Talk:General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Length of FB-111 vs other F-111s

I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO SOME EDIT WAR WITH SOME IDIOT WHO REVERTED MY CHANGES AND CALLED THEM 'ORIGINAL RESEARCH' EVEN THOUGH I DOCUMENTED THEM. PLEASE PEOPLE - DO A BIT OF RESEARCH AND SEE THAT THE FB-111A IS THE *SAME LENGTH* AS ALL OTHER FB-111As. THE LONGER LENGTH WAS BASED ON A PROPOSAL THAT NEVER HAPPEEND. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY BOOKS REPEAT THE "LONGER LENGTH" MYTH AND BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA STUPIDLY FAVORS WHAT SOME IDIOT GOT PRINTED IN PAPER OVER ELECTRONIC REFERENCES, THIS ERROR NOW PERSISTS AND HAS BEEN ENSHRINED IN THIS PAGE.

FIX IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.245.96 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE WP:V AND PROVIDE A SOURCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT! (also, please stop shouting!). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I don't know the rules here (yet) and I don't want to edit the article. But I would like to offer an explanation. The FB-111A could indeed carry 585 Gallons of fuel more than other Variants. However, this additional fuel was carried in fuel tanks that could be installed in the weapons bay. So it was simply not neccessary to increase the fuselage length to accomodate the additonal fuel. Additionally, in different drawings of the aircraft the fuselage length is either measured from fuselage station 5.5 (and not from FS 0.0), not including the pitot boom, or from FS -18.59 including the pitot boom. What's more, people sometimes mix up the fuselage length (72 FT 2.5 IN) and the total length including the vertical stabilizer (75 FT 6.5 IN). These numbers are from a US Air Force drawing printed in "In Detail and Scale - F-111 Aardvark" by Bert Kinzey (ISBN 0-8168-5014-3) on page 43. Actually, I don't know any reliable source that supports that the FB-111A is longer than the other variants of the F-111 (except the f-111B of course). Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainer Hoffmann1957 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The US Air Force document T.O. 1F-111(B)A-1 Flight Manual gives the overall lenght of the FB-111A, including the pitot boom, as 75 feet 6.5 inches (page 1-1). This is the same length as given for all other variants of the F-111 exept the F-111B. Here is a linkt to the document: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/item/56232-t-o-1f-111-b-a-1-flight-manual-fb-111a.htmlRainer Hoffmann1957 (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. It does look very likely that Boeing 818 should be transformed into a general article on TFX and the competitors thereof, but this merge proposal has ceased to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---

No metal was cut, mention in the TFX section of this article is sufficient--Petebutt (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Petebutt: so.... are you proposing that Boeing 818 be merged with this article? VQuakr (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes!--Petebutt (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I weakly oppose this one. The source article meets WP:GNG and is related (but not super-related) to this article. This article is already on the big side per WP:SIZERULE so adding three more paragraphs (even if the Boeing 818 article could never be expanded, which is doubtful) is a step in the wrong direction. Metal being cut is not a criterion for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It might be better to create a separate article for TFX, and put the Boeing 818 info there. As it is, this article is very weak, and not really likely to be expandable. Also, Pete, please try to be more clear when making merge proposals. People should not have to ask what's being proposed. - BilCat (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the merger, there is nothing wrong with the Boeing 818 article remaining a stub forever. Having said that, BilCat's idea for a new article has merit. YSSYguy (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merger but like the idea of a TFX program article which can include the Boeing stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above - the sourcing for the Boeing 818 article indicates that this is an independently notable topic, though I agree that it might work best if it were to be rolled into a broader article in the future. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merging it to this article as this it not the proper place competitor details. I'd rather it be covered in a TFX article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The F-111 article is not the place for information on another aircraft. I agree with YSSYguy. There is nothing wrong with an article on a proposed design remaining a stub forever. I also agree with BilCat and talk. The Boeing 818 could be merged into a TFX article.2001:44B8:21B:8F00:AC04:32A7:B8AB:2DD7 (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the merge but Support a separate TFX article per BilCatand Fnlayson The TFX project itself was notable in that it lead to a widely fielded military aircraft, but I do not see how merging the content of the Boeing aircraft into an article about a craft made by General Dynamics makes much sense. Abovethestorm (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

F-111K wingspan

Fnlayson edited the information pertaining to the F-111K in July 2009, with a reference, stating that the F-111K was to have the longer wings of the F-111B. Davef68 has earlier today used this cutaway as the basis for changing the information about the wingspan. The cutaway was coped from a book, so we have contradictory info from what appear to be sources of equal weight. YSSYguy (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have other references to the wingspan, the reference previously to having the FB111 wings was an erroueous record in a book, copied by other author. The scan form the book is a copy of a GD drawing Davef68 (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)DaveF68Davef68 (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo caption: is Mark 82 low-drag or high-drag

I know next to nothing about bombs, but I noticed that the caption says "... its load of Mark 82 high-drag bombs over a bomb range". The article about the Mark 82 bomb, however, says that it's a low-drag bomb. I suppose that's an error in the caption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschroev (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated in the Mark 82 bomb article, the Mark 82 can be fitted with a high-drag system. In fact, they can be fitted with lots of add-ons. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the information! -- Rschroev (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Aardvark

The word aardvark indeed is Afrikaans (Canonical also used this name for a version of Ubuntu), it might be interesting to also point out in the footnote that the South Africans used the Dutch loanwords Aarde and Varken to constitute this word. Aarde is Dutch for earth and varken is Dutch for pig. The Dutch language has had the biggest influence on the dominant language in South Africa because South Africa used to be a colony of the Netherlands (also of Portugal and England). The language is actually sufficiently similar that an untrained Dutch person can understand it without ever having learned Afrikaans in any way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.75.218 (talk)

The detailed etymology of the word is already properly covered at Aardvark#Naming. - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The word aardvark is also English... for aardvark. I don't think detailing the etymology of aardvark is necessary on a page about an aircraft. It would be more appropriate in the page about aardvarks. That discussion comes across as an really strained effort to claim this plane looks like a pig. 74.192.169.70 (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine, but the 1 sentence in the Lead here is not a detailed etymology of the word. It is there to explain why the aircraft received the Aardvark nickname that was eventually made official. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft on display

Australia F111C On display at the Darwin Aviation Museum, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia in recognition of the many exercises and missions undertaken from Darwin, Australia's closest city to Asia.

Reference - Wikipedia, Darwin Aviation Museum page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Aviation_Museum 118.211.228.173 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That would belong at General Dynamics F-111C, not here. - BilCat (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

But the F-111C is an F-111 still. I know that if I was curious to see an F-111 at a museum I would get as far as the list of display aircraft on this page. I never would have dreamed that I should go to the page on that exact model to see planes of that model listed. So all F-111 models except the C model are listed here, all C models are listed on that page alone? Its not not it takes up that much space. I would say that ANY F-111 ought to belong on this page, with F-111Cs in particular on the C page.

64.222.111.223 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Escape capsule wanted by Navy?

Are we sure about this? Why would the Navy, with no history of types using escape capsules and with a much lower top speed requirement at both high and low altitude insist on the escape capsule when the AF, which HAS used capsules aand pods on other M2 Plus aircraft, and wants a M 2.5 top speed? At Mach 2.5 you NEED a capsule! Also the siide by side seating: that at least makes some sense, since they wanted a shorter plane and expected a wider fuselage to fit their radar anyway. But I was just reading about the Navy's Colossal Weight Improvement Program (worth adding to the article as an example of ironic military humor!) and they were ones trying to convert the design into a tandem-seat, non-pod design to get weight down within limits. It would be just too ironic if once the AF accepted the Navy's requirements the Navy was trying to adopt a design just like what the AF wanted to start with! http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2010/11/f-111b-colossal-weight-improvement.html?m=0

Also, this article needs to give more detail, or at least an image, showing how the cannon installation works. This was apparently not an option for all variants. According to the book I'm holding "the cannon was replaced by a Pave Tack pod in the F model". Not sure how that fits in with the cannon fitted in the weapons bay. Are we sure that's not an expedient adopted by later aircraft, rather than the original design? This book is from 1987 (but is by no means a detailed technical book on the F-111). 64.222.111.223 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The F-111 like the F-4 before it did not have native guns attached to the aircraft. The solution to this was to place a gun in the bomb bay fuselage. Open the bomb bay to fire the gun. On the F-111F, Pave Tac Pod filled up the bomb bay. Pave Tac was two pieces, #1 a Forward looking Infrared Pod which displayed its findings to the Weapon System Officer (WSO) and #2 - a laser designator which eluminated the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:8380:80C0:D152:6726:6C6:D576 (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It would help if you gave details of the book you're getting this from. Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)