 818

@leefithian3704

3 жыл бұрын

Love new aircraft history ,

This is a great one, I was stationed at Mountain Home AFB with the 366 T.F.W. and we had 3 squadrons of F111's. I will never forget being a young maintenance troop on the flightline watching the night takeoffs with full afterburner.

I remember this controversy. This was only one of several projects in the DoD under Mac. He went to work for Ford design team for the Maverick. So what can u expect

Thank you Ed for a great analysis of an aircraft i had heard of but only in passing: the 818. It now puts my first recollection of what my Dad said when he came home from work one day in the early 60's saying "We won!" into context. He worked for General Dynamics Convair, a subsidiary that did some of the testing for General Dynamics. I know that this was before 1964 because my brother wasn't around yet, he would be born in the spring of '64. Later I remember he was angry that Grumman and the Navy came up with the F-14 using the F-111 flight and wind tunnel test data on the sly. He felt that GD trusted Grumman, who betrayed the partnership and developed the F-14. IMHO, the F-14 was a great plane that we still have not equaled in our inventory. A plane that carries six 100+ mile Air to Air missiles that weigh as much as WWII torpedoes and still have a chance in a dogfight and oh by the way can fly MACH 2.3+. On the 818, I think the overhead intakes would have produced better low speed lift for carrier operations and perhaps would have soldiered on to this day saving billions of $. The 818 would have devastated the Fort Worth GD effort since the F-111 would never have been built, but Convair made the Atlas missile mainly at that time and probably would not have been affected.

F-111 teething pains were quite severe. Texas Instruments made the circuit boards holding the computational guts of the flight control system. The first time an F-111 attempted a high-g turn, the chips detached from the boards, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable. It's just sad to think that a dead test pilot or a dead USAF crew are now reduced to 'teething pains'.

@questofknowledge8788

3 жыл бұрын

While I can agree with the settlement, all high level technology always has a human cost. There was acceptable loss rates for almost all businesses. A set number per ton is an example for early 20th century ship building. It’s not easy to swallow but people die just learning how to fly these aircraft. Testing is obviously far more dangerous and ultimately far more deadly, this is a known fact and is why only well seasoned pilots take part.

Back in the mid 80s, i used to see f111's lo flying in sw washington state. flying over the forests in the back woods areas. just above the trees. awe inspiring.

well made video! not sure about anyone else but when yo showed the photo of all the 818 models being developed, i found the one that was off to the left of particular interest! did anyone else catch the 3 large circles in the model's airframe? were those to be lifting fans? 4:23 is the timestamp

0:18 Newkular :-). You're far from alone Ed - loads of folk seem to struggle with this one. Try thinking of it as 'new-clear'. Stands back and awaits the accusatory 'grammar police' comments...

@vaclav_fejt

3 жыл бұрын

I am glad I don't have to be that guy...I don't have almost any friends, because I'm such an ass about languages...

@PeteCourtier

3 жыл бұрын

@@vaclav_fejt arse😂😂😂

@vaclav_fejt

3 жыл бұрын

@@PeteCourtier I did mean ass - the animal. Donkey, you know?

@johnladuke6475

3 жыл бұрын

Don't worry about being called a grammar nazi, just tell them you're alt write. Besides, that pronunciation was good enough for Dubya and he got to touch the football.

@PeteCourtier

3 жыл бұрын

@@vaclav_fejt 😂 sorry👍

I can't help but think that the dorsal air intakes would starve the engines of air during high G turns.

@kdrapertrucker

3 жыл бұрын

Well, its a bomber, so high G turns weren't expected. Even the F-111 wasn't very manuverable.

@kerbalairforce8802

3 жыл бұрын

F-111 was sometimes called "lead sled"

@LRRPFco52

Жыл бұрын

Pitch-up maneuver in F-111s doing terrain-following was very commonplace on every TF mission profile. Top-located intakes is a deal-breaker in that respect. Especially if the intakes are located towards the rear, where they can be blanked out by the leading edges of the wing roots.

Thanks for an excellent discussion of the Boeing 818. One of my early mentors in aerospace had worked for Boeing during the TFX proposals. We often discussed TFX. He mentioned a lot of the issues that you mentioned. He also had observed that Boeing suspected that GD was going to be awarded the contract. One of the issues the Boeing team faced that he considered to be extremely unusual was the USAF insisted that Boeing actually directly brief General Dynamics on a lot of the technical designs for the 818, and Boeing rationales behind their design. When both TFX proposals ended up having an extremely similar design and appearance, he was not surprised, and awaited a final decision on the award. He was sure that McNamara would decide against Boeing, regardless of what the Air Force might decide. That said, my mentor still had similar comments that I see here in this discussion thread from others, as well as comments you made on Boeing’s historical contract performance, etc.

Thanks for this. I'd long wondered what the Boeing TFX entry actually looked like. I'd read about it in the 90's but there were now images to be had. And I knew it had been selected by the services over the General Dynamics time and time again. But I didn't know any of McNamara's reasons for selecting the GD entry, and without any details it seemed arbitrary and just smacked of corruption.

Never heard of this project before today. Thanks Ed!

0:20 that is simply some awesome footage.

Ten years ago, I a report on the F-111 project/TFX at an Army school I was attending at the time. (Yes, kind of odd for a soldier to be doing a report on this, but odd things happen in the military!) The electronics requirement for the two services were totally incompatible. Getting the aircraft down to a size that would fit on an aircraft carrier proved challenging as well. In the end, McNamara was trying to fit a large square peg into a small round hole and it just wouldn't work no matter how stubborn he was.

Really curious as to how the 818 won the competitions 4 times without an actual fly off. The intakes on the dorsal side is a HUGE risk for ACM as the obstruction of the air stream during high AoA maneuvering would starve the engines and crash the aircraft. The 818 also didn't have the wing sweep range of the F-111 or even the F-14, which would have massively effected it's low speed handling characteristics and possible MTOW. This not only damages it's possible payload size but it more importantly damages the performance for CTOL functionality. Further more, the large single V-Stab was found to be a problem on the F-111 for the NAVY because the structure was so high that it would cause clearance issues inside the carrier hangers - this is one of the reasons why the F-14 used a split / twin tail design. Unfortunately this makes McNamara seem like the smart one here because the F-818 out of the box doesn't seem feasible to achieve what Boeing says it does and I don't see how the aircraft would've faired well at high speed low level flight with that configuration - it would've been a sitting duck if a single engine flamed out due to interruption of air flow. Craziness.

@gort8203

2 жыл бұрын

The fact that the Navy accepted the dorsal mounted intakes is unsurprising in light of the fact that its original requirement was for a heavy fleet defense aircraft, not an air superiority fighter. A dorsal intake had also been used by the proposed North American F-107 for USAF. That one severely restricted reward visibility, but again it didn't matter because the F-107 was to be fighter bomber, not a dogfighter. The F-111 design also had poor reward visibility, as well as side-by-side seating at the insistence of the Navy, both indications that it was not meant to be a dogfighter. The Navy eventually realized it also needed to develop an air superiority fighter. But the budgetary environment could not support two new aircraft, so they had to develop one aircraft to perform both the fleet defense and air superiority roles. By then the F-111design was unsuitable, so the Navy withdrew from the program and initiated development of a new new aircraft that would become the F-14. One of first things they ditched was the side by side seating, in favor of the tandem seating which USAF had wanted all along. None is this is an indication that McNamara's goal was unreasonable--it was reasonable for the initial requirements presented by both services, but the needs of the Navy evolved.

Very enjoyable slice of military aviation history. Keep it up, Ed.

I hope you will do next the F-103 and F-108

Excellent subject matter, good logical flow, and proper ending. Well done, Ed Nash.

I’ve been at the Williamtown base museum (in Newcastle, Australia) and witnessed a bus load of Chinese males, get off a bus, pay the entrance fee, head straight to the F-111 on display, and photograph everything! Definitely a 🇨🇳engineers tour! 🦘

@YaMomsOyster

2 жыл бұрын

Oh mate I believe every word of that and they aren’t just stealing vintage jet designs either.

@Scott11078

2 жыл бұрын

@@YaMomsOyster I was an engineer stationed on the USS Kitty Hawk from 1999-2003. I was an HT Hull Maintenance Technician Repair division or R div was HT's, MR's and DC, DC is damage controlmen. We had this Chinese guy in our division turns out he was just about to enter bootcamp to be a Chinese marine when his parents immigrated to the US and dragged him along. DC wasn't his first rate either, he started out in weapons division. He joins, learns how to blow shit up, switches rates and learns the HIGHLY classified details on how to actually sink a carrier. There is a lot more to that story and he wasn't alone.

@sheeplord4976

2 жыл бұрын

@@Scott11078 The US military not vetting their canidates, imagine my shock

The F111 is a very iconic aircraft and super cool, very classic strike bomber, most likely the inspiration for the Fencer

@MikoyanGurevichMiG21

10 ай бұрын

This plane oddly has a strange resemblance to the MiG 31. I wonder if the Russians had managed to get a glimpse to the prototype's pictures.

This is a design that needs to be revisited to be the starting point for a modern descendant that is not off budget. Disregard stealth as the first design limitation and concentrate on long range high speed precision strike bomber with options for all the modern decoy electronics and the power to lift more than its own weight with ease. Stealth is great for almost not being found. Trouble is once you are actually found up in hostile skies those design limits that stealth impose have subtracted other features (such as armor) that would help you get back to base. F-111 proved the type was good at delivering ordinance on hostile forces despite the design restrictions mentioned.

The FB-111A was at Pease AFB in NH for about ten years. I was stationed there with them from 1983 to 1986. They could haul four nukes to the eastern Russian border when called to. Big plane with lots of payload. Really loud at idle if you got to stand next to it.

Fantastic video, keep digging up the lost gems of history. Thanks.

Cheers, you're cheering me up in a lockdown, and able to do it whilst providing excellent content! *\0/*

@edl617

3 жыл бұрын

What lockdown

@slongger

3 жыл бұрын

Lockdowns still , my suggestion is move and vote red.

@SteamCrane

3 жыл бұрын

My (red) state never did have a full lockdown, and had below average corona statistics. The company I work for recently dropped the mask requirement, although a percentage of employees still wear them. The highest death rates have been in the blue states, with draconian constraints.

McNamara: The man who truly embodied Einstein's definition of insanity. Also, what has not been mentioned here: General Dynamics operated out of Texas: Lyndon B Johnson's home state. Ultimately, that was probably the deciding factor.

Great stuff, Ed!

Thanks so much for such an educational video. I never knew about the Boeing 818.

F 111 did great service for Australia.

@Tattlebot

9 ай бұрын

TEN DEAD

Well, well, good ol' McNamara, the bane of the Armed Forces, his ideas of "Commonality" were about 30 to 40 years early, and because of him, Boeing lost their last chance to get back into the fighter business, untill the mid 90's when they bought McDonnell-Douglas, and inherited the F-15, F/A-18, and AV-8 programs. The idea of building one fighter tailored to different Service requirements needed more time for the technology to catch up, and now we have the F-35 Lightning-II, which is the plane that McNamara wanted the F-111 to be, way back in the early 60's.

Amazing photos! Thanks.

Great stuff👍 Another what if! 818 and TSR2🥰

Never hear of the Boeing 818! Looks very cool though!!! Thanks for the great video. I love the Ardvark, true Underdog!!

Great video, I love reading or watching about these Cold War era what-if projects.

Another really good video.

Some very interesting archive pictures there.

No need to apologise for your thoughts on not enough video of an aircraft never built. Your content is more important, and this video was excellent! Some other content providers putting out videos of similar subjects fill their presentation up with random video. I find it extremely annoying when they are discussing a subject and show the wrong aircraft, in the wrong place in a different time period.

Excellent video man, keep it up! 😩

Really enjoyed your video! 👏👍🤝

Another excellent video Ed, could you try to increase the level of your audio, I find I need full volume to hear properly, then again, it could be just me. I guess it would be near impossible to hear about Russian "good idea but not built" aircraft, now they would be interesting.

The biggest problem with the Boeing design: it was designed around essentially a "paper" engine, the General Electric MF295; some of the techology would end up on the F101 used by the B-1 bomber. The F-111 was designed around the Pratt & Whitney TF30, which was already developed originally for the canceled _Missileer_ fleet defense fighter project and was in bench testing at the time.

I've always thought the best way to cut military costs is to actually hold contractors to their bids and make them eat cost overruns.

Well done and thanks. A BIG thumbs up.

Dude you make great videos and I read your book....keep it up bro

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers man

@Kiowa1776

3 жыл бұрын

Been in the military for over 20 years and you know your stuff man

One point you missed was the F14 wing was the wing intended for the Naval and UK variants of the TFX and was utilised on the F111C for the Australian's.

Lol....👍👍 From nose to tail, this thing was a "Real" joy.... Many thanx Mr. Nash!

4:26 interesting stuff on the tables ! White plane at 5:20 is gorgeous !

I recommend a future video on the Vought Model 1600, which I don't think anyone has made a video about

@johnosbourn4312

3 жыл бұрын

Ah, that aircraft was LTV's VFX proposal that the Navy would designate as the F-14.

If it was screwed up in the military in the 1960's, it usually has McNamara's name attached to it.

Good stuff - and something even I as a retired Boeing engineer knew little about. Can anyone identify the three lift fan, twin engine concept model shown in lower left at 4:23? SR-71 meets JSF...

@LRRPFco52

Жыл бұрын

That is interesting for sure.

@charlestaylor253

Жыл бұрын

Considering the three lift fans are useless in flight and only take up weight and space in the airframe that could be used for fuel/avionics, more like an SR-71 that could VTOL but couldn't fly very far afterwards...

Nice video, thank you :)

Thank you!😃 You have illuminated and focused the spotlight on an a diagram in a book by Salamander on the F111 , by Bill Gunston!The caption reads ' Boeing Wichita destroyed almost all their records on their excellent TFX submission. ' Great work as always!

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

Жыл бұрын

Glad to help :)

Ed Thank YOU 🙏 AGAIN 🙏 for your excellent work... you are a magician and you found another program I knew very little beyond the F111 & F14 👏👏👏👏👏👏

The successor to the F-111B aardvark was the F-15E strike eagle. Boeing owns McDonald Douglas, which produces the F-15. Last year, the US Air Force decided to procure the latest version of the F-15, the F-15EX in limited numbers to replace older F-15 models in air defense. So in a sense, Boeing got the last laugh

@LRRPFco52

Жыл бұрын

Successor to F-111B was the F-14. F-15E replaced the F-111F. USAF didn’t decide to procure the F-15EX, but instead had it forced on them by acting SECDEF Shanahan, a 31yr Boeing executive. Adam Smith, the House Armed Services Committee Chairman, is also a Boeing representative in Congress since he’s from the Seattle District. USAF never wanted a new F-15 since the F-15 isn’t survivable in a modern IADS network, both in A2A and from SAM threats. USAF is talking about pushing F-15EX to Air National Guard units, who don’t want it, but want F-35As instead.

@paulholmes672

10 ай бұрын

@@LRRPFco52 It's amazing how many airplanes have been deemed "unsurviveable" by so called experts when history proves the opposite. The F-15 has never been shot down by anybody, but it's now considered a death trap. The F-16 was supposed to be the nimble little air superiority fighter that would do it all. If it carries a full load it's mission time is less than 30 minutes and it cannot fly combat without a tanker. It's Air to Air is abysmal, with only the Israelis having a better 1 to 1 kill ratio (the USAF does not!!!) The F-35 is another of these wonder jets but its only saving grace is stealth and if it gets into a visual range dogfight it is toast. It HAS helped a lot of people (and government ministers) get rich, we'll see what it does the minute the Israelis get some and take them to war.

@LRRPFco52

10 ай бұрын

@@paulholmes672 We worked on the F-15 Combined Test Force at Edwards. It's an awesome program with a great record. My great uncle also worked on the P-51 & F-86 at North American, and my grandpa on the A-3 & A-4 at Douglas. Things come and go. It's ok.

Trying to think of any over-intake design actually made it. The F-107 is the other one that comes to mind, along with the Tu-22 (that was more of a tail mounted engine though).

4:23 What can I see on the bottom left? A supersonic hoverboard?

Loved this. Now do the Super Tomcat

GR8 Vid as always. Oh, the big kicker is that congress got in envolved. A member (Corwin Meyer) of the GD/ Grumman team was asked why they should be given the contract. He stated that Boeing didn't have a pilot w/ swing-wing experience, he did. The XF-10 Jaguar. A minor point but it is cued as the "backbreaker". Best regards & be safe 🦊

Great vid🙏

Another fantastic video Mr Nash. There are a lot of channels out there but yours really stands out PS. In a previous video you mentioned issues with getting the channel monetised. Hopefully you have made some progress but if not I suspect your early videos from Irag/Syria may have caused your channel to be flagged for violence/terrorism etc. Unfortunately YT doesn't seem to be very good at distinguishing between good and evil. May be worth considering starting a new channel before you really blow up

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

No, it was purely an issue with the process. My footage of syria ive never attempted to monetise, same as some of the ones of Burma. You do each video individually.

@oxcart4172

3 жыл бұрын

Why not open a Patreon account, Ed? U deserve something for your efforts!

This is a brilliant Aviation channel. On par with Mark Felton Productions history channel. Can't wait to see your channel hit a million subs!

@zeitgeistx5239

3 жыл бұрын

Eh, Mark Felton does little original research and mostly parrots info you can find on topics. He farms Wheraboos for views/$$. You should be supporting people like TiK that actually does original research rather than a guy parroting other’s work for quick and easy $$

@weeliano

3 жыл бұрын

@@zeitgeistx5239 Okay this is new to me and thank you for pointing it out. I guess you cannot trust anything online anyway until you are able to draw from other sources and make your conclusions.

Good video as always. I'm always reminded just how much of a tool McNamara really was.

We all know about McNamara's competence. Need I say more.

Thank you for this, these are fascinating historical facts. 👍

Would love to see more aircraft / concepts with the engines positioned like the 818s, with or without the variable geometry swept wings, but also with a full delta wing setup as well. It seems to be a very efficient design and principle, lending itself towards improved space management, larger areas for bomb bays/fuselage and wing mounted hardpoint placements, as well as landing gear undercarriage stowage. Strange that we haven't seen more or any aircraft with this type of engine configuration.

@LRRPFco52

Жыл бұрын

There’s a very simple reason for that. Angle of Attack blanks out the intakes from getting consistent and predictable airflow, so you then would see compressor stalls due to intermittent air starvation, especially with a delta wing. Benefits of top-mounted inlets are FOD-avoidance in addition to everything you listed. Cons are airflow disruption as described, design work-arounds for the ducts, maintenance access, and frontal low pressure stage inspections. Airflow interruption at even slight AOA is a NO-GO for the design though.

Fabulous bit of information on the Boeing aircraft, and what a damn shame. We finally got the F-111 in Australia after huge delays. We purchased (rented?) F-5 Phantom instead in the interim to make some advances in the Vietnam War.

@megafauna8374

11 ай бұрын

Australia leased F-4 Phantoms to fill a gap before the delivery of the F-111's in 1973. Neither aircraft served in RAAF service in Vietnam.

Thanks for this 👍

Once again outstanding

I have never hear about a beoing aircraft that started with 8

Can you imagine the flame outs from AOA with those intakes?!

...I remember the TFX - one of Robert McNamara's bright ideas for 'commonality' - one aircraft for all the services...he never 'got it' - either the concept or the one common aircraft - this happened while I was a freshman/sophomore in high school (1963/64)

But how do you get your hands on such X- planes videos.....?? I've never heard of that Boe8ng X-plane and I've been into airforce jets since a kid. Thanks a lot for bringing a new plane to my knowledge Sir!

Ed, what exactly is being shown I the photo at around 4:23 of the video? It looks like a number of different design models shown together for comparison. Where and when was it taken?

Something that people are not aware is that in politics of weapon selection, is important to keep the companies running, even if the companies deliver the worst of weapons. This is especially true for the US during the period 1945 til 1978 where many designs were selected simple for keeping the companies floating. P.S. A turbine inventor. Never became rich, nor will be.

I was always of the impression that L.B. Johnson and his secretary of the Air Force placed extreme pressure on MacNamara to get the GD aircraft because they would then be built in Texas and GD (ex Convair) was in big trouble because of the failure of it's 880/990 airliner program and cuts in F-106 procurement. Anyway this is the second version of the F-111 selection story I've heard and the two don't agree very much.

I always thought the F-111 was one of the prettiest planes made. Would have loved to have flown one.

@carlosandleon

2 жыл бұрын

Bro it's not called aardvark for nothing. It's butt ugly. Don't get me wrong I love it too. But if you wanna see a prettier f111 just look at the panavia tornado.

That was great, was it easy or difficult to get Boeing to release pictures for this post?

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

I sent them an email, they responded next day.

Ed the over inlets are bad 👎 because going hard vertically with no other inlets can stall the motors do to lack of air compression. You will likely get a low pressure spot right behind the cockpit starving the motor at the beginning of a climb

Looks like you upped one on Dark Skies.

Always wondered how they meant to solve the working of the over-fuselage air intakes - not seen on many aircraft due to the problem that the intake airstream gets cut off at high angles of attack.

@Wick9876

3 жыл бұрын

As primarily a low level strike aircraft and secondarily a bomber interceptor they probably sacrificed the high AOA ability you'd want in a dedicated air-to-air fighter like the F-15 & 16. The F-111's high AOA characteristics were certainly nothing to write home about.