Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: IA80007%MAINE.BITNET%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Martin E. Kader) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: RE: compressor stalls and F-111 Message-ID: <8327@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 15 Jul 89 04:05:33 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 26 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Martin E. Kader" I agree that the F-111A had problems with the inlets and compressor stalls when it was in the pre-production and production stage of its development, but these problems were corrected by the time the D, E, and F variants were developed. But, I must take exception to your comment about the Tornado being the plane the F-111 should have been. If you are comparing the F-111A to the Tornado, then I say there is no comparison. That comparison would be like comparing a '65 Corvette with an '75 Corvette. Now, if you want to compare the F-111F to the Tornado, then I say the F-111F is the better aircraft. The F-111F has a max weapons load of 31500 lb and the Tornado has a max load of 20000 lb. The F-111F has a combat radius (hi-lo-hi) of 1480 km, the Tornado's combat radius is 1390 km. The service ceiling for the F-111F is 60,000 ft and the Tornado's is 50,000 ft. Maximum speed at high and low altitude is about the only thing these aircraft have in common, high: Mach 2.4, low: Mach 1.2. I think the F-111F is the aircraft the F-111A was meant to be. Martin E. Kader University of Maine at Augusta IA80007@MAINE.BITNET IA80007@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Information taken from _The_World's_Great_Attack_Aircraft_, Gallery Books, New York, NY, Aerospace Publishing 1988.)