Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

Planebucket Discussion Thread
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=133		 Page 4 of 123
Author:  squizzy [ August 31st, 2010, 11:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Great work on the "Pigs" Darth. But it was General Dynamics that built it and not "General Electric". If GE were the ones that build it they no way on earth would they have allowed the F-111 being powered by 2xPratt and Whitney built TF-30 Turbofan Engines! LOL
Author:  darthpanda [ September 1st, 2010, 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Ooops! you are right! I will change it!
Author:  TimothyC [ September 1st, 2010, 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Something still looks off on the F-111B, and it took me a while to pinpoint what is off:
  • The only F-111Bs with the Triple Plow 2 inlets (as you show there) had the nose extension.
  • This nose extension would be about 4 pixels between the cockpit and the radome
  • You have the same wings for all variants.
    • The F-111A, D, E, F, and EF-111A all used the 'short' wing
    • The F-111B, C, K, and FB-111A/F-111G all used the longer wing
    • The FB-111A/F-111G had a fuselage extension at some point (not sure where)
    • The FB-111H had all new wings and all new fueslage
Author:  TurretHead [ September 2nd, 2010, 2:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Great drawings of the F-111. I like the bombs under the wing which you don't see often in Shipbucket aircraft.
Author:  Demon Lord Razgriz [ September 2nd, 2010, 2:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
ARGG!! The 100,000 lbs sea monster! XD
Author:  klagldsf [ September 2nd, 2010, 3:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
TimothyC wrote:
[*]The FB-111A/F-111G had a fuselage extension at some point (not sure where)[*]
It was concerning the weapons bay, to allow it to be big enough to carry two Stand-off Land Attack Missiles.

Also, as I mentioned in the main thread, your blow doors are off by exactly one pixel. I'll go ahead and post a clearer picture of this later.

EDIT: here you go:

[ img ]
Author:  darthpanda [ September 2nd, 2010, 6:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
TimothyC wrote:
Something still looks off on the F-111B, and it took me a while to pinpoint what is off:
  • The only F-111Bs with the Triple Plow 2 inlets (as you show there) had the nose extension.
  • This nose extension would be about 4 pixels between the cockpit and the radome
  • You have the same wings for all variants.
    • The F-111A, D, E, F, and EF-111A all used the 'short' wing
    • The F-111B, C, K, and FB-111A/F-111G all used the longer wing
    • The FB-111A/F-111G had a fuselage extension at some point (not sure where)
    • The FB-111H had all new wings and all new fueslage
Oke, How many pix do i have to add for the "long wing"? the F-111B Nose must extend with 4 pix? or with "Model A" Inlets?
klagldsf wrote:
It was concerning the weapons bay, to allow it to be big enough to carry two Stand-off Land Attack Missiles.

Also, as I mentioned in the main thread, your blow doors are off by exactly one pixel. I'll go ahead and post a clearer picture of this later.
Oke, the length and weapon bay of A model is correct, right? only the E model have to change?
Author:  TurretHead [ September 2nd, 2010, 6:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Here is the link to the USAF SAC for the FB-111A (F-111G) showing the proper aircraft dimensions:

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/FB-111 ... r_1974.pdf

PS: Edit my post so I don't sound like a d**k.
Author:  klagldsf [ September 2nd, 2010, 6:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
darthpanda wrote:

Oke, How many pix do i have to add for the "long wing"?
I have no idea. I'll find an answer soon.
Quote:
the F-111B Nose must extend with 4 pix? or with "Model A" Inlets?
You should make two versions, as there were really two versions of the F-111B (both versions were essentially developmental models masquerading as production examples, though the intended final production model was to basically be identical to the second one):

- The first two prototypes had the short nose (like your current version) with the "Model A" Inlets (officially known as "Triple Plow I", weird name I know ask the USAF)

- The last three prototypes, and closer to the intended production version, had the nose that would be extended by four pixels plus the latter-type "Triple Plow II" inlets (in fact, these inlets and the longer wings, as I understand it, were developed for the F-111B. All subsequent versions of the F-111 adopted the inlet design, and the F-111K adopted the longer wings - it was later decided to take advantage of semi-complete wings and production tooling that would otherwise go to waste on the prototype FB-111A, which was found to be a nifty feature and retained on production examples).
Quote:

Oke, the length and weapon bay of A model is correct, right? only the E model have to change?
Only the FB-111A had the longer-length fuselage. The F-111E was the same length as the F-111A and was distinguishable pretty much only through the later style intakes and the use of three antenna under the nose instead of one larger-style ADF antenna.

Note that the FB-111A is completely different than the F-111A. It was later known as F-111G.


BTW, the blow doors that I corrected are in association with Triple Plow II. Triple Plow II used three different spring-activated inward-opening blow doors (two and a half would normally be visible from a side profile, but only two can actually fit onto a SB-scale drawing with the PIXELS AS BIG AS CATS that MSPaint/SB-style is stuck with). Triple Plow I used a single inward-opening blow door that actually took up the same exact space where the three separate doors would be used on the later versions. I believe these were air-activated as opposed to spring-activated. The changes were brought about due to stall problems with the TF30 (which the TF30 was infamous at) and to increase airflow to prevent these stall problems. This was in fact the whole point of Triple Plow II, and why the inlets are different.


Also, a non-existent, fake internet cookie if you saw what I did in the above paragraph and can point out what I'm referencing to.
Author:  TimothyC [ September 2nd, 2010, 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Quick Run down of F-111 variants:
  • F-111A
    • Standard Body
    • Short Wings
    • USAF Nose
    • Triple Plow 1 Inlets
  • F-111B (1-5)
    • Short USN Nose
    • USN Body
    • Triple Plow 1 Inlets
    • Long Wings
  • F-111B (6,7)
    • Extended USN Nose
    • USN Body
    • Triple Plow 2 Inlets
    • Long Wings
  • (R)F-111C/K (External appearance was the same for both the UK and Australian Aardvarks)
    • Long Wings
    • USAF Nose
    • Standard Body
    • Triple Plow 1 Inlets
  • EF-111A
    • Standard Body
    • Short Wings
    • USAF Nose
    • Triple Plow 1 Inlets
  • F-111D/E/F
    • Standard Body
    • Short Wings
    • USAF Nose
    • Triple Plow 2 Inlets
  • FB-111A Rebuilt as F-111G
    • Longer Body
    • USAF Nose
    • Long Wings
      • Triple Plow 1 Inlets on the first 2
      • Triple Plow 2 Inlets on the Rest
  • FB-111H
    • Further Extended body
      • Weapons Bay enlarged to carry 4 SRAM internally, with 6 externally
    • Long Wings, Possibly longer than the standard 'Long' wing.
    • Never got off the drawing board
      • Was a proposed replacement for the (then canceled B-1A program
        • Lost to the B-1B
Page 4 of 123 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/