Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: dave@interlan.interlan.com (Dave Goldblatt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: F111 Message-ID: <1990Aug23.014451.1432@cbnews.att.com> Date: 23 Aug 90 01:44:51 GMT References: <1990Jul27.015630.22235@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Racal InterLan, Boxborough MA 01719 (1-800-LAN-TALK) Lines: 40 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Dave Goldblatt In article <1990Aug15.032141.26086@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Actually, after strenuous efforts to improve its landing performance, it >passed its carrier-compatibility trials... after the Navy version had >already been cancelled (partly on grounds of carrier-compatibility >problems!). Well, from what I recall, the F-111 went through _land_ carrier-compatibility trials. It did NOT go through full carrier-qualification, primarily because it only flew off a carrier once, and I'm almost positive it only took off; a carrier landing was never attempted. I assume the Navy managed to kill the program before they were forced into trying it. But it DID take off once! The F-111 has proved to be a very capable platform for the Air Force, especially in its varied configurations (the EF-111, for example). The aircraft is continuing to undergo modernization today, including new avionics and radars. One of my main concerns regarding the NATF (assuming it is ever built) is that it is primarily an Air Force design, which will then be modified for the Navy's use. Start to sound familiar? One quote I saw stated that carrier-qualifying the NATF would add approximately 10,000-15,000 lbs. of weight to the aircraft. Just like the F-111. :-) -dg- -- "You can twist perceptions * Dave Goldblatt dave@interlan.com Reality won't budge..." * Diagnostic Engineering - Rush * Racal InterLan * Boxborough MA (508) 263-9929