This illustration has been floating around for a good long while, but unfortuantely, no data seems to come along with it. It is an actual honet-to-Odin General Dynamics PR glossy, not fan art (this particular copy comes from the Jay Miller collection). What it appears to show is an F-111 with a stretched fuselage, and that fuselage stretch containing doors for three or four lift jets (or perhaps 6 or 8… the “doors” visible in this view seem to be on the port side of the fuselage, not on the centerline, indicating that there may be matching features on the starboard side). But the exhaust pipes for the main engines at the tail show no indication of being vectorable, which would argue against VTOL. So just what the hell is this? Are those lift jets, but only used to provide STOL performance? Is it a true VTOL, with some vertical thrust at the tail that’s not apparent in this view? Or are those doors for something else… nto lift jets, but an unconventional weapons system?
Another thought occurs. Along with being streched, the fuselage is also a bit deeper, with unusual “chines” along the lower edge. This presents the appearance of a flying boat hull. Could this be an *amphibious* F-111… with the doors on the upper surface perhaps being secondary inlets used while on the water? Perhaps an amphibious F-111 with additional lift jets to get it clear of the water ASAP?
It would be nice to know.
If you like this sort aerospace history and/or the other stuff I post, you can support the cause by Buying My Stuff, which includes aerospace drawings and documents, as well as the journal of unbuilt aircraft and spacecraft projects, Aerospace Projects Review. Or you could just Donate.
10 Responses to “A VTOL F-111?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Perhaps the strakes are to help confine the lift exhaust like on the Harrier. The rear engines might have those 90 degree bleeds exiting from underneath like some of those German 101 designs?
Regards,
Barry
Could those “doors” actually be conformal sensors or antennas of some sort? (Yes, I know, the sensors would be looking up. So perhaps it’s the RF equivalent of AOA.) Equally, maybe the lower fuselage elements are sensors of another type (SLAR perhaps). The fuselage stretch could be to accommodate the avionics, although admittedly it looks like that would play hell with the CoG.
The tail sorta reminds me of the “H” model Vark. Perhaps this is an alternate design.
How about launch windows for missiles that leave the aircraft at an upward angle? This would be similar to the ASM tubes on Soviet Kiev-class aircraft carriers or Oscar-class missile submarines. It looks like it might just fit underneath the swing-wing center box…
I’m assuming you already dropped Jay Miller a line to see if he remembers?
I always wondered where that original Su-24 design that looked like a TSR.2 with lift engines in the forward fuselage for STOL performance came from
Now I know… those God-damned commies ripped us off again. but our design had swing wings as well as Rolls-Royce lift engines… they went from lift engines to swing wings. Liftoff could have been expected within around what with this combo? 1,000-2,000 feet after the takeoff run started, with the wings out, vertical engines reved up full, and blown flaps ?
Lift engine position is way too far forward for VTOl, but basicly identical to that used on the Soviet STOL Su-15 and Su-24 designs.
The longitudinal members that run along the bottom looks like seaplane keelsons and there appears to be a ‘blended’ seaplane step just behind the wingtip on the bottom of the aircraft. I would imagine a blended step would be what is expected for a supersonic aircraft.
Also, if this were a seaplane, then the doors at the top could very well be internal weapons bays, because mounting them on stores under the wing would be unlikely (original Navy F-111B was to have 6 x AIM-54 missiles).
I don’t know the F-111? designation, but maybe its Gen. Dyn’s alternate version for the Navy’s TFX. As the F-111B weight issues grew, making the aircraft less and less suitable to carrier operations, a waterborne aircraft could eliminate some of the early problems.
I’m with Helge, those are launch bay doors for a big fuck-off Macross-style missile swarm.
There could be inlets under the wing root (not clearly visible from the pictures), although I would guess that if its a seaplane a door opens at the top during takeoff and landing allowing airflow to the engines, and closes inflight allowing inlets under the wings to operate more efficiently.
The bottom “keels” are probably to entrap the air column from the lift engines after it bounces off of the ground. The Harrier did this with its cannon pods.