What-if Northrop Grumman kept the F-5/F-20 tooling & production line up; mainly for sales to the small air forces as a simple, good all-around, sovereignty-enforcing, light fighter-bomber. They could do periodic update studies of electronics/avionics, weapons and engines and put them into effect on new orders. Examples of potential customers would be... Bolivia, Jamaica, Guatamala, New Zealand, the Philippines, the de-Baathified Iraq, Morocco, Madagascar, etc.
It might be more economical if NG, kept a small stable of good, simple, proven types for production (combat-types/fighter-bombers, transports, light COIN, liaison, basic trainers, light helicopters, maritime patrol, etc.) The line could switch off from one type to the next so it's never idle. For example, build 12 F-5's for customer A, then 6 light STOL transports for customer B, then 7 medium STOL transports for customer C, then 3 F-5 trainers for customer D, and so on...
A navalized version could be sold to the Indian, Brazilian, Argentina (if they get their carrier back), likewise with Australian, the Netherlands, Japan and Canada (if they got back into carriers), the RAF or USN for a supersonic, lead-in carrier fighter trainer.
:cheers: Bryan
BTW: In a like manner, you could put the A-4 in place of the F-5/F-20. :wub:
Question: If the F-20 was proposed to be called (at least in other forums) F-5G Tigershark, what would a two seater X-29 with guns, missiles and bombs be called? I am thinking of building one for the ARC F-5 group build.
The F-20 was originally, in Northrop's internal nomenclature, the F-5G - even the studies of derivative combinations of it and the early Lavi use that designation. There was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.
The basic F-5 wing didn't work for the navalized versions because it made for too high an approach speed, that's where the N-285 came in with a bigger wing and, in the two-seat versions, a stepped fuselage. Yes, I've had a chance to read that brochure, just wasn't able to "borrow" it for copying given exit security screening (though I later found how to handle that and do have the F-20/Lavi brochure).
QuoteThere was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.
Hey Evan, can you give us some more detail on why it needed a bigger wing and what kind of proposals there were for said bigger wing? I'm thinking ahead for one of my F-20s the upcoming F-5 GB on ARC.
QuoteThere was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.
Wasn't the YF-17/F-18 wing basically a bigger F5 wing?
My RAF F-5 senarios - all are either mutually exclusive or integrated.....
T-38 - bought as an interim trainer in mid 60s to bridge 'trainer gap' between the tiny Gnat and the shiny new F-4s - it was felt that the step from a matchbox size trainer to a supersonic fighter was just too great.
Remained in service after the Hawk came in 'aggressor' role.
F-5A/B - Ordered as Hunter replacement for RAF Germany etc in place of Harrier and/or Jaguar
F-5E/F - oredered as Aggressor squadron to mimic USAF role
QuoteQuoteThere was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.
Hey Evan, can you give us some more detail on why it needed a bigger wing and what kind of proposals there were for said bigger wing? I'm thinking ahead for one of my F-20s the upcoming F-5 GB on ARC.
I'd have to go digging through a ton of files to find the exact info (one sheet of paper), but the major reason for the larger wing was to get the wing loading down and improve turning performance. With the existing wing, you had to maintain a fairly fast velocity in the turn to stay at a level altitude, which contributed the the g-loc that cost two of the three F-20's built. Basically, the larger wing would have had the same planform, but the leading edges would've moved forward and the trailing edges, and trailing edge devices, would've moved aft.
*G* Before the F-20, there'd been another proposal, from the service engineering side rather than PD - hence it got shot down right quickly in the corporate "discussions" that followed, for a F-5F derivative with a larger wing (in both chord and span) that would allow another hard point under each side and two afterburning J97's. Somewhere I've got copies of that data, too.
What does the large wing F-20 look like. There's so much good what-if potential in a modernized F-20; it's the perfect type for so many different counties & situations. The only thing better is a modernized, new build A-4.
:cheers: Bryan
QuoteWhat does the large wing F-20 look like. There's so much good what-if potential in a modernized F-20; it's the perfect type for so many different counties & situations. The only thing better is a modernized, new build A-4.
:cheers: Bryan
As I remember, the enlarged wing was primarily an increase in chord with the sweep of the leading and trailing edges kept the same. Actually, if you look at the systems, except for the airframe itself, the Korean T-50 is a modernized equivalent of the F-20 and uses just about all the exact same systems.
A new-build A-4, especially with the improvements in avionics, and powered by a dry-F414 would be a nice aircraft to have.
QuoteQuoteThe only thing better is a modernized, new build A-4.
:cheers: Bryan
A new-build A-4, especially with the improvements in avionics, and powered by a dry-F414 would be a nice aircraft to have.
Now you boys are speakin' MY language!!!!
SKYHAWKS FOREVER!!!!
Well, I tried fitting the wings from an unbuilt F-16 to an F-20 fuselage, and its almost a perfect fit, but the problem is the landing gear - built into the wings on the F-20, right about where the inboard station is on the F-16 wing :(
I s'pose I could hunt around for another one of those naff Italeri Hornets to scavenge the wings off, but then I'm left with the same problem of the gear bays in the wings.
Or I could scratchbuild a couple of new wings.............................................maybe not with my scratchbuilding "skills" :dum:
QuoteWell, I tried fitting the wings from an unbuilt F-16 to an F-20 fuselage, and its almost a perfect fit, but the problem is the landing gear - built into the wings on the F-20, right about where the inboard station is on the F-16 wing :(
I s'pose I could hunt around for another one of those naff Italeri Hornets to scavenge the wings off, but then I'm left with the same problem of the gear bays in the wings.
Or I could scratchbuild a couple of new wings.............................................maybe not with my scratchbuilding "skills" :dum:
Trim the gear bays out of the F-20 wing, cut suitable openings in the F-16 wing and insert, then glue, putty, and sand as needed. My own inclination would be to go for the same aspect ratio and longer span with the added stores point on each side by using a set of trimmed 1/48 F-5F-20 wings (or clones thereof) ,trimmed as necessary to match things up, mated to 1/72 F-5/F-20 outer wings with the gear bays moved inboard, though you'd likely need to shorten the LERX to do it right.
QuoteGot me thinking of F-5s all done up like Singapore or Kiwi Scooters !
:wub:
Or perhaps developed F-20's done up like an A-4AR FightingHawk (http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/a4armo_1.htm)?
I like the idea of using Singapore's approach of replacing the A-4's J65 with a dry F404, though I'd be tempted to uprate both the F-20 and teh re-engined A-4 to variants of the F414 from the F/A-18E/F/G.
QuoteQuoteThe F-20 was originally, in Northrop's internal nomenclature, the F-5G - even the studies of derivative combinations of it and the early Lavi use that designation. There was a whole series of F-20 developments mapped out, basically going for the bigger wing it really, really needed.
The basic F-5 wing didn't work for the navalized versions because it made for too high an approach speed, that's where the N-285 came in with a bigger wing and, in the two-seat versions, a stepped fuselage. Yes, I've had a chance to read that brochure, just wasn't able to "borrow" it for copying given exit security screening (though I later found how to handle that and do have the F-20/Lavi brochure).
OK I'm a bit slow on the uptake here so bear with me please. A naval ie carrier capable F-5 would need the bigger wing for lower approach speeds? This could then be carried over to a carrier capable F-20. Have I got this right, cos I'm thinking of an F-5 for a small carrier, perhaps Spanish so they had some degree of commonality with the AF. Or how about a country with a unified defense force that operated F-5s? Thinks "leafy roundels"!!!!!.
Yeah, the enlarged wing, such as was proposed for the N-285 carrier bird, would be quite ideal for the F-20, though a navalized F-20 might need a bit more, yet. I can see the wing from a production version of the N-285 beign fitted to the F-20 to the great benefit of both programs.
QuoteTrim the gear bays out of the F-20 wing, cut suitable openings in the F-16 wing and insert, then glue, putty, and sand as needed. My own inclination would be to go for the same aspect ratio and longer span with the added stores point on each side by using a set of trimmed 1/48 F-5F-20 wings (or clones thereof) ,trimmed as necessary to match things up, mated to 1/72 F-5/F-20 outer wings with the gear bays moved inboard, though you'd likely need to shorten the LERX to do it right.
Of course, I could make things easier by building it gear up (as was my plan all along for one of my F-20s), thus all I have to do is scribe some lines for the gear bay doors B)
Well I will not promise to build this but here's what's on the burner for the next project.
CF-20
Back in the early 90's Canada decided to retire the CF-5 series of fighters. Due to budget restrictions the government was shy to buy three more squadrons of CF-18's to replace 434, 419 and 433 squadron who were NATO tasked for the defense of Norway.
After some time it was decided to licence produce through Canadair the F-20 Tigershark. Air and ground crews were familiar with the family and it had the same engine as the current CF-18 fleet.
Although Sparrow missle carriage was wired into the aircraft it was used for attack with the CRV-7 rocket, US and Huntington CBU's, and 500 pound Snake Eye bombs (along with the AIM-9M for self defence). A Recce pod was later added and LGB and Maverick were carried in early 2000 when they were aquired for the CF-18 fleet. For long range interdiction and ferry flights to Europe (each squadron spent three weeks in Norway per year) two drop tanks were often carried on the inboard pylons with the Northrop bolt on refueling probe.
Paint and markings were the same as the last CF-5 scheme (toned down markings on a three tone grey wrap around scheme).
I like, but then I was at Northrop when that one was being worked on. I'm looking to hybridize mine with a F-5F to do a two-seater. Of course, if you wanted something really different, I've a scheme for a three-seater that could be used mainly as a courier aircraft.
Editted Note: The three-seat courier aircraft splices the front cockpit of a T-38/F-5B on to a F-5F front end and does a new canopy for the middle seat.
PS. If anyone needs the info on where to trim bits to splice front ends where Northrop does, feel free to drop me a message (PM, email, etc.).
Rather like the CF-20 idea, but then again, the Tigershark's one of my favourite aircraft. :wub: :wub: :wub:
Neeat in the CAF greys too.
What about one in that grey Tiger scheme as used on the Hornet? :wub:
And what about a F-20E, a derivated F-20 with the X-29 wings??
I think with an extended wing, it's possible to have 3 hardpoint for each wings (+ 2 for the Sidewinder at wings' end)
With a centrel hardpoint and one pod's pylon under each air-intakes, it could be a good fighter-bomber, don't you think?
For me, the X-29 ( CF-117A and B ) was a colaboration between the Russians and us.....using the scrapped X-29 program, combined with info from the Berkut, we produced our -117s as a lightweight fighter, guarding the major cities and ports, etc.
:f16:
QuoteI'm trying to be as realistic as possible. For me an X-29/F-20 hybrid isn't something that the CAF would have spent money on.
Given that the X-29A used the cockpit and forward fuselage section from a F-5A, I can see a production derivative using the equivalent portions of a F-20 to make a good fighter; much as the proposal for a F-20/lavi hybrid looked at much the same approach of blending Northrop's specailties with IAI's.
Several months ago I came across a picture at airliners.net of a photo of a F-5E Tiger II US Navy aggressor parked on the ramp. I noticed that just behind it there was the tail of another F-5 with a strange sort of white and grey camo. I saw it again in the backround of another picture of a F-5 aggressor which revealed more of the plane but still I can see as much as I would have liked. Until today when I found a picture of this mysterious beast and it was beautiful. And it is without a doubt the coolest scheme I have ever seen on a US Navy F-5 aggressor!!! B)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe289%2Fjv444%2FNorthropF-5ETigerIIVFC-13160794Red2.jpg&hash=7badbe37bcd172fc82aad9f16e237d72b51f8e33)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe289%2Fjv444%2FNorthropF-5ETigerIIVFC-13741536Red0.jpg&hash=f6a37ae422c30e63396a9cec76bca50e857ccf1a)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe289%2Fjv444%2FNorthropF-5ETigerIIVFC-13160792Red2.jpg&hash=0c1b4b73601d45f2b76df2421e28bb1b93a12e8a)
And whats even better is that you can get a print of it via airliners.net, which is something I plan to do in the near future.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0928...RFP&photo_nr=26 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0928388&size=L&width=1024&height=697&sok=JURER%20%20%28glcr%20%3D%20%272%27%29%20NAQ%20%28pbhagel%20YVXR%20%27HFN%25%27%29%20NAQ%20%28ZNGPU%20%28nvepensg%2Cnveyvar%2Ccynpr%2Ccubgb_qngr%2Cpbhagel%2Cerznex%2Ccubgbtencure%2Crznvy%2Clrne%2Cert%2Cnvepensg_trarevp%2Cpa%2Cpbqr%29%20NTNVAFG%20%28%27%2B%22Abeguebc%22%20%2B%22S-5R%22%20%2B%22Gvtre%22%20%2B%22VV%22%27%20VA%20OBBYRNA%20ZBQR%29%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=26)
Though I am perplexed by the fact that I have been able to find only one good picture of the aircraft. Considering the number of pictures you can for the other aggressor aircraft you can only find one of this aircraft and its unique camouflage scheme.
I am considering an early F-20, designed 10 years before, powered by J79. A more ambitious F-5E I would say.
Another posibility:
Moderately swept wings and tail planes, taken from an A-7 maybe.
N-300 (1966) and P-530 (1967) were two steps in the way from F-5 to F-17
N-300: F-5 with wings in shoulder of intake trunks, and lerx not covering intakes
P-530 the same but lerx covering intakes
Thinking on building both. More info or comments?
Thanks.
If you can find a drawing anywhere (and I don't guarantee you can), the wing from the Northrop N-285B with greater sweep and area than the F-5 wing (needed for the intended naval usage) would be great. I've only seen one brochure on it, while I was at Northrop, and I wasn't in a position to copy it.
ROKAF (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=5201)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatifmodelers.com%2Fforum%2Fuploads%2Fpost-2-1114690884.jpg&hash=87af78a2416e44f8b17d9d941e44db446ce1de25)
Luftwaffe (BIG wing) (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5246&hl=f-20&st=15)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatifmodelers.com%2Fforum%2Fuploads%2Fpost-2-1129221761.jpg&hash=aab59305cb64dc55b7625de544d039455d4dd8a1)
QuoteIf you can find a drawing anywhere (and I don't guarantee you can), the wing from the Northrop N-285B with greater sweep and area than the F-5 wing (needed for the intended naval usage) would be great. I've only seen one brochure on it, while I was at Northrop, and I wasn't in a position to copy it.
In this book: http://www.amazon.com/Northrop-F-5-F-20-T-...93405657&sr=8-2 (http://www.amazon.com/Northrop-F-5-F-20-T-38-WarbirdTech/dp/1580070949/ref=sr_1_2/002-2806437-3053653?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193405657&sr=8-2)
I saw an artist's impression, from a brochure I think, of a two seater. The text states that it has swept wings; but that point is not evident and it looks to me like a T-38. Anyway I was thinking in wings taken from an A-7 (1/72 or 1/100). What do you think?
:)
In a last attempt to save F-20, Northrop offered to sell complete project to a manufacturer. What-if Aeritalia/Fiat offers this plane to Aeronautica Militare to stop gap between F-104 and Eurofighter?
About 2015 they decide to reengine them with EJ-200, that is similar: a bit smaller (in diameter and length), but more powerful.
QuoteQuoteIf you can find a drawing anywhere (and I don't guarantee you can), the wing from the Northrop N-285B with greater sweep and area than the F-5 wing (needed for the intended naval usage) would be great. I've only seen one brochure on it, while I was at Northrop, and I wasn't in a position to copy it.
In this book: http://www.amazon.com/Northrop-F-5-F-20-T-...93405657&sr=8-2 (http://www.amazon.com/Northrop-F-5-F-20-T-38-WarbirdTech/dp/1580070949/ref=sr_1_2/002-2806437-3053653?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193405657&sr=8-2)
I saw an artist's impression, from a brochure I think, of a two seater. The text states that it has swept wings; but that point is not evident and it looks to me like a T-38. Anyway I was thinking in wings taken from an A-7 (1/72 or 1/100). What do you think?
I'd work carefully. Yes, it was primarily a two-seat trainer for the USN with adaptability as a single-seat light attack aircraft. The wing was swept, but ISTR that the overall span wasn't much, if any, greater than a standard F-5/T-38. I do remember that it had a definitely greater area to get the approach speed and angle down to something that was acceptable to the USN.
Of course, Northrop did explore lots of variations on this family, both by themselves and, in at least one instance, in collaboration. They did conduct a study of a blend of F-20(then still called F-5G) and the early, F404-powered, Lavi studies to produce a hybrid that would be less expensive to develop than an all-new Lavi. Depending on the amount of F-5G structure retained, there were two different versions.
Oh, and whoever mentioned coverting single-seat F-5s to two-seaters, it's fairly easy since there's a production break right aft of the cockpit. Depending on just how operational you want the two-seater to be, you either use essentially a T-38/F-5B forward fuselage or a F-5F forward fuselage.
I want to do one Patrouille Suisse colors and see if anyone notices...
Jon
QuoteOh, and whoever mentioned coverting single-seat F-5s to two-seaters, it's fairly easy since there's a production break right aft of the cockpit. Depending on just how operational you want the two-seater to be, you either use essentially a T-38/F-5B forward fuselage or a F-5F forward fuselage.
I remembered that a company called "Tiger Century Aircraft" was promoting such a service using a new forward fuselage with a larger nose radome.
I neglected to save the PR pictures when they were available on the internet, however.
QuoteQuoteI want to do one Patrouille Suisse colors and see if anyone notices...
Me too - evil idea isn't it!!! Just the thing to trip up some people at a show.
and if you really want to wind someone up on this score, how about the KLu NF-5 'double dutch' display team scheme on a F-20? ^_^
QuoteQuoteQuoteI want to do one Patrouille Suisse colors and see if anyone notices...
Me too - evil idea isn't it!!! Just the thing to trip up some people at a show.
and if you really want to wind someone up on this score, how about the KLu NF-5 'double dutch' display team scheme on a F-20? ^_^
I also seriously considered doing a Thunderbirds scheme on an F-20 for the USAF GB. It makes sense(at least to me...): It directly competed with the F-16 for the LWF contract, and the T-38 preceded it in the Thunderbirds line-up. The main reason it didn't get done is that I still can't agree with myself on a scheme.
Jon
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI want to do one Patrouille Suisse colors and see if anyone notices...
Me too - evil idea isn't it!!! Just the thing to trip up some people at a show.
and if you really want to wind someone up on this score, how about the KLu NF-5 'double dutch' display team scheme on a F-20? ^_^
I also seriously considered doing a Thunderbirds scheme on an F-20 for the USAF GB. It makes sense(at least to me...): It directly competed with the F-16 for the LWF contract, and the T-38 preceded it in the Thunderbirds line-up. The main reason it didn't get done is that I still can't agree with myself on a scheme.
I'm pretty sure it'd be real similar to the scheme used by their T-38s, given the similarities between the two aircraft. You might consider putting Smokewinders on the wingtip rails for a bit of extra pizazz in some of the manuevers.
Hey everyone. Sorry to dig up an old post again. I've been thinking of the F-20 again and how its tiny wing is basically what killed it. There have been several big wing conversions(see Nev's Luftwaffe bird above) and I wanted to post my take.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv383%2Fjpkustomz%2F2007_1219Image0061.jpg&hash=a5dd774424bf1e9479d38ba3a3e64d7808ff9b21)
What do you guys think? The new wings are vertical stabs from a 1/48 F/A-18. This is just a preliminary mockup, as I've been working on this for about 10 minutes. I'll do some work to the outer edges and scribe some ailerons, using most of the existing rudder as a flap. I might swap on the wingtip Sidewinder rails as well. A few questions. First off, since the orginal main gear was in the wing, should I try to put a bay in the new wing or mount it in the fuselage sides? I have a 1/72 A-7 rotting away that I could pirate the bays and gear from. Also, should I do anything the stabs and fin? They look a little pathetic now, maybe horizontals from the A-7 as well? What should I snag a vertical from, if it should even be changed at all? One last thing, and this is mostly just being silly, but should I give it a different designation with the new changes? Maybe the F-21 Barracuda? :P
Thanks for any input, everybody.
Jon
EDIT: I made an executive decision. Wether it helps or not, I'm using A-7 horizontal stabs just because they look right.
Could we have a comparison picture?
Daryl J.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv383%2Fjpkustomz%2F0712190027.jpg&hash=376b42a68185ef2cb6b81a67a822fd4755461644)
Ask and ye shall recieve, Daryl. Stock on top, mod on bottom . I just liek how the A-7 pieces look cmopared to the stockers. Maybe cut a little off at the tips?
Jon
I'd trim away at the wing root to shorten it just a tad and allow some LERX to be present. Modiffy the outboard end to take a Sidewinger (or equivalent) rack - or if you're wanting a bit more armament, a twin-'Winder rack off the F-8.
Just a thought, a hybrid of T-38/F-5B and F-5F cockpits mated to a F-20 airframe in place of the single-seat cockpit to give a three-seat courier derivative. With tiptanks, underwing tanks, and under fuselage tanks, it'd have quite an unrefueled range.
QuoteI'd trim away at the wing root to shorten it just a tad and allow some LERX to be present. Modiffy the outboard end to take a Sidewinger (or equivalent) rack - or if you're wanting a bit more armament, a twin-'Winder rack off the F-8.
I was thinking of putting the original Sidewinder rails from the F-20 on the tips of the new wings, Evan. But I do like your double 'Winder rails on the tips. I may have to track down a pair. So you like the conecpt, Evan? What do you think about the vertical stab? Thanks.
Jon
I really like the A-7 tail!
For the wing, I made a different choice that require more surgery for my own F-2à model: enlarging the original wings!
Just like that:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolluxdeltaseven.free.fr%2FEnlarged%2520Wings.jpg&hash=ad83b69b63b7671a0ccff090470d317878097228)
I made that choise because I really enjoy the global form and shape of the actual wings, particulary the LERX... But it will need a lot of work to do that!!
(N.B. I didn't find a F-20 3-view, so I modify a F-5F. Note the additional hard point under the wing!)
QuoteFor the wing, I made a different choice that require more surgery for my own F-2à model: enlarging the original wings!...
...But it will need a lot of work to do that!!
Well, maybe not. If you started with a 1/72 and put 1/48 wings , it would give you what you're looking for. Same way on a 1/144 with 1/72 wings. Now they may be too big and look out of proportion, but it be the concept you're after.
Jon
QuoteWell, maybe not. If you started with a 1/72 and put 1/48 wings , it would give you what you're looking for. Same way on a 1/144 with 1/72 wings. Now they may be too big and look out of proportion, but it be the concept you're after.
Why not.
Clearly, a 1/48 wing on a 1/72 aircraft is way too out of proportion! But it could be easier to reduce a 1/48 wing than to increase a 1/72 one!!
But well, I don't want to buy a 1/48 model only for a pair of wings (moreover, it's quite impossible to find a 1/48 F-20 in my city), but maybe if I take a 1/72 F-16, Mirage F1 or F-18 wing and reduce them I could made something good.
Quote from: elmayerle on December 20, 2007, 10:59:44 PMPD7, since the planform is the same, a 1/48 wing from any F-5 would work just as well as a 1/48 F-20 wing for a starting place to trim to shape.
You're completely right! I had to be very tired to forget that, as it was exactly what I did with my drawing!
I was just thinking about this more. I did a line drawing awhile back of an F-20 with a T-38 front section for a two-holer, and a Jaguar nose. Is that at alll possible? Or probable? Or even favorable? I know it sure looks cool.
Jon
QuoteI was just thinking about this more. I did a line drawing awhile back of an F-20 with a T-38 front section for a two-holer, and a Jaguar nose. Is that at alll possible? Or probable? Or even favorable? I know it sure looks cool.
Jon
Well, you could put a T-38 cockpit and nose section on a F-20, but that doesn't leave much room in the nose for avionics. For an operational two-seater, use the cockpit and nose section from a F-5F. A Jaguar nose would be come close, but I'd fit the LRMTS to modified contours of a RF-5A nose; might as well use stock bits if they're available. I admit this is a temptation for modelling a "Fast FAC" aircraft, though I'd probably mod the nose to fit the windows from something like a Sniper pod for this job.
QuoteFor the wing, I made a different choice that require more surgery for my own F-2à model: enlarging the original wings!...
...But it will need a lot of work to do that!!
If you could source a set of wings from the 1/32nd scale Hasegawa F-5E you could actually do the large wing version in 1/48th scale with a bit of kit bashing and some careful cutting to make it fit.
Hey All, Here's a what if for ya'll. I plan on taking my F-20 and kitbashing it to my F-5F.It's going to take some time to do but when I get it done I'll post a few pics. Have to figure out how to take the front half of the F-5F and mate it to the back half of the F-20.Should be an interesting plane. ;D :rolleyes:
Pete
Dude, hack the F front in off right at the aft cockpit wall (by the intakes), and mate it to the F-20 aft end. Dr. Evan can elaborate more on this but thats the common point on both airframes.
Shas 8)
Quote from: Shasper on January 16, 2008, 03:56:18 PM
Dude, hack the F front in off right at the aft cockpit wall (by the intakes), and mate it to the F-20 aft end. Dr. Evan can elaborate more on this but thats the common point on both airframes.
Shas 8)
What he said. This also works with the X-29.
Didn't somebody on this site make a 3 person F-20?
Quote from: dragon on January 16, 2008, 05:27:49 PM
Didn't somebody on this site make a 3 person F-20?
It's (slowly) in work since it involves a mix of F-5B, F-5F, and F-20 bits. As Shasper said, the bulkhead right behind the cockpit is a common interface between the center and aft fuselages of all version of the F-5/F-20 and the various cockpit and nose sections. The attached diagram from a brochure on a F-20 derivative should help.
A few I did a while back
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F6910%2Fdscf2998xv7.jpg&hash=0283262149169d4cd5f6fce055a7612a0c312627) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F9255%2Fdscf2999go9.jpg&hash=c163355c6cdfaceb675901eb11ddeafbc901e5de) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F2024%2Fdscf3000nx3.jpg&hash=0a60ecaddbe14f6113723bd1f9e36d2f45c9fbfc) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F2742%2Fdscf3001iv1.jpg&hash=5417af48be8b7e734c1b37538305de1c7990afb5) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F7194%2Fdscf3002vy4.jpg&hash=b8ab4efca07d339916bc02085a0d740c7b96b371) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F280%2Fdscf3003sc6.jpg&hash=5f61d24d78d82e7151537fe1288b801f19b20d7c) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F125%2Fdscf3005iz0.jpg&hash=834daa3a714d04116bdafbb18c86566f286f02a4) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F572%2Fdscf3006px2.jpg&hash=a7aba02a688cc239af841ebdca89436b480d908b) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F1369%2Fdscf3007dh6.jpg&hash=d3b2246a8c5d31c07e519029f1efd5d818dab86c) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F2478%2Fdscf3010hl5.jpg&hash=5c3eb445d9886c9eae3e6dc8a86b73be16f2ac9b) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F2307%2Fdscf3011or3.jpg&hash=f2eaae0df2e7c5f899b641cfc9e5cc502a232252) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F5031%2Fdscf3013gv1.jpg&hash=077bd5a8ba742a2aeac75be0d6e3618e59d19693) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F8262%2Fdscf3014ke0.jpg&hash=16138cc1e88ef3c48f8d725faadd75e9c1905f41) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F3568%2Fdscf3015gq9.jpg&hash=80c4cfc095dcace9bd6b9b752601ee9db4776894) (http://imageshack.us)
Did a recce one too
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F5194%2Fdscf2990ns2.jpg&hash=cb89806f5a013c4615f1ada1fc1e038f6ab03d3c) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F2013%2Fdscf2991nu0.jpg&hash=984f0519f0ab6570c05840234bafd6b4d041c0ce) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F7416%2Fdscf2994ka2.jpg&hash=9c91b31238c0ae75ce1c142bdbdbb9b9259bc2e2) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F3205%2Fdscf2996vy5.jpg&hash=f034eeddb730e675a3e19a152bf77c7de6dcb074) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg93.imageshack.us%2Fimg93%2F6924%2Fdscf2997ld4.jpg&hash=324cb010f5eff48dd5f99d0289b16834207c72a7) (http://imageshack.us)
Got some ideas last night.
What about a F-5 with Jaguar "Adour" engines ?
In brief
Adour = 3500 kgp
J-85 of the F-5E = 2000kgp
YJ-101's of the YF-17 = 6000 kgp.
Then I thought that a modern F-5 with such power would be... a Ching-Kuo. Sounds interesting... early Ching Kuo with Adours, around 1980 ?
In the end it give a nice lineage of fighters
- F-5E
- Ching Kuo
- YF-17
- Hornet
- Super Hornet.
Quote from: Archibald on January 17, 2008, 10:30:48 AM
Got some ideas last night.
What about a F-5 with Jaguar "Adour" engines ?
In brief
Adour = 3500 kgp
J-85 of the F-5E = 2000kgp
YJ-101's of the YF-17 = 6000 kgp.
Dimensionally, though, the use of Adour engines would require a significant resdesign since they are rather larger in diameter than the J85. The biggest problem in re-engining the F-5 series is finding a suitably-sized engine. For the modestly enlarged F-5 that the Field Engineering Group at Northrop proposed to their management (it was rejected), the length and wing area enlarged to keep the good lines while bringing wing loading down to the that of the F-5A/B while allowing an additional hardpoint on each wing; power for this proposal was to be two reheated versions of the GE J97. Northrop did some studies with a couple engine companies about developing a new afterburning turbofan to replace the J85, but the engine companies refused to go beyond that, citing a restricted market. IMHO, that was short-sighted of them since a dry version of this engine would've been a shoe-in to re-engine you 20-series Learjets and both reduce fuel burn and bring them up to current noise standards.
Yum yum!! Do you have any drawing of this enlarged wing? I designed one myself (see last page of this topic) in order to add an additional pylon, but it results in a big wing quite difficult to build from the original F-20's wing (I could scratch build it entirely, but due to the landing gears bays, it could be difficult!!)
Maybe the Northrop design could be simpler (and more realistic!)
Yeah, I've got it -somewhere-. Finding it, though, could be a bit more of a challenge. I will see what I can do, though, as I remember getting copies of most of the work-up material on that proposal.
That is nice!
Regards,
Greg
Steve's recent superb Israeli F-20 (see http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,19335.0/highlight,israel.html (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,19335.0/highlight,israel.html)) made me think - wouldn't the earlier F-5A/F-5E series have been perfect for the Israelis - maybe even instead of the Nesher/Kfir developments.
Regards,
Greg
My thoughts on the Israeli F-5E/F would be as a supplement to the F-4/Kfir and eventually the F-15/F-16, replacing most of the other legacy types such as the Ouragan, Mystere, Mirage IIICs etc (what numbers of these types that were left anyway), with the F model also doubling as a LIT for the other front line types. If the Israelis went with the F-20, we may not see the development of the Lavi altogether, or at least the singleseat version as both it & the 'Shark were in the same fighter class.
Just my .0002% worth
Shas 8)
Another possible T-38/F-5 user was apparently Japan - in the end they developed the Mitsubishi F-1 and T-2.
Regards,
Greg
Took me a while to find the right thread.
I was just watching Aircraft Stories:Sweden, when I got an idea.
Anyone thought about making a Gripen into an F-20? Gripen fuseladge and F-20 wings and tails?
Cool idea Wyrm :thumbsup: I plan on building an F-5 with Draken wings :wacko:
Getting involved last year with a design to mount a real CF-116 on a display pole which is now at The Military Museum in Calgary, I can ascertain to the problems of installing bigger engines. There's not a lot of room in there plus there's the added fact that making the engines longer wouldn't help either, the rear engine mounts being right at the tail pipe/tail plane join line.
Here's a couple of pics of the mounting system we used on CF-116707, there's a few CF-116's mounted like this around Canada, but they're all developing problems with the bolting of the pole to the airframe, they're gradually getting battered by the wind and the airframes are getting wrecked, I had to come up with a better connecting system which was excepted by the powers-that-be. (CAF I think)
Quote from: Wyrmshadow on September 15, 2008, 02:18:33 AM
Took me a while to find the right thread.
I was just watching Aircraft Stories:Sweden, when I got an idea.
Anyone thought about making a Gripen into an F-20? Gripen fuseladge and F-20 wings and tails?
In many respects, the Gripen is what the F-20 should've been. Actually, the closest you could come to the F-20 today is the Korean A-50 attack version of their T-50 trainer; same engine, same radar, etc. Of course, there's also a study Northrop/Norair did that looked at a reduced-cost approach to the Lavi by using major portions of the F-20.
I stumbled on some thought a while ago, of an Iranian F-20, though altered, somewhat like the Azarkash or Saeqaeh. They're good at reverse engineering concepts, part of me thought of an F-20 re-engined with an RD-33 Turbofan. It was a vague concept of an idea, and it sounded like it might look interesting to me. Somebody suggested the RD-33 because it has similar dimensions, I'm not an expert on it, but I thought it might look interesting, just enough to throw the casual observer off and make them wonder "that doesn't look right..." to themselves. I might do it, cannibalize one of my less-than-good condition MiG-29's and use the other engine for my MiG-21-97 build project.
I think you're thinking of the Thunder, not the Azarkash. Azarkash was their first domestic fighter project, which bears a lot of similarities, but is still different from, the F-5. Differences like the intake geometry, the fact it has a single tail. The Saeqeh is ironically very similar to the F-17 in some respects, and different in others, like the low-mounted wing. I'd probably have to make similar alterations to the intakes and other parts of the airframe, but I thought it would look interesting, even if their next gen is closer to the MiG LFI concept than anything.
A lot of the Iranian recent aircraft, outside of the MiG LFI design, are built up off the F-5 airframe. But the thing is, they bought the aircraft, so technically it's not a breach of contract if they modify the planes in house. The closest would be the first trainer bird they built, which was pretty much a reverse engineered F-5 Trainer bird. The other two are a little more towards the level of modification of a F-20 with regards to the airframe. But it would still be interesting. As to the engine being a 404, I doubt it, since they don't exactly have a supply of the engine. They've got warmer relations with Russia, and do have MiG-29's in service, so they might be able to just pull RD-33's off the Fulcrums for the concept work.
I don't know, it's really just a big Whif job for me, and I'm in the realm of pure conjecture somewhere.
It could be worse. . . Imagine trying to shoe-horn a F110 or a AL31 into the F-20's airframe:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe183%2FShadowreaper551%2FIn%2520Progress%2520builds%2F08103482.jpg&hash=ebf49026162be7aae0804b96200ac4135cdf9068)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe183%2FShadowreaper551%2FIn%2520Progress%2520builds%2F6ddb0be7.jpg&hash=7b1516d8eee9e3f75ed4f16f9ec98e47dddc4930)
Shas 8)
Hmm, yeah that would be slightly more troublesome, unless you were to widen the whole assembly, swell out a little space on the undercarriage, and lift the fuse up into the tail strut some... round it out a little more, so you just barely skin over the engine. Nice expansion on the intake ducts, btw. That looks pretty sweet.
Intakes were donated by a hapless X-29 kit.
Shas 8)
I see... well yeah, it'd still be an interesting idea to have an Iranian-style F-20. Round out the intakes some, smooth the look over, use an RD-33 engine in it, maybe put beside it a Super-20 with an AL-31 engine in it. I don't know, I'm tumbling ideas around in my head here. AL-31, Forward swept wings... hmm... leaves an idea clunking there...
Maybe this will stimulate your neurons:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe183%2FShadowreaper551%2FIn%2520Progress%2520builds%2FIMG_2406.jpg&hash=a66d2c915564b35246ea5f60ae528c0bbde98b76)
Its an X-29, but can you spot the changes?
While we're at it, here's what I think an export-standard F-20 might have looked like:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe183%2FShadowreaper551%2FIn%2520Progress%2520builds%2FIMG_2436.jpg&hash=5b4cf675b28a184e5618c922f2e48d3df7dd3d1a)
Shas 8)
X-29 - extensions over the intakes, removal of any aft stabilizer positions, altered vertical empennage. I think you either shortened the rudder, or extended the assembly under it. You've drilled a hole forward of the wing mounting position, so I would surmise you're considering a canard/FSW concept?
F-20 - I think you extended the LERX, as well as the intakes, and they look like you also expanded them upwards, I think.
X-29 - You're on the right track, I did do a rudder transplant & add the LEX, and it will be a Canard/FSW. What else?
F-20 - LERXs and Intakes are stock & unchanged. Main changes are in the Vert. Stabilizer & nose areas.
Shas 8)
Shas,
Going for a more pointed look on the F-20? That nose looks longer than usual to me as well as more pointy than I remember the F-20 being.
Regardng variations on a theme, I'm thinking of crossing T-38 and F-5F forward fuselages onto a F-20 to make a three-seat "communications" airacraft, perhaps a VF-20 for fast transport of select staff/VIP personnel?
2 pts go to the engineer! Yeah Ev I grafted a F-5E radome onto the front end (took me awhile to get the cross sections to line up), just imagining what it would look like (and I think its actually the same length, if not shorter than the original configuration.
I'm surprised no one's caught my front-end switch on the X-29. . . .
Shas 8)
I don't know where you got the nose switch, but now that you mention it, I DO notice the slight upward slant. I figured there was a switch, but I couldn't pin a name to it so I didn't comment.
I have been toying with the idea of building an F-5B/T-38 as a civilian jet for those that have the kind of money to either use them as a race plane at Reno or for their own personal "Lear Jet". As a private jet it would probably ge tpainted white with some kind of cheat line(s) and maybe the wing tip tanks for extra fuel. The hardpoints on the Hasagawa T-38 kits have extra fuel tanks to hang off them and you could probably rig up some kind of travel pod for the pilots to store their baggage easy enough.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on September 21, 2008, 02:59:15 PM
I don't know where you got the nose switch, but now that you mention it, I DO notice the slight upward slant. I figured there was a switch, but I couldn't pin a name to it so I didn't comment.
Yeah, grafted a F-20 front end onto that X-29 kit.
Shas 8)
Here are a couple of kits i worked on years ago. One is an F-5B type painted in an F-16 style camo around the time some Air Forces had started doing that. It has two AIM - 9 Sidewinders,wingtip tanks and two wing tanks for long range.
it had landing gear until the return trip back from Italy in the shipping crate took its toll.
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/4489/s6300634yw5.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/4489/s6300634yw5.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/8600/s6300638cp1.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5219/s6300640zc3.jpg
I have to admit that it wasn't built very well but I could only go so far with what I had being so far from the nearest town with any decent hobby supplies. Next is T-38 painted in a Heater Ferris type camo. I had to paint it by hand. I didn't have the right shades of grey and only scotch tape to make the angles.
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/4834/s6300641ko5.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6849/s6300642ek6.jpg
Nice pieces of work there Arc. Really well done on the camo jobs.
Thank you. I just need to go and find a few of the old Hasagawa 1/72nd scale T-38 kits and redo them so that I can fill my Whiff collection.
Yeah, the fun part of looking for old kits, it's so hit and miss sometimes. Good luck Arc!
Simplified F-5E with Jag style nose:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Ff5ejag.jpg&hash=8c75817809ff3d68d7d00f77c265cb9468abc1ba)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on January 01, 2009, 12:59:56 PM
Simplified F-5E with Jag style nose...
Since F-5A/C are optimised for ground attack, the idea of turning it into a model sounds very tempting. :thumbsup:
^^^^ Nice, indeed.
BUMP.
i found this on a DVD, i took these screenshots.
but i like to ask, what was the point of this single-seat F-5B/T-38 conversion :wub:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi307.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn292%2FNilssteyaert%2Fmisc%2Fsingletalon.jpg&hash=c6c3d7f7bd9a4c13cd3ab041b0e8a1d49b6715c7)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi307.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn292%2FNilssteyaert%2Fmisc%2Fsingletalon2.jpg&hash=b4044fd7c96971fd7c804fff62454d25d4831973)
Hmm, I don't know... one might consider it used for something extra, like an electronic warfare package, or additional fuel, or something obviously. That's what I'd do with it anyways.
Dont think it's a single seat T-38, but rather the aft cockpit is "blacked out" for instrument work (?)
Shas b)
Hey Shasper, a 'Blacked Out' Rear Cockpit was Usually used for Instrument & Night Flight Training Purposes! hope this Helps. stay Cool. :mellow:
Thats what I figured Cobra thx! Feel bad for the safety guy sittin' up front tho'!
Shas 8)
Quote from: GTX on March 23, 2008, 09:04:44 PM
Another possible T-38/F-5 user was apparently Japan - in the end they developed the Mitsubishi F-1 and T-2.
Regards,
Greg
Further to my earlier post, what if the Mitsubishi T-2 and F-1 were influenced more by the F-5 series than by the SEPECAT Jaguar. Could we have seen a T-2 and F-1 looking somewhat like this (my interpretations)?
T-2:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2F3168b9a9.jpg%3Ft%3D1238871153&hash=f13339c05f2c58ad476595bc8bd057a2fb1efe87)
F-1:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2F1b144b67.jpg%3Ft%3D1238871713&hash=f2d3a1e3ca7a674e8925fbadefcc540432a31e90)
Note different radar and gun + the fact that the F-1 is essentially a T-2 with the rear canopy faired over.
Regards,
Greg
Was there another LWF competition in the early '80s? Or was the F-20 actually developed in the early '70s?
Quote from: SinUnNombre on October 28, 2007, 05:46:13 PM
QuoteQuoteQuoteI want to do one Patrouille Suisse colors and see if anyone notices...
Me too - evil idea isn't it!!! Just the thing to trip up some people at a show.
and if you really want to wind someone up on this score, how about the KLu NF-5 'double dutch' display team scheme on a F-20? ^_^
I also seriously considered doing a Thunderbirds scheme on an F-20 for the USAF GB. It makes sense(at least to me...): It directly competed with the F-16 for the LWF contract, and the T-38 preceded it in the Thunderbirds line-up. The main reason it didn't get done is that I still can't agree with myself on a scheme.
Jon
The F-20 was a direct decendant of the Tiger II and was not a direct competitor to the F-16 or F-18 basically because it didn't get awarded a contract. Northrop developed it as a private venture .It was actually equal to the F-16 as far as flying characteristics but could not carry the same loadout and had just 2 single barrel guns as opposed to the M-61 on the Viper.
You have to pause for a moment and wonder... what would have happened if the F-17 Cobra had been developed with one engine instead of two... The F-17 was the competitor toe to toe against the F-16, and was developed from the F-5, which would later, after refinements, be reborn as the F/A-18 for the Navy. Imagine if the F-17 had been a single-engine bird, as in develop the F-20's single engine frame into an F-17, and then perhaps progress this into the F/A-18.
The F-20 turned around after it was not worked onto a government contract, and was put nose against the F-16 for the Export market contracts, aka the Deal of the Century at times.
I am actually planning on building a 1 banger Bug :wacko:
Just found this on Hyperscale today. Ron M. posted several images in a topic showing a Brazilian F-5E that has been fitted with conformal fuel tanks.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff152%2Fronsm%2F19426.jpg&hash=49ea45ede29966ed84fb925e90b3df765a795733)
(link to topic and image source: F-5E saddle tanks topic by Ron M. (http://www.network54.com/Forum/624633/thread/1242866895/F-5E+saddle+tanks))
Looks like they have been checking out the work done by Eddie and Sotoolsinger.
F-5S for Sweden
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2014.0/highlight,f-5.html
Lebanonese F5's would have been an interesting replacement to the Mirage III or the Hunter?
I was wondering if the Iranian advanced versions of the basic F-5 had been mentioned?
The Saeqeh / Saeqeh-80. Why have one tail when you can have two?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fmilitary%2Fworld%2Firan%2Fimages%2Fsaeqeh-pic1.jpg&hash=f50108562e0d656fa32c34bab3ab879c4450056f)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fmilitary%2Fworld%2Firan%2Fimages%2Fsaeqeh-pic5.jpg&hash=f7af9a1a80fbc7adc20db7386f7598c6ee4de7d8)
Lets not forget to mentioned the other Iranian F-5s that have new intakes & wing configurations . . .
Yeah, there's the Azarkash if I recall, the one that's got a shoulder wing, low intake, LERX over the intake and a single tail... looks a bit like the Bug but with one tail IIRC. Images I've seen of it were in green with yellow display markings.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on April 19, 2010, 11:47:21 AM
Yeah, there's the Azarkash if I recall, the one that's got a shoulder wing, low intake, LERX over the intake and a single tail... looks a bit like the Bug but with one tail IIRC. Images I've seen of it were in green with yellow display markings.
I was aware of the Azarkash when I made my posting but was unable to find any reputable websites which confirmed its changed configuration. FAS seems to think that the Azarkash is a completely new aircraft and the pictures I did find of the mid-wing F-5 conversion looked a little strange as if they'd been photoshopped. So I didn't include it.
The spelling of Iranian aircraft names can be confusing, too. I have seen listings for the Saeghe twin-tailed variant, but the descriptions are written up as "Saegeh". Ditto for the "Azarakhsh". What makes this one doubly confusing is that this name is also applied to the F-5E. But I did find this clear image, which does not appear to have been Photoshopped:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aereo.jor.br%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F09%2Fazarakhsh.jpg&hash=7a271d13c6a0a3037bdcd966616f5c97871d5d1c)
I forget if that's the actual Azarkash, but that's the plane I was thinking of, thanks Jschmus. I've seen that very image before, and was the one I was implying. Globalsecurity seems to think the Azarkash is a different aircraft all together and closer to a standard Tiger.
I'd personally love to see a better view down the nozzles of those engines - the fact they're smooth and fixed looking makes me wonder if, similar to the WS-10 and the MilSpey, they have the convergent/divergent vanes inside the outer cover.
Quote from: Jschmus on April 20, 2010, 06:33:42 AM
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aereo.jor.br%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F09%2Fazarakhsh.jpg&hash=7a271d13c6a0a3037bdcd966616f5c97871d5d1c)
It is very elegant indeed!
I'm kind of wondering how they made the wing work on it, I worked on one a couple of years ago and the wing is in one piece with the u/c legs in the wing and folding into the fuselage.
Quote from: kitnut617 on April 21, 2010, 02:33:01 PM
I'm kind of wondering how they made the wing work on it, I worked on one a couple of years ago and the wing is in one piece with the u/c legs in the wing and folding into the fuselage.
One of the reasons why I have problems believing it, although it should be noted that Northrop worked on a mid-wing version of the F-5 before the F-20.
I dunno. Seeing some of the Photoshopped stuff here done by -presumably- hobbyists, such as the USAF Mil-8, I think it would be easy enough for the Iranian gov't to do a thorough job. BTW, didn't they Photoshop some missile launches a year or two ago?
Quote from: royabulgaf on April 22, 2010, 11:38:32 AM
I dunno. Seeing some of the Photoshopped stuff here done by -presumably- hobbyists, such as the USAF Mil-8, I think it would be easy enough for the Iranian gov't to do a thorough job. BTW, didn't they Photoshop some missile launches a year or two ago?
Yeah they did . A few days after they had claimed to have fired their new rockets off they were found to all have been photoshopped.
If Iran combined those two aircraft it would look very close to a YF-17
And AFAIK, this is still the only pic of the Azarkash, isn't it?
Let's analyze this a bit. If it is a mid-wing, where would the spar go? What is above the spar on an F-5? The landing gear would have to be lengthened, any evidence of change in the gear doors? They could have done a ring spar like the MiG-15. However, wouldn't the fuselage diameter have to be increased? While we're at it, what is the advantage of the mid-wing over low-wing?
Or else they went similar to the F-18 and made the MLG retract inward to the fuselage and angle outward for landing. Looking at where the wings are mounted, it looks like they were fitted around the intake trunking tops, where there would be a mounting/reinforcement point of some form. Let's remember, the Cobra grew out of the F-5.
The reasons why Northrop investigated a high-wing design were;
1. The thinness of the wing is no longer limited by having to accept the gear legs,
2. The pylons can be better spaced and accept larger weapons.
Quote from: Weaver on April 23, 2010, 02:39:35 PM
1. The thinness of the wing is no longer limited by having to accept the gear legs,
Well the wings aren't that thick in the first place.
Quote from: kitnut617 on April 23, 2010, 08:14:08 PM
Quote from: Weaver on April 23, 2010, 02:39:35 PM
1. The thinness of the wing is no longer limited by having to accept the gear legs,
Well the wings aren't that thick in the first place.
Yes I know, but that WAS Northrop's stated reason. Other advantages of not having the gear in the wings are that you can have the ideal spar/rib layout for stress purposes without having to leave a gear-shaped hole, and the avoidance of a big cutout in the stressed skin.
Northop's own concept for a high wing F-5 derivative:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FF5G-3.jpg&hash=6180981e56bdfa7fa4dbe194fadc99c9a1283b9e)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FSuperTigercopy.jpg&hash=cd17834826b76ccf78193f8b66f5639bc5983244)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FF5G-4.jpg&hash=b072e48eb538320f1f1dea4c7a23ebdd2b942f62)
Regards,
Greg
Oooooooooooo I love the first one with the 6 hard points. Someone needs to build that one now! If I only I had an F-5 kit....
Quote from: Cliffy B on April 24, 2010, 02:19:00 PM
Oooooooooooo I love the first one with the 6 hard points.
Err??? The high wing version is the 6 hardpoint version.
Regards,
Greg
Did I say it wasn't? I said the "first" one IE the high wing version... Go have another cold one :cheers:
;D
And AFAIK, this is still the only pic of the Azarkash, isn't it?
I did some Google searching. A whole lot of photos of the low-wing two-tailed version can be found, in various color schemes. However, only that one shot of the mid-wing single-seat version can be found. The color scheme is a duplicate of an Iranian F-5 of which there are numerous photos. Make of that what you will.
Does anybody know how the undercarriage on the high-wing version would have looked?
Interesting post by datafuser over on Secretprojects:
Quote from: datafuser on October 10, 2011, 10:15:04 PM
Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, RAAF chief in 1957-1961, said in an ANZUS meeting in 1958 that "We are willing to build it (Northrop F-5), we are willing to operate it, and we are very willing to supply it, if we can manufacture it, to the whole SEATO area, if they can afford to buy it and if arrangements can be made for them to get them and use them."
http://www.history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v16/d19
Minister Casey: Have you come to the end of the military?
Secretary Dulles: I thought we were approaching the end of that.
Minister Casey: I wonder if we would have Air Marshal Scherger have a word on that?
Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger:10 Perhaps I should stand to make myself seen and heard, sir.
One of our most pressing problems is to find airplanes with which we can replace our present operation infantry. If we want them and buy them in small numbers, we buy them from the manufacturing country, as we have with transports. We have bought the C–130, as with maritime antisubmarine we have bought the P2V5, and I hope we will have some P2V7. But our real difficulty is with the airplane which is now designed as the technical [tactical?] fighter. The Tactical Air Command here use extremely big airplanes; they are complex, they are sophisticated, and they are tremendously expensive both in cost and in the ground environment you need from which to operate them effectively. Both the airfield's length and the strength of the airfield is such that in the Southeast Asian theater there are about five airfields from which they can operate. And if you add Admiral Felt's four carriers, that makes nine. But it still leaves the opponent with a fairly easy problem, and we have been desperately seeking a small, versatile airplane which can range over the whole area and which can operate from the thousand and one 6000-foot strips left over from the last war and which still are there and from which commercial airplanes are still operating.
We believe we have found the airplane in a project which has been raised and was having a little difficulty here, the Northrop–156, which is a development of the T–38 supersonic trainer. It is a light airplane and can have a lot of sophistication in it, but we don't want a lot of sophistication. We want it in a fairly cheap and uncomplicated form. It is the kind of thing we can build and build relatively cheaply, and it is the kind of airplane which could be used right throughout that area, where we ourselves are perhaps the most capable in the use of modern equipment. But we know that the Filipinos and Thais and the Pakistanis are having more than a little trouble in operating the F–86's. They can fly them all right, but even they require a fairly good airfield, and their ferry range isn't all that much. We want an airplane that can go across Australia and from the top end of Australia, across the Philippines, up to Singapore.
I found the philosophy in airplanes here is to build a single-seater airplane which costs over two million dollars a copy, which demands, if you are going to make it mobile, in-air refueling capabilities, which we can't afford, and which requires an eight-to-eleven thousand foot runway. That kind of airplane is beyond our capabilities.
We find ourselves approaching now the time when it looks as though we are going to be priced out of being able to buy airplanes with which we can suitably arm ourselves. It is a fairly disturbing proposition, sir. And it is one which I thought perhaps, and Mr. Casey agreed, should be aired here, because it is the kind of military problem which I believe ANZUS could solve and I believe should solve. We are willing to build it, we are willing to operate it, and we are very willing to supply it, if we can manufacture it, to the whole SEATO area, if they can afford to buy it and if arrangements can be made for them to get them and use them. That is our problem, sir: How to get the airplane and where to get it—where to get it, rather than how to get it. Europe has nothing. The small NATO fighter which has been proposed to me, the F–91, is just like the Australian boomerang. It is never out of sight. It won't go far enough. You have these F–105 airplanes, which are over $2,000,000 a copy. Even if we could afford them or build them in sufficient numbers, we couldn't afford to operate them.
The same applies to the naval tactical fighter, the thing that carries ordinary, or shall I call them conventional bombs. I don't know why these airplanes are so complex and so sophisticated unless perhaps it is that they are all designed around a nuclear capacity, which of course we don't possess. We have to base whatever we have on a conventional capacity. I think that is it.
Secretary Dulles: Do you want a reply?
Mr. Irwin: Marshal Scherger brings up a very difficult type of air operation which has been under consideration by the Pentagon for some time in connection with the Northrop F–156 aircraft. I am not completely up to date as to what the current status of the studies are on it, Air Marshal. We had thought of it at one time in connection with NATO and the European countries as well as in the Far East and the Pacific. From the point of view of assisting and financing the manufacture and sale of the planes, the question really revolved around finding a market for it after you had gone all through the expense of development and production in large enough quantities to justify the expense. It was thought at one time that Germany might be interested in the N–156, and possibly Japan. Japan has decided against it and went to Grumman, I believe. Germany also appeared to have rejected it, although I am not sure whether that is completely final or not. So the problem is, if it were available, it is still on the drafting board or has not even been produced in prototype. The question really is, by the time you produce it, is it an adequate airplane for the period of 1961–1962, the period that it is coming in? There is question about it in Europe, and I think there is also considerable question, at least as far as Japan and that part of the Far East area goes. There is undoubtedly a need for a less-sophisticated aircraft that can meet the problem. Of course, you run into the question, then, as to the control of the air. It would be useless in an area when you are facing a MIG–17 or MIG–19, although obviously you aren't going to have a big MIG–17 or MIG–19 everywhere you are going to need another airplane. It poses a great problem of financing as well as the tactical application of it. I think the Air Marshal is coming over to the Pentagon tomorrow, I understand.
Air Marshal Sir Fredrick Scherger: That is right; yes.
Ambassador Beale: Mr. Secretary, could I supplement what Air Marshal Scherger said. This is quite a serious problem for Australia. We have got a first-class aircraft industry in the country. We have a profound political and military necessity for maintaining that aircraft industry in Australia. It is in danger of languishing because we just haven't got aircraft to make and we can't plan ahead. A year or two ago we made a decision to buy and probably also to build to sell the F–104, but when a mission came over here,11 we were, I think, very rightly told, "Don't be silly. Don't build that one. It is far too sophisticated for you. If that type of aircraft has to be used in a war which you are planning to participate in, we in the United States will be there with that aircraft." And quite rightly we would have made a great mistake to build the F–104. And we were also told at the same time, "Why not have a look at the Northrop and one or two others?" This was on the technical level.
The minister in charge of aircraft at the time we were agonizing over this agreed. Now we are told by our air force advisers that this is the type of plane which will suit Australia's needs. It is not yet, as you say, Mr. Irwin, quite off the drawing board. I think something like one dozen prototypes ought to be made and flown and tested before anybody can say for sure that it is the aircraft. Now what I think the Air Marshal has said is, will the United States give some consideration to making the funds available to take that airplane up to that stage, because if it proves itself I think it is pretty likely, I think it is certain that the Air Force would be advising the Australian Cabinet that "This is the airplane we want and this is the airplane we should build in Australia." I think New Zealand might become interested in the same sort of aircraft, because it has a characteristic to suit our particular needs. And if we can't get that one or something very like it, we just have nowhere else to turn for another one to build. We were told to build the Sabres for another year or two or three more. But in the meantime we have a real fight, we have a real professional difficulty in making up our mind as to what type of aircraft it should be.
Mr. Irwin: We have maintained at least to date going ahead on the N–156, trying to resolve this question or problem, but in large measure, it comes down to the financial problem with us, because it is financed by military assistance funds. The question is whether or not if you finance it through the ultimate to have enough prototypes to decide whether it is worth going ahead, are you going to have enough customers to justify the research and development and production of it when you have diminishing military assistance side to keep it up. [sic] They cut the program three hundred million dollars this past year, and we anticipate this next year it will be more difficult.
We have a great many calls on the program throughout the world. We are going to have the situation with Taiwan, and Taiwan has eaten into the program a great deal more than the normal expectancy would have been if there had not been the Taiwan crisis, because equipment had to go to the Chinese Nationalists because of the ammunition situation, etc. So you have a choice of not only do you have a question as to the people that actually would buy this airplane in the time frame of the early 1960's but you have also the question of priority of the use of the military assistance funds over these few years until there would be production. So it presents a grave complication that the enthusiasm for the airplane itself has to date not been sufficient to justify final decision to go ahead with it.
Minister Casey: So far as the United States is concerned.
Mr. Irwin: The most likely customers had seemed to be Japan and Germany.
Minister Casey: If these aircraft were brought to the prototype stage, isn't it likely that you would have potential customers in the Asian-SEATO partners in the smaller countries, and it would suit Australia and New Zealand, and there would be more generalized use than your highly-specialized aircraft now.
Mr. Irwin: That seems to be a possibility.
Minister Casey: I think the Air Marshal is seeing Mr. Quarles and Mr. Douglas tomorrow.
Mr. Irwin: I would suggest he also speak to our MAP people.
Minister Casey: I think that is worth raising.
Secretary Dulles: Yes.
[Here follows discussion of unrelated subjects.]
Certainly some fuel for Whiffs there...
Regards,
Greg
Another interesting hypothetical member of this family: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13808.0.html
Martin
I seem to recall reading somewhere that a new 1/48 T-38 kit is due out soon, possibley from one of the Chinese manufacturers. I can't seem to re-find the reference though. Anyone able to help?
Regards,
Greg
While checking a link in the Whiffs you have found section, the ARC thread I think, I found this F-20 (http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=250434).
That model is a real wonder :wub: :wub: :thumbsup:
I'm trying to work out the paint schemes of the T-38 in USAF service. Google brings up all manner of images and schemes. I have the 1/72 PM kit in my stash and ideas for other models.
Does anyone have links to good reference sites?
Cross between F-5E and MiG-21MF
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2FXs_f5e_mig21mf.jpg&hash=81913877c07597e8c3330360a31d35703b05ba7f) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Xs_f5e_mig21mf.jpg.html)
Hmm, those are interesting. The MiG-21 wings on the F-5E look particularly good because the angle of the wings matches the angle of the intakes.
just gonna reive this topic for the moment.
im currently converting 2 1/144 F-20 Tigersharks into 2-seater trainers (using the canopies of old revell Tornado's), but i was wondering how plausible is it, to stick the forward fuselage of the T-38 to the rear fuselage of the F-20?
ive tried it, and i came out with this, i call it the T-38D Super Talon.
could have been a cheap and low-risk competitor in the T-X contest :mellow:
(https://i.imgur.com/4ul89YG.png)
Quote from: Weaver on March 18, 2018, 11:51:48 AM
Hmm, those are interesting. The MiG-21 wings on the F-5E look particularly good because the angle of the wings matches the angle of the intakes.
Gives it a bit of a Chinese look to me.
I'm sure it would work !
What about Finland?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51060502877_46629dbe8b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kN3qzT)Garyw_ Finnish F-5E (https://flic.kr/p/2kN3qzT) by Zac Yates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zacyates/), on Flickr
Unfortunate but thought-provoking DCS World screenshot shared by Gary Williams @Garyw_ on Twitter, cropped for clarity by me:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51060514792_961cea15ca_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kN3u8j)Garyw_ Finnish F-5E crop (https://flic.kr/p/2kN3u8j) by Zac Yates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zacyates/), on Flickr
We actually considered what was then known as the N-156 around 1960-1 for a brief while, before it was deemed politically unfeasible at the time (along with the F-104G).
Could of course slightly alter the timeline, and fast forward into 1980's, we would have just purchased MiG-21bis's from the Soviet Union, so to maintain neutral stance the next fighter would be from the West - but instead of second-hand Drakens we would seek something more modern but still affordable. The F-20 would be looking for customers, and since the US would probably not have allowed F-16 to be sold to Finland at that time, that could have theoretically been an opportunity. In the Whiffverse, at least ;)
Combining F-16 and F-20
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F16_F20_1.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/45594a49-2ca2-4bad-8256-a9ac66bcef6b)
Sorry to be bringing the F5 back to the fore, but I was thinking...
I have a thing for conformally mounted missiles like what the F-4 and F-14 did. It just seems super efficient. Pondering the F-5E for another project, I'm thinking of a scenario where a pair of F-4 Phantoms are joined by a pair of F-5Es for an interception mission or CAP. F-5 is already at a heavy thrust disadvantage compared to the F-4 and if you want the F-5 to carry some AIM-7s for the datalinked F-4 to illuminate targets for, that's a ton of extra drag with the missiles themselves and the pylons.
This idea does require new-build airframes but it is a subtle change. The F-5 is not as small an airframe as I'd thought. There is space between the main gear doors and exhausts in terms of length, but I'm sure the fins would intrude in the engine space or intake trunks. But one could mount them right on the corner of the underside of the fuselage, like the F-15A/C. The inboard edges of the wing flaps would need to be moved out a little bit and either the elevators correspondingly trimmed or physically spaced out on their own tiny nacelles to clear the aft fins of a Sparrow.
Of course this would need a different IP with switches for the new stations, a MFD replacing the radar scope to handle the datalink for the F-4 to use the Sparrows (A2A equivalent of buddy-lasing the GBU-12s in DCS) and if thats done then you have the display for targeting AGM-65s...All of this is doable with 1973 tech. Whether a pair of Sparrows would be any more use than a couple extra AIM-9P's or Shafir-IIs...thats another question, lol.
But its still a good idea for a cost-effective way to stretch the power of a squadron of F-4E's.
If I understand correctly, you are thinking of putting the missiles (two of them?) on the lower corners of the rear fuselage. Perhaps overlapping the rear of the wing and the leading edge of the stabilizer.
One issue that comes to my mind is the balance of the aircraft. Hanging munitions back there would move the center of gravity back - and releasing them would move CG forward. That could be tricky for keeping the aircraft controllable.
Just guessing: that area is probably pretty full of "necessary stuff" creating a little additional space might be necessary.
Quote from: perttime on March 05, 2022, 10:37:29 PM
If I understand correctly, you are thinking of putting the missiles (two of them?) on the lower corners of the rear fuselage. Perhaps overlapping the rear of the wing and the leading edge of the stabilizer.
One issue that comes to my mind is the balance of the aircraft. Hanging munitions back there would move the center of gravity back - and releasing them would move CG forward. That could be tricky for keeping the aircraft controllable.
Just guessing: that area is probably pretty full of "necessary stuff" creating a little additional space might be necessary.
Well if mounting the missiles on the edges of the "bellypan" for lack of a better term, I don't think there is anything there besides the engines and their ducts, which are round but the bottom of the fuselage is squared off.
And yes, 1000lb of ordnance isn't trivial, but it would probably just be a matter of programming the FCS to trim down a little bit to compensate for the weight. It would be asking the elevators to make a bit more lift which is better for maneuverability than asking the elevators to push down and use the wings as a fulcrum just to stay level (like the F4).
That area does have some equipment in it. But I am sure there are ways around that.
cutaway drawing: http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AN/AN82-3/7-1.jpg
Quote from: perttime on March 06, 2022, 09:09:37 PM
That area does have some equipment in it. But I am sure there are ways around that.
cutaway drawing: http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AN/AN82-3/7-1.jpg
Pertti, you've linked to a F-20, which is different to the F-5 at the rear. I've worked on a F-5 (actually a CF-116) and have had a good look up through the engine tunnel. The walls of the fuselage in the rear end are not very thick, plus there's the tail assemble joint in that location too. If anyone has built an Airfix F-5, or has one in the stash, how the tail parts are in the kit is actually how the tail assembly comes off, slanting join line and all ----
Incidentally, the wing attached to the fuselage just like in the kit too plus a large gap under the fuselage which is the wheel bay which is not represented in the kit parts. This is a photo I took of the CF-116 I was working on, the wing is built in one piece, and the 'notch' is the wheel bay area.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2F21ae1a94-9b59-4b0c-89f4-f54c6a33c871.JPG&hash=ae3b3976d1ca6b94ce270eb3bf5e71d5641df62e)
In this photo you can see where the wheel bays are.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2F2fa03d6f-3d55-44e2-a1a5-9d05268fee49.jpg&hash=9c2508605efe01e3999b5ef3c0c06e63304b55f8)
The above photo is the bottom of this one, which is mounted outside The Military Museum in Calgary (I was redesigning the mounting pole for it)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2Face638d7-d923-45ba-9bf4-da7f6d090645.jpg&hash=eb04b98c25f1be53b93e976362c3adbd349a8184)
Quote from: kitnut617 on March 07, 2022, 05:40:15 AM
Quote from: perttime on March 06, 2022, 09:09:37 PM
That area does have some equipment in it. But I am sure there are ways around that.
cutaway drawing: http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AN/AN82-3/7-1.jpg
Pertti, you've linked to a F-20, which is different to the F-5 at the rear. ...
Oops. Looks like searching for cutaways for F-5 found me other designs too, and I only looked at what is in that corner of the fuselage.
Quote from: kitnut617 on March 07, 2022, 05:40:15 AM
Pertti, you've linked to a F-20, which is different to the F-5 at the rear. I've worked on a F-5 (actually a CF-116) and have had a good look up through the engine tunnel. The walls of the fuselage in the rear end are not very thick, plus there's the tail assemble joint in that location too. If anyone has built an Airfix F-5, or has one in the stash, how the tail parts are in the kit is actually how the tail assembly comes off, slanting join line and all ----
Incidentally, the wing attached to the fuselage just like in the kit too plus a large gap under the fuselage which is the wheel bay which is not represented in the kit parts. This is a photo I took of the CF-116 I was working on, the wing is built in one piece, and the 'notch' is the wheel bay area.
All I can find are reviews for the 1:72 and I'm not quite seeing what you mean. But thank you for that photo of the wing structure. Its cool how that box between the wings can carry the load of that aircraft at 8G.
I have this book all about CF-116's, there's a chapter on all the model kits you can buy of the F-5 and it says the Airfix kit despite it's age and simplicity, is quite accurate.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2Fd0dcbc79-2824-4b10-ad46-e89b31f757cc.jpg&hash=e9dd5a12793ee113eccfc388d0b2a8b3f9b1addb)
USAF: A pair of simple radarless fighters to attack in Vietnam War
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-5_F-100_X.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/4f8c54fd-2150-4b73-920e-6ec196b9ae67)
An f-5 based on the saeqeh but with canards & a bubble canopy would be a great idea
An upgraded F-5 based the HESA Saeqeh but with canard foreplanes & a bubble canopy
would be an amazing idea for a great fighter aircraft.
A naval version of the F-5/F-20 with a sturdy bubble canopy 2 J-85-GE-21 derived turbofans capable of giving a top speed of
Mach 2 & folding wings capable of carrying air to air missiles.
Quote from: GTX on April 24, 2010, 01:09:52 PMNorthop's own concept for a high wing F-5 derivative:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FF5G-3.jpg&hash=6180981e56bdfa7fa4dbe194fadc99c9a1283b9e)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FSuperTigercopy.jpg&hash=cd17834826b76ccf78193f8b66f5639bc5983244)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FF5G-4.jpg&hash=b072e48eb538320f1f1dea4c7a23ebdd2b942f62)
Regards,
Greg
Here we go
(https://s2.loli.net/2024/09/26/fHwx2GuMY8kDr4n.png)
Quote from: JerrySyameimaru on September 28, 2024, 02:33:25 PMQuote from: GTX on April 24, 2010, 01:09:52 PMNorthop's own concept for a high wing F-5 derivative:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FF5G-3.jpg&hash=6180981e56bdfa7fa4dbe194fadc99c9a1283b9e)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FSuperTigercopy.jpg&hash=cd17834826b76ccf78193f8b66f5639bc5983244)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FF5G-4.jpg&hash=b072e48eb538320f1f1dea4c7a23ebdd2b942f62)
Regards,
Greg
Here we go
(https://s2.loli.net/2024/09/26/fHwx2GuMY8kDr4n.png)
This with a single F404 like the F-20 had would be great. Mini-Hornet.
Never liked the F-5 for some reason, but I quite like the look of the high wing version :thumbsup:
You can clearly see how they came up with the YF-17 from the high-wing F-5.
Gondor
That's news to me ! Pretty cool to see the resemblance with the F-18. Wow.