Whatever happened to the F- 103? And the missing Century Series Fighters!

Whatever happened to the F- 103? And the missing Century Series Fighters!
How to spot fake fighter pilots!!!

[@maxsmodels]

I'm just gonna say it before everyone else does, that's a 102, not a 106 in the group photo. !06 intakes are fully aft of the cockpit. Sorry. Don't mean to be that guy.

[@markhamersly1664]

Just want to add--the XF-92 and prototype F-102 didn't have "area rule" initially, but it was added to the F-102A, and it could now exceed Mach 1. My friend Colonel Tom Germscheid (of the Combat Lancer deployment of the F-111A in 1968) said he LOVED flying them, almost as much as the F-86F! Hammer

[@wkelly3053]

Max, there is no shame in being 'that guy' who points to a fact. Further, you and I and most everyone else knows that the 102A not only had area-rule, but it was one of the pioneering airplanes modified to use the area-rule concept once it was found worthy. It's okay to say that, even though we still admire Ron and his accomplishments.

[@Broadsword999]

I always thought the F106 was the prettiest fighter next to the Hunter.

[@girthbloodstool339]

It's OK saves me the trouble.

[@megadoomerr]

Great catch with attention to detail. Thank you for the clarification!

[@davied5496]

Hey, thanks for including the F111 in the century series. You’re the first guy that I’ve ever heard call it that. And remember F111 did a better job than the F1 05 Thunderchief, which had the same job of taking bombs and dropping it on targets.

[@timp3931]

Not really a "fighter", though. The Warthog is also not a fighter, and the Intruder.

[@dahawk8574]

For the Phantom, it would have been good to show the photos of it with "F-110A" painted on it. It would also be good, for the sake of completeness, to tell the story of how the F-117 came to be called that. There was the F-15, F-16, YF-17, F-18, and the F-20. It was obvious that the F-19 was the Ultra Secret stealth fighter. Testors and Monogram had their famous F-19 Stealth Fighter model kits. The Air Force publicly flat out denied the existence of the F-19. So when it was finally disclosed to the public in 1988, the designation was the "F-117". "See? We didn't lie. The F-19 really did not exist."

[@pastorjerrykliner3162]

I always loved the Testor's "F-19" kit. It came out at about the same time as Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" and it's what I always imagined what "The Frisbee" looked like.

[@richardvernon317]

The F-19 story is a load of crock invented by hacks in aviation press in the 1980's. Some people have dug into the archive's and found out what actually happened. The F-19A designation was offered to a compony which had requested a new fighter designation in 1981. The compony was Northrop and the aircraft was the F-5G Tigershark. Northrop's argument was there were so many design changes from the earlier F-5's that the Tigershark was basically a new aircraft. The DoD were not actually interested in buying the aircraft for the US forces, but for military aid, the aircraft need a Mission Design Series (MDS) and Northrop were offered the next number in the F series which was F-19A. Northrop rejected the offer as they really wanted to call it the F-20 and put across the argument that most of their target market (South East Asia) could be fighting Mig 19 type aircraft and that would be confusing. After a bun fight lasting a couple of years, somebody in HQ USAF overruled the USAF Standards Branch, decided that F-19 would be skipped and the F-5G became the F-20A. a bit of a waste of time in the end as nobody bought it. Why the F-19 designation was skipped and the reasons for it is covered here. www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html As I stated somebody has dug into the archives and found documents that tell the real story. There is a process within the DOD for allocation of an Mission Design Series for anything military that flies and documents that lay out that process (both for the Designation and an official name). Within the process there are cases for exemptions and confusion is one of them. In the Mid 1970's Bell was developing an experimental aircraft to test the Tilt Rotor concept. Seeing this was going to be a fixed wing aircraft with VTOL capability, it fell within the V series of aircraft designations and the next number in the sequence free was V-14. The aircraft was going to be totally experimental with no planned operational version for the aircraft to be converted to, so the designation would have been the XV-14. Bell was offered this and replied, That could a bit of a problem for us as we still have an X-14 program running with NASA and it is a fixed wing VTOL aircraft (using vectored thrust). Might be a good idea to skip V-14 and go to XV-15 instead. The DOD replied, valid point and skipped the V-14 designation. The XV-15 and X-14 programs did overlap for a couple of years. Same for the F-13. Grumman and the Navy were offered it for the Tomcat. Grumman said Foxtrot Oscar, there is no way we are using that number, its unlucky and the Navy basically said the same. Thus there is somewhat of an unwritten convention that no system will get a 13 designation.

[@dahawk8574]

​@@richardvernon317, thanks for this alternate explanation. And that great link. Your take does raise a major question. This notion that Northrop objected to F-19. They had no problem whatsoever with getting pinned with the F-17. Look how many countries bought the F-16. If Northrop had won that flyoff, then they would have been on the road peddling their F-17. I have never heard any peep of an objection about their 'Cobra' being confused for a MiG-17. Then your click thru link which gives that explanation for how the Secret designation YF-117 stuck when it got declassified. There is LOADS OF OFFICIAL LYING that happens in situations like this. And you've latched on to one explanation, when I don't see how you can be so convinced with this 'Northrop didn't like -19' story, especially when there is this gaping hole with it when they were fine with -17. And that's to say absolutely NOTHING about how MacDac was absolutely fine with -15. They went selling the Eagle to ALL KINDS of countries, never once complaining that anyone might confuse it with a MiG-15. You've flat out rejected the explanation I presented... and then presented your headscratcher of an explanation. I will suggest that there is more Fog of War to such things than you are acknowledging. Like thosecwho are certain of JFK, for example. There are stories that hold water, and stories that don't. And one simple way to tweak your version to fit my version is to simply have some behind the scenes 'persuasion' to have Northrop complain about 'confusion'. *VIOLA!* You've just manufactured plausible deniability. And will anyone look under the rug to notice that 'F-17' got swept under it with this story? People like you won't. Thanks again for those great links. It does not persuade me today. But it's certainly possible that the gaping hole might be explained, and tomorrow I might buy into it. I should say 'holes', plural. '-17' is one hole. '-15' would be the other.

[@dahawk8574]

Oh, and guess who built the 'YF-23'... Yeah, NORTHROP. So you are wanting us to believe that '-19' was objectionable, while '-15', '-17' and '-23' were perfectly fine. Ok. You're free to believe whatever you find compelling.

[@dahawk8574]

...and all that, of course, was to say nothing of '-35'. It would appear that Lockheed is as unconcerned as MacDac was. And Northrop itself, twice over. So 3 companies, perfectly fine with "confusion", including the company said to complain about confusion.

[@pastorjerrykliner3162]

The F-111 became an excellent airplane when it was liberated from the crazy expectations and allowed to become what it really was: an all-weather, low level, interdictor.

[@dahawk8574]

Ron Rogers was looking for someone to pick on.... And he goes off on this swingwing afterburning Mach 2+ supersonic jet that fires air-to-air missiles, drops LGBs that it targets itself, can fly 200ft auto low levels on a moonless night, with a combat radius that lets tanker crews take the day off. Attempting to shoehorn the Vark into the same category as the A-37?! No hydraulics, no radar... a veritable children's toy, by comparison. The -111 flew so fast it literally peeled the stickers off its fuselage. Try doing that in a tweet, or a Talon-powered tweet. If Ron tried that in the O Club, he'd promptly be reminded how the A-37 has a calendar covering the airspeed indicator. More functional. Hah.

[@markfergerson2145]

@@dahawk8574McNamara tried to do to the Aardvark what Hitler tried to do to… well, a lot of German planes, take something designed to do one job and make it a Jack of all trades.

[@dahawk8574]

​@@markfergerson2145 I'm well aware of that. And with Ron being an intelligent guy, he must be too. And so it would have made for a much better assessment to say: "The only problem with the Aardvark was expectations being set too broadly." Well, that, and the obscene maintenance cost to keep them airworthy. That is the realistic dig that the -111 deserves. Some maintainers were known to deeide it as: "The F-WonderLemon" When it worked, it was an amazing machine. For what it was designed to do. If the Air Force & Navy had only given it the designation: *A-111* then no one would be confused, and Ron wouldn't be mocking it compared to the turn'n'burn dogfighting F-jets. It simply was never meant to compare to the F-teens. And vice versa. The F-teens could never do anything close to what the Vark could do. When the AF retired the Vark, they lost a great deal of capability. Try doing low level cross countries in the Strike Eagle. Not the same. What the Air Force gained was a huge savings on their maintenance bill each year. That is the only reason it got retired. So a simple analysis is that the Aardvark was ahead of its time. Afterburning turbofans. Swing wings. Night TFR. INS. Pave Tack. Then look at the premiere avionics suite in the D-model: a HUD on both left and right seats, moving map display... all of this, GD pulled off in the 1960s. Before anyone else. Well, an INS had been squeezed into other aircraft (B-52 was first, as I seem to recall). And the self-LGBs happened in the 70s. But all around, cutting edge. Or as they say, bleeding edge.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

​@@dahawk8574You missed one extra point,.... The F-111 could run from Everything that had guns and missiles at altitude. The F-15 might have been able to keep up, for a short while, but only the XB-70, X-15 and SR-71 were garunteed to be faster.

[@dahawk8574]

​@@PiDsPagePrototypes And when it came to low level flying, NOTHING was faster. Not even any of the super jets you mentioned. As for that one literal rocket, the X-15, imagine if any of its 12 test pilots had attempted a nap of the earth envelope expansion. Probably a very quick way to dig an instant tunnel. The Aardvarks speed at low level was actually a brutal weapon in and of itself. Just ot dragging that supersonic wavefront over anything coud reap all kinds of indiscriminate destruction. As even Navy aircraft carriers experienced during exercises. Loads of damage. And for those who might not understand the phenomenon, the pressure wave that emanates from a bomb burst causes damage by the steep rise, then steep fall of air pressure. Like you can see most dramatically in those films testing the resistance of buildings and such in nuclear bomb detonations. The blast rapidly pushes them away, followed immediately by sucking them back. PUSH

[@gilabear11]

I remember in high school (1974 -1978) a NASA guy came and gave a presentation to us in the gym. The one thing I remember is he talked about area rule (at a high school level) on the performance difference of the F-106 vs. F-102. Very cool!

[@GlutenEruption]

The century series just look like some of the coolest most futuristic airplanes on the planet to me. Great planes

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

IIRC it was McNamara who ordered the military to unify the aircraft designations after getting confused by the F-4 of the Navy and the F-110 9f the Air Force.

[@michaeldelaney7271]

Didn't you know, Robert Strange McNamara was a "genius?" Look at the "great job" he did with the Vietnam War. Turns out, not everything can be quantified after all.

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

@@michaeldelaney7271I think the issue was that he and Westmoreland chose the wrong indicator, in the form of the body count

[@wmffmw1854]

Same for F~14. Speed limit was set by melting point of the canopy. Discussion at diner table, with my Father. He ran Grummans Flight Test and was F-14 Project Manager following Apollo.

[@WAL_DC-6B]

I miss the North American F-108 Rapier. At least the U.S. Navy got it, sort of, in the form of the North American A-5 Vigilante.

[@andyharman3022]

People who built the F-111 said: "It's aardvark, but it's vorth it." I think over-reaching programs like the F-103 serve a purpose in that they give the engineers a chance to deep-dive into the problems and over time think of solutions that can be applied to later programs. Ten years later, the Blackbird was a success because people had taken the time to work those problems out, to where they could be integrated into a workable design. I loved pausing the video and reading the TAC Attack magazine article. Dating from 1972, it was from the same time period where I first visited the Air Force Museum. I fell in love with the B-70 and F-107 and bought the AF Museum book that told the story of all the airplanes there. I must have read that book continuously for a year and dreamed about being an Air Force pilot. Reality set in when I had to get glasses in order to get my driver's license. No way the Air Force was going to train a pilot that required glasses. So I became an engineer, but kept my passion for planes, trains, automobiles, and boats. Of the lost Century-series fighters, I wish to this day that the F-108 had made production.

[@keithad6485]

very funny!

[@rlsmith6904]

I am going to have to watch this one at least twice. Lot of information for a brain without area rule. Thanks Ron.

[@user-je5do6jn2f]

The F-103 was a piloted version of a supersonic cruise missile. There was no real canopy or windscreen, the pilot would've had to fly with a periscope.

[@MrFender-i5c]

TAC Attack and Fleagle - had completely forgotten those. Brings back a lot of memories. Thanks!

[@ronrogers]

Fleagle was my hero!

[@TPaine1776]

That 103 looks like a 1950's sci-fi movie spaceship to me , lol

[@vinquinn]

The F101 taking off was the loudest, noisiest airplane I have ever seen.

[@Bdub1952]

I dunno, an F4 is pretty loud! And smoky!

[@Bdub1952]

Former F111A/F avionics tech here, and I can concur on the maintenance requirements of the 'Vark particularly in the avionics arena.

[@i-love-space390]

The F-102A did have area rule. The first YF-102 did not have area rule and failed to exceed the speed of sound in level flight. However, Convair redesigned it before production and incorporated area rule in the A model, which allowed it to reach approximately mach 1.2. The F-106 was a thoroughly upgraded and refined version with a superior engine and aerodynamics which could reach mach 2.2. It was one of the only fighters of the time which could go fully supersonic with its drop tanks on board. The Six was a beast that surprised a lot of F-4 pilots with its high altitude performance and raw speed. Too bad it had such shitty missiles. If the Six had been given the sidewinder and the sparrow it would have really kicked ass. Of course, it did have the Genie, a 1.5 KT nuclear warhead on an unguided rocket, with an electronic fire control system to direct its interception and indicate the ideal time to launch the monster at incoming bombers.

[@marcleewinser8534]

Man, I do really appreciate hearing such Stories from Guys who were actually THERE. We should listen to those People more often, they have this much Experience...

[@alandaters8547]

Great video, you covered a lot of bases! Thanks for including the F 111. It could never be a "fighter" (but how long would an F 104 or F 105 last at that either). But the F 111 could have been a very daunting interceptor. It could have easily carried 6 AIM 54 Phoenix missiles (8,000 lbs) and the associated radar. As it had a max weapons payload of almost 32,000 lbs. That leaves 24,000 lbs to use for fuel, some of which could be put in a tank built to fill the bomb bay. Loaded with fuel (including some in drop tanks) the F 111 could have patrolled or pursued out long distances AND had enough fuel to really use its afterburners, if needed. With only the missiles, it might have been able to reach MACH 2 in actual combat. Likewise, the exceptional range of the Phoenix (plus up to MACH 2.5 when clean) means that it could avoid actual "fighter" situations. A couple of Aardvarks and an AWACS could have denied a lot of airspace!

[@keithad6485]

Some time ago, I did wonder what the story was with the century series missing numbers for which no mention of them anywhere.

[@DanielV42]

That was a very funny intro!

[@stanbrow]

Thank you sir. I thought I was fairly familiar with the fighters from this era. But I learned a huge amount that I did not even know I was missing from this video

[@ronrogers]

Excellent

[@davidhoffman8122]

I worked F4D 463 when I was stationed on Okinawa from 78 to 81. We called it the 5 MIG pig!!!

[@sgt_s4und3r54]

Great video and sense of humor that I've come to expect from pilots. Spent time around our ANG and my USAF JROTC instructor who piloted 106s and A-10A.

[@warped-sliderule]

The Area Rule led to more attractive looking and better performing aircraft -- double win!!! F-106 looks way better than practically the same aircraft without Area Rule (F-102). F-16 possibly last fighter with that slim "Area Rule" look, but stealth is survival from here on out.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

And the Blackburn Buccaneer...

[@Justanotherconsumer]

The power plant for this thing was definitely an oddball as there are two engines and one of them is usually dead weight. The SR-71’s engines just gave up on being more than token turbojets which is part of why they had to refuel them after takeoff. Also, I heard they experimented with alloys for the high temperatures and tried one made partially from Thorium that was radioactive. Didn’t proceed with that for obvious reasons…

[@markfergerson2145]

The Blackbird engines are indeed weird miracles of engineering that used sly tricks nobody else had thought of, they had more bypasses than your hard drinking steak eating uncle with a bad heart. Thorium alloys were great but it’s more reactive than magnesium. Powder it and it can spontaneously burn in air. That’s why nobody uses it, not the radioactivity (the most stable isotope has a half life of over 14 billion years). In those days they were playing with all sorts of weird stuff like rhenium which makes terrific strong, light, heat resistant steels but rhenium is ridiculously rare. My favorite materials factoid about the Blackbirds is the we had to buy enough titanium to build them from the USSR through shell companies so that they wouldn’t suspect what we were up to.

[@maxsmodels]

We were just talking about the century series jets on a recent livestream including the unbuilt ones.

[@donaldbadowski6048]

The F102 did have area rule. The first version didn't, and it could barely make Mach 1. That sent the designers back to the wind tunnel, and the result was the F102 came back with the area rule, Coke bottle shape,

[@timp3931]

There are videos out there showing the pilot and crew being "loaded" into a Tu-22 "Blinder" with the ejection seats lowered beneath the airplane, on rails.

[@retrieversqbd]

I watch way more than my fair share of aircraft content and you touched on my favorite “mystery” airplane. I went a long time wondering why no 103 in the century series. Then the internet became a thing and still there wasn’t a lot of neat info on it. At least not enough to satisfy my appetite. Thanks for the awesome presentation and intro. This was also the first time I’ve seen someone actually mention Cm-b. Took me back to my daze as an Aero Eng student long ago.

[@davidbaldwin1591]

I really love this video, Ron. I like the history lesson. It was presented in a way not seen by me before. Thanks!!

[@ronrogers]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@TravisMcKnight-lk7gg]

F-103 is basically a F-8 crusader or it favors it in construction . My favorite century series is the F-100 super Sabre , the first wild weasel aircraft.

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

The F-102B had the area rule coke bottle waist fuselage. This improved the speed, but it was still not a great plane, thus the F-106.

[@danielnocher6830]

My father worked at Republic Aviation and as a kid I saw the 103 mockup at family . There was an interest to me at the time was a cruise missile called the Shadow hanging up in the rafters of the main hanger. My dad worked as a flight line supervisor for the F105's and me I worked there assembling the A10's till they closed the doors.

[@AaronHarberg]

Thanks Ron, if you ever did test flight on a version of the 757, that would make another great video!

[@ronrogers]

I did a test flight on the 757-300 and will post that later.

[@AaronHarberg]

@@ronrogersI was hoping so, looking forward to it.

[@retrieversqbd]

Aw the 757. When Boeing went and made a hot rod for the skies. ❤❤❤

[@ShadesOClarity]

Nice "costume." You look like an LDO officer with the captain bars. Just replace your cover with a Marine Corps piss cutter. I dig the scarf. I wonder why the two guys washed out of their F-100 program. From what I've heard, the T-38 usually separated who was going where or they washed out in UPT because of the difficulty flying the Talon. Great video as usual. Those planes that never made it into production look pretty weird and futuristic.

[@chrissschwehr5911]

The -102 WAS built with an area rule fuselage in the second version which was accepted for production. The first prototype was built without it and couldn't break Mach 1. Fuselage was redesigned and could do about Mach 1.2 or so.

[@HootOwl513]

I like the lines of the F-103. It has that Commando Cody look. It looks like somebody sketched it on the back of a Coco's napkin, at the greasy spoon across the street from a stinkingly hush-hush aircraft plant. One of the Beatnik waitresses was collecting these nerdly doodles and fencing them to a boyfriend in the GRU. But the backlot boys at Monarch Pictures were way ahead of them, and a perfect mockup was flying for the kiddies at the Saturday matinee, albeit on wires and sparklers in it's ex/empennage. [Just Kidding.]

[@daviefingpancakes]

I know a guy who flew A-37s in Panama during Just Cause. He has a lot more good to say about it than you'd think for a guy coming from F-4s. I'm still not convinced they shouldn't have had a direct replacent before retirement. Something like that would have been solid in Afghanistan and parts of Africa these days.

[@neilturner6749]

They did have a direct replacement in the form of the A10A. Of course it took a while for them to filter down to second-line units where the A37s had been placed post-Vietnam, and AFRES was the main recipient not the ANG.

[@daviefingpancakes]

@@neilturner6749 I don't see how you could possibly think the A-10 was a direct replacement for the A-37. A Tucano or PC-9 or something to that end, sure, but not the A-10. If you're talking about the mission, sure, but I wasn't.

[@rags417]

The F-109 at 4:45 is recorded in the US Tail Numbers database as being an F-101B-115-MC Voodoo (Tail No. 09418). It may have been reclassified as an "F-109" for a brief period but the record doesn't record this.

[@parrotraiser6541]

It's interesting to compare this machine with the Avro Arrow,a Canadian design cancelled in 1959. Local political interests have spun the cancellation into all sorts of myths about how a jealous US suppressed a "world-beating" Canadian design. It was designed for Mach numbers (> 2) where heating was going to be a problem, so it had a huge refrigerator to cool the pilot. On one sortie in January, the prototype's control system ran away and almost froze the pilot.

[@peteo3436]

This video has massive Thunderbirds vibes

[@ypaulbrown]

new subscriber here, wonderful information, cheers from Florida, Paul

[@ronrogers]

Welcome aboard!

[@SEOTeamBerlin]

F-103 I've never seen, but F-104 "Widowmaker" with razorblade-wings and SS-boom 👻☠️ -cool aerodynamics infos 👍🏽

[@keithad6485]

In 1972 at a RAAF air show in Melbourne Australia, when I was a teen, an F110 came streaking over head from behind us and scared the crap out of me! errrr, I mean F4. Still remember the incredible loud noise just above my head. They were RAAF marked and on loan pending receiving F111s for bombing role. Of course these days, air shows do not allow aircraft to fly over the viewing public.

[@46bovine]

Very interesting article, Ron, thank you.

[@ronrogers]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@MikeJamesMedia]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience, made better by your relaxed presentation style. :)

[@ronrogers]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@timothyboles6457]

Interesting article, I've heard of several of those, and am aware that they weren't built or were renamed. Didn't the seat for the F103 drop down below the fuselage? Or am I thinking about something else? And the F108 evolved into the F5 Vigilante???? I've seen both XF107 prototypes, cool concept.

[@ronrogers]

The seat of the F-103 lowered for the pilot to enter, and then he was raised into the cockpit.

[@Wannes_]

The F-4 also had a windshield heating problem @ speed as the Navy found out when they set speed records with them

[@anotherdave5107]

I have a frame from a Soviet air defense bunker video. The only US A/C they were worried about being able to penetrate the Warsaw Pact in the 70/80's were B52, F-111F and FB-111A.

[@dahawk8574]

Pact, actually.

[@dickslocum]

That would be all the bombers of the time. BTW We used F4s to to penetration tests on the border regularly when air defense radar went down to see what new stuff they wou7ld bring up in an emergency

[@theshadowoftruth7561]

I'm sure a lot of the lessons learn on the F-103 were used on the SR-71. I worked on the SR-71 at Beale AFB in the late 70's. Working on Titanium is a headache.

[@S300V]

F-109 (actually XF-109) was a vertical takeoff and landing capable fighter prototype by Bell. It looked something like the F104 but with wingtip mounted engines.

[@georgew.5639]

There’s a huge difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed at high altitude. There may be few air molecules at extremely high altitude. But they’re ripping past at very high speeds.

[@donQpublic]

You can always tell an old fighter pilot, when you can’t tell em’ anything.”

[@cateclism316]

I remember Bill Gunston mentioning the 103 in one of his books!

[@burtbacarach5034]

Interesting video,looking forward to the vid on the 108!

[@ronrogers]

Coming soon!

[@mamulcahy]

Very interesting! Thanks Ron!

[@ronrogers]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@erictaylor5462]

I find it very interesting that the Soviet version of the F-111, the Sukhoi Su-24, was, to the Soviets, a bomber. Yet NATO classified it as a Fighter with the name "Fencer" There is a funny way that this airplane made history. It was the first airplane from which the first successful "zero-zero ejection" was made. But that ejection was an accident, caused by a design flaw in the plane. The story is well told on the Paper Sky channel. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJzPeISudrSipZo

[@wayneneher6362]

That is the Navy version. You can tell by the BEEFY mains.

[@huntjakep1]

Like the skit, think you're Hollywood ready Capt. 😉

[@mirdordinii5783]

If it helps any Dragonflys are incredibly successful hunters in nature.

[@pithicus52]

Whenever I see fighter pilots dogfighting with their hands I wonder how much of the fighter tactics are limited by the limited motion at can be achieved given the anatomy of the arms and shoulders.

[@AugustusTitus]

Great talk on aerodynamics!

[@ronrogers]

Thanks!

[@AlanToon-fy4hg]

The XF-103 was way ahead of its' time and was never built.

[@martinaltmann4031]

The F104 certainly had more kills, especially over here in Germany.

[@chris_hisss]

Interesting discussion. Seems like this 103 was kind of like the 101 in that it became the U-2 and was used for a long time, the 103 idea seems to have been used in a lot of ways down the line. Seems like at the AFB museum I saw some kind of missel that reminded me of that design, and that is echoed through time. Was it the X-2 that was very pointy too? Kind of weird they gave all these planes their own numbers before even having mock ups in some cases. Though in that time they were learning so much and figuring out how to do things so quickly that a lot is understandable. I would guess you have a video all about the A-37 then? I would hope so. Probably would be the best one out there. Fascinating plane. Here take my sub.

[@RocketToTheMoose]

I think that is a F-102 in the first pic...note how far forward the intakes are versus the F-106. The F-102 didn't start with an area rule fuselage, but it did eventually get one, before the 106.

[@muzmason3064]

Love your work Ron 😅

[@ronrogers]

Thank you so much 😀

[@keithmoore5306]

you forgot the periscope for the pilot to see on landing and take off!! the F-4 they should have named that the brick! they'd been better off upgrading the F-5 with radar and extending it's range than the dump truck they ended up with at least they'd had guns when they needed them! and frankly i'd take the A-37 over MacNamara's steaming pile any day!!

[@petero.7487]

Re: Whatever happened to the F-103? And the missing Century Series Fighters! Actually the F-103 was one of the several competitors in the F-102 program, which was then called WS-201. While it was well-received, the propulsion system (and probably the high-temperature metallurgy of the airframe) meant that it was seen as something that would be unlikely to be operational in a reasonably quick period of time: This is why Convair untimately won the F-102 program. The enormous performance advantage meant the USAF still kept funding the program, but it wasn't exactly the winner. The turboramjet concept was really the thing that made the aircraft shine and, in some ways, it was actually avoided having to redesign the engine with the ability to bleed off large amounts of airflow off the compressor and feed it around into the airflow path just behind the turbine: Instead it either used an afterburning J67 with an RJ55 behind it, or simply did away with the afterburner and used the RJ55 for this instead. The RJ55 was spaced from the back of the engine, which sounds strange, except when one considers the way the turboramjet design was to operate. Up to Mach 2.25 it acted similar to other afterburning jet-engines, though afterburner output was higher (and may very well have had full throttlability) with the inlet acting pretty much like any other supersonic inlet. Above that point, a pair of doors would progressively move down over the front and rear section of the engine, while the engine was throttled down and shut off. This allowed the airflow to go up and over the turbojet and into the ramjet, bypassing it. While the XF-103 was intended to have a metal-framed canopy, the USAF pushed for the flush-canopy, something which Alexander Kartveli didn't like. From what it appeared, he tried to persuade the USAF to reconsider, though he was unsuccessful in this goal, though the periscope system went from fully retractible to a system that had a small aerodynamic enclosure for the periscope (which looked like a very small cockpit), allowing it to be extended the whole time. While the idea of raising the pilot into the cockpit from the bottom was unusual, it actually wasn't new: The XP-54 Swoose Goose had such a feature as well (the pilot fell away via gravity alone, though the bottom panel would save him by flying through the propeller blades and take them out before he'd end up getting shredded by the propellers-the XP-54 was a pusher-prop). F-4/F-110 Spectre: The USAF (and USAAF before it) and the USN had entirely different designation systems. The F-4 back then was called the F4H-1. H was a manufacturer's designation code for McDonnell which had been in effect since around 1947 (ironically up to that point it had the designation -D which was also the same as Douglas). McNamara wanted to use the F4H in lieu of the F-106 as it was cheaper (if I recall, and don't quote me on this, the F-106 was somewhere between 4.5 to 5 million dollars, whereas the F4H was around 2.4 million), and the F-105 as it had more engine-power, better low-speed handling, and could carry more bombs. He got his foot in the door by getting some people in ADC aboard with the idea of flying off the F4H and F-106. Since the USAF and USN had different designations, the aircraft was given the designation F-110, though McNamara found the USN designation system confusing. He saw F4D and F4H and thought they were variants of the same design, and was very surprised they weren't. Ultimately, he implemented a tri-service aircraft designation scheme which woudl see the F4H-1 become the F-4B (as the story goes, at some point he asked for some data on the F-4B and was given information on the Boeing F4B, which was a propeller driven aircraft, to which he was unimpressed). The F-108 was a truly amazing concept: I have a bunch of information on that if you're interested.

[@ronrogers]

I would be extremely interested in what you have on the F-108 since I am planning on doing something on that later as part of the series!

[@petero.7487]

@@ronrogers, well to start out, the early ideas started out of concerns that then current interceptors couldn't make full use of SAGE. As a result, they thought that the solution would be a really long-ranged aircraft to destroy bombers before they make it to their targets. This was around 1952-53 and started out with some pretty bizarre concepts including a B-47 with dozens of missiles, and then began to become at least somewhat more sensible, calling for twin-engines, a two-man crew, speeds of around 1.4-1.9 Mach over a radius of 700-1900 nm and a combat-ceiling of 60000'. By late 1953 to early 1954, the requirements called for a radius of 1000 nm, a radar with a range of at least 100 nm, a moving target indicator to remove ground-clutter and ECCM. Performance called for 25% greater speed than the fastest enemy bomber projected with 10% superior altitude, and a variety of weapons which ranged from 270 x 2.75" FFAR (isn't that almost 5000 lb. of rockets?), to 18 x Falcon + 3 x Nuclear tipped rockets, which gave way to nuclear-tipped missiles. Out of this came three aircraft: One was called the Delta Scorpion, an F-101 offshoot called the McDonnell Model 111, as well as a twin-crew F-101 (which became the F-101B). The Delta Scorpion was supposedly a derivative of the F-89: At least, that's what they said. In practice, it had little to nothing in common. It was a tailed delta-wing design with engines mounted about 1/3 of the way down the wingspan. It had a bicycle landing-gear with out-riggers about 2/3 the way out on the wing. The Model 111 was also a completely different design, though it bears a very vague rsemblance to the F-101. By vague, I mean it had intakes on either side of the fuselage, with the tail cone behind the exhaust. It did away with the F-101's T-tail and seemed to have a cruciform layout more like the F-88 design (which was probably smart). Of these, neither met the requirements. Then there was the twin-crewed F-101 design which was designed with an expected interception radius of around 800 nm on paper: This became the XF-109 then F-101B. As I grasp it, this seemed to have been some sort of interim job, which also seemed to fill up gaps the F-102A wasn't filling up fast enough. It entered service, though the interception radius seemed a bit shorter (around 720 nm if I recall, still pretty good). Starting in October of 1955 the General Operating Requirement that gave rise to the LRIX (Long Range Interceptor eXperimental) started. It was also known as WS-202 (WS-100's were strategic bombers, WS-200's were fighter-interceptors; WS-300's seemed to comprise tactical aircraft like fighter-bombers/strike-planes) and requirements were similar: 2-man crew, at least 2-engines (which seemed to be to make room for the possibility of the B-58 interceptor idea), Mach 1.7 at 40000', service ceiling of 60000-65000', the ability to successfully engage 3 bombers per mission, a radar able to pick up a B-47 sized target 100 nm out, and the ability to operate both within and outside of SAGE. Lockheed, North American, and Northrop submitted proposals of which I only know of what the North American's initial contender looked like. For starters: It looked nothing like what the F-108 would ultimately looked like except maybe the intakes, which looked like they'd have been at home on the F-15 or MiG-25, it had canards, and wings that resembled the T-38's except maybe a little lower in aspect ratio with tip-tanks. I'm not sure what engines were intended at this stage, but I wouldn't be totally surprised if it was the J79-X-275. which were mounted next to each other in the aft fuselage. It had twin verticals and some rather respectable ventral fins as well (while I'm not sure, I wouldn't be surprised by their height that they would have almost had to be foldable). It's unclear whether the aircraft was intended to have the ability to head outbound at Mach 3 at this point or not, but it soon would. The design quickly gave way to the NA-236 which looks like how most people think of the XF-108 with delta-wings, a single all-moving vertical tail, and canards mounted atop the forward fusleage (just behind the cockpit). There were also a pair of ventral fins (one under each engine) as well as a pair of fins on either wing (both above and below - I don't know how many other aircraft have such a design) at about 60% span which all seemed aimed at keeping the plane very, very stable at its Mach 3 design speed. While I'm unsure of the armament for the earliest WS-202 design, NA-236's armament appeared to have largely settled around 3 long ranged air-to-air missiles which eventually became the GAR-9 (and post-1963, this would be the AIM-47). It would appear that, at this point (1956) the USAF down-selected to a single-contractor at this time-period, and this left only North American in the running. Though they'd cancel the aircraft that year, they'd revive it by 1957. The plane was now designated NA-257 but looked very similar. Overall dimensions were: 84.9' in lenght; 52.9' in span; wing area of 1400 square feet; weight was 48193 lb. empty and 99,400 lb. at takeoff with 7100 gallons of JP-6 (6.7 lb/gal). The aircraft was powered by a pair of J93-GE-1 which were then slated for the XB-70. The avionics complexity was out of this world: They wanted the aircraft to be as close to fully automated as possible, with minimal intervention to be needed for takeoff and landing. The head of ADC at this point, General Partridge, had kind of gotten irritated at the overcomplexity of USAF systems and pushed to have some of the autopilot functions deleted as they wouldn't be needed to accmplish the mission and would improve reliability. Pretty much everybody agreed. Starting in September of 1958, the aircraft had started to take on its final shape: The canards were deleted, the ventral fins remained though they were enlarged; by December 1958: The cranked delta wing was adopted and a slight twist was imposed to reduce drag and the J93-GE-1s were replaced with the J93-GE-3, which was enlarged and somewhat more powerful than the J93-GE-1 and had replaced it on the XB-70. Weight had steadily increased from 99,400 to 99,226 in April, to 102,534 lb. by December, with the airframe's dimensions now being 89.2 in length; 57.4 in span with an area of 1865 square feet. The engines had airframe-mounted thrust-reversers out of the idea of operating out of arctic bases in order to fill up gaps in the DEW line. The last major design change prior to the programs cancellation was in June of 1959: The smaller ventral fins under the engines were replaced with larger ones that would fold up for takeoff and down in flight. Weight had increased to 104,320 with an empty weight of 50907 lb. with 7109 gallons of JP-7 making it around twice the weight of the F-105. I think I might be able to find some additional data (I'm surprised the weight figures I was mostly able to recall off memory) but I'm oddly tired (despite it not quite even being 10:00)

[@ronrogers]

Wow, that is an amazing amount of information! Hopefully I can integrate it into my presentation!

[@petero.7487]

@@ronrogers I can include some additional stuff on the missiles it was t use and the radar if you'd like.

[@ronrogers]

Yes, that would be very nice!

[@timmeinschein]

Trans-Sonic Ballistics are "Interesting" High speed videos of bullets going from supersonic into the transonic region. You can see the bullet wobble which was for a long time why long range rifles had such big groups at range (from center of bullet to center of bullet it went from 0.25 inch (or less!) to 3.5 inc to 5 inch!!!). They've solved the issue with newer cartridges that are still supersonic at 1,000 meters (~1,094 yards)!!!

[@Name-ps9fx]

Regarding "missing" aircraft numbers...one night at work it was rather slow and then I realized "Hey! There was a B-47 and a B-52....wonder what other B-numbers were?!" So I went and checked Wiki for each one and made a note them....moat were slight or not-so-slight changes, to engines, weapons etc but all were interesting for aomeone like me, who can read anything aircraft related, even while at "work" (and gettinng paid for it! LOL)

[@richardvernon317]

The USAF counted Guided Missiles as Fighters and Bombers between 1950 and 1955. The Falcon AAM was the F-98, the Bomarc SAM was the F-99 and various Surface to Surface and AIr to Surface Missiles had B designations. The Matador, Snark and Navaho cruise missiles, the Rascal ASM and the Atlas and Titan I ICBM's all had B designations. The Thor and Jupiter IRBM's didn't as their development started after the USAF dropped the idea.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

The B-50 was even built in nontrivial numbers.

[@memonk11]

That's an F-102, not a F-106. Look at the intakes. Also, the F-102 aquired an area ruled fuselage during development.

[@warped-sliderule]

Trick question: What the heck is an F-117 -- Century-teen series? 😛 Not considered Century Series, even though technically the numbering says it is. I hate when they mess with the "numbering system" to add some kind of "contrived meaning" to a number -- e.g. out of sequence F-117 and B-21.

[@darkknight1340]

We're there any plans to build further century series aircraft between the F-111 and F-117?.

[@ronrogers]

Some of those numbers were assigned to secret aircraft.

[@cturdo]

Great intro!

[@ronrogers]

Thanks!

[@timmeinschein]

I also look for where the Intakes are for 102 .vs. 106.... IIRC". The F-`02 (& XF-92) was let down by their engine! (The 92 had to substitute an engine that it wasn't designed for since they had yet to work out the bugs). The 102 took advantage of the (still underperforming) jet engine that the 92 was designed for, and improved radar, etc. HOWEVER, neither the engine nor the radar (etc.) met the MilSpec, but it was much better than the current Interceptors (to prevent Soviet bombers from Nuking the US) currently available, including the propeller driven twin mustang! Then: Area Rule discovered, New more powerful jet engine, and better radar, fire control (missile guidance) system required a modified airframe.... I wonder how close the F-106 came to be listed as a variant of the F-102 just like the XF-109 did become a F-101 variant.........

[@johnmarshall6702]

During development, the F-106A was actually labeled as an F-102B for several years, and 17 of those were built. Some of those flew very close to Mach 2, depending on engine. The 102B went through big changes including 3 engines and a proper Hughes fire control system before settling on the J-75 (an enhanced J-57, which powered the F-100, 101 and 102A). In 1956, they changed the formal designation to F-106A to acknowledge that it was now almost an entirely new aircraft, at least as compared to the in-service F-102A. I like to think of the F-106 as a perfected F-102.

[@timmeinschein]

@@johnmarshall6702 Thanks!

[@b.griffin317]

Pilots aren't aero enough for Mach 3.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Just need the right packaging!

[@davidgubert1883]

Interesting, thanks.

[@ronrogers]

You're welcome

[@dougcastleman9518]

got the 106 confused with the 102...common mistake

[@allangibson8494]

And no-one will admit to flying an F-116 (because it’s still classified)… (The F-110 and F-113 designations are known to have been assigned to assigned to MiG’s in USAF service).

[@neilturner6749]

No I believe you’re missing the point a bit here : the numeric series was continued after the combined-services designations mandate, it was just that the first number was dropped for simplicity after F111: so YF12, 13 was not used for superstitious reasons, F14, F15, F16 and so on. F113 was used retrospectively purely to confuse outsiders.

[@allangibson8494]

@@neilturner6749 I would like to point you to the F-5… The F-110 designation was reused to add to the confusion (it was originally assigned to the Navy F4D series which became the F-4 series). The North American Navy FJ-4 became the F-1 series (the first fifteen slots are almost all navy aircraft). The Navy Vought F8U became the F-8 series. The Navy Grumman F11F series became the F-11 series. The F-12 was the fighter version of the A-12 / RS-71 (numbered in with bombers like the RS-70 Valkyrie) reconnaissance platform. They didn’t just drop the leading “1” from the century series - it was backfilled with existing fighter projects. The F-21 is the IAF Kfir C-2 used for diversity training. The F-110 was reassigned to MiG-21’s. The F-112 designation was assigned to Sukhoi Su-22’s. The F-113 designation was assigned to MiG-23’s. The F-114 designation was assigned to MiG-17’s. The F-116 designation was supposed to be assigned to a MiG-25 (unconfirmed) The F-118 designation was assigned to MiG-29’s. The Soviet & Russian aircraft all operated out of Groom Lake and the Tonopah test range with the F-117 Lockheed Nighthawk. The Nighthawk was a black project hidden in a classified training project.

[@johannbezuidenhout2976]

Yes but F-1xx between the F-111 Ardvark and F-117 Nighthawk were used for captured enemy aircraft under project Have Doughnut to hide the planes when they are named in project documents. YF-110 was a MIG-21.

[@allangibson8494]

@@johannbezuidenhout2976 And the foreign aircraft were used as cover for the F-117 that operated out of the same airbase. A classified program acting as cover for a black program. Anyone aware of the F-110 to F-118 foreign aircraft program would assume a reference to an F-117 was part of it.

[@johannbezuidenhout2976]

@@allangibson8494 Yes Have Blue and Have Doughnut used each other as cover as they both were run out of Groom Lake (Area 51). Along with OXCART and Tagboard.

[@buffdelcampo]

F-110 from the 4477th TES. Lets hear about that F-110.

[@richardvernon317]

The Navy didn't call the Phantom the F-4, they called it the F4-H1 which stood for 1st Version of the 4th Fighter Design for the US Navy by McDonnell Aircraft (that is what the H stood for). The F-110 was the next available designation in the USAF fighter designation series and that is why the USAF used it for the Phantom, they did however also originally name the aircraft the Spectre!!! Robert McNamara though this was all childish, so all designation systems were merged into a single Tri Service system in 1962. The F-111 was already in the pipeline at the time, so that was going to be the last one and the new system was going with new aircraft starting at F-1, B-1, C-1 and so on, starting with the redesignated Navy and Army Aircraft. Seeing that the Navy and Army were going to have to change they way they did things, the USAF were going to cut them some slack on some of the designations. Tri Service politics has to be like that!! The Navy mostly selected a designation that was as close to what the original designation was. Most of the paperwork could be amended by a hand written amendment until the documents could be reprinted. F-1 - NAA FJ-3 / FJ-4 Fury F-2 - McDonnell F2H Banshee F-3 - McDonnell F3H Demon F-4 - McDonnell F4H Phantom II F-5 - Northrop Freedom Fighter (First new aircraft on the scheme) F-6 - Douglas F6D Skyray YF-7 - Convair F2Y Sea Dart (they were still one on the navy books in 1962). F-8 - Vought F8U Crusader F-9 - Grumman F9F Cougar F-10 - Douglas F3D Skyknight F-11 - Grumman F11F Tiger YF-12 - Lockheed Blackbird interceptor. No F-13 - Its unlucky and we all know what the F-14 was. Navy and Army aircraft that were already in use by the USAF got their designation replaced by the USAF one. If they didn't, they were re-designated starting at 1. So A-1 Douglas Skyraidier C-1 Grumman Trader E-1 Grumman Tracker O-1 Cessna Bird Dog T-1 Lockheed SeaStar and so on. A few 1's were not used as the Navy only used aircraft in that role and they all had a 2 as the number designation or higher. F-112 through to F-116 were used by the USAF for designations for mostly captured Soviet equipment at Groom Lake.

[@ronrogers]

Very interesting! Thanks for posting!

[@richardvernon317]

@@ronrogers Thanks Ron, excellent video BTW. Nice to see a lot of good information put forward on the problems of building supersonic aircraft which a lot of books and videos miss! (mainly because the people writing or making the product really don't know what they are talking about or how serious and difficult these problems were in overcoming).

[@Wannes_]

That's how it goes ... No F-103 prototypes crashed No F-103 fighter ever crashed in service The US didn't spend a gazillion US$ on the F-103 Boooom : unsuccessful plane !

[@johnwatson3948]

Had not heard the company proposed a speed faster than Mach 3. With its high weight and underpowered engines, the GAO review that led to cancellation estimated an actual top speed of Mach 2.

[@elmertudball7671]

In the begining of your video you show 5 aircraft. I think the one above the F100 is a F102 not a F106 because the intake is near the cockpit! On a F106 the cockpit is forward of the intake!

[@keithad6485]

How do those lay flat caps keep the sun out of your eyes and keep your ears warm? no visor and no ear flaps?

[@ronrogers]

Sarcasm

[@Colonel_Overkill]

May get crucified for saying so, but cav have the best hats in the US military

[@samaguirre3283]

How you know he's a fighter pilot number one frog neck dew to the G-forces experience while in a dogfight number two body build not overly heavy but strong back muscles and upper leg muscles while arms and leg seems more normal also for naval aviators a gankly walk or stride dew from ship rock or swaying easy right, Right, RIGHT !

[@pascalcoole2725]

Hey Buck Danny, how about F-50😂 Talking about bars, I was member of a aeroclub at some time... Al those people seemed to be Concorde pilots.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

A stretched super crusader.

[@wkelly3053]

But, the Century Series comprised only the F-100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, … right? The others are either projects that never progressed beyond planning, or arrived so long after the original six that they hardly fulfill the spirit of the CS concept. As for the ‘F-110’ (F-4), it was a NAVY airplane and as such is flatly disqualified.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

McNamara wanted the services to share aircraft rather than have dedicated designs, so the F-110 was the Phantom II’s designation before they renumbered everything (notably in a way where the navy and Air Force shared a designation system).

[@wkelly3053]

@@Justanotherconsumer Yes, all true, however the Phantom was the Navy F4H exclusively for at least three years before the USAF initially (and perhaps awkwardly) called it the F-110. When the designations changed in 1962 and the F-110 became the F-4, I can imagine relief in the USAF that they would not be forced to classify the F-4 as a Century series aircraft.

[@dahawk8574]

5:49 - The Aardvark was not a disaster. It was great for the Air Force, from Vietnam through Gulf War I. It was great for the Aussies, well into the 21st century. And it would even have been great for the Navy. Contrary to what they said, carrier trials were just fine. No worse than the A-5 Vigilante. And much more capable than the A-6 Intruder. To say nothing of it being one of the sexiest looking jets of all time. It was so highly regarded when it came out that it became the only aircraft to ever have its sound carried off the planet and sent out of the Solar System. On the Voyager Golden Record. The Aardvark was an amazing flying machine. For what it was designed to be. There were right seaters who got picked up for UPT. Upon graduation, they asked to return to the left seat. Battered wife syndrome? Not if you asked them. They simply loved it.

[@pastorjerrykliner3162]

The trouble for the F-111 in the development program was that the Navy wanted it, not as an interdictor (they had the A-6 as their all weather interdictor nor as a supersonic nuclear threat like the A-5) but as an air-superiority/fleet defense fighter. Once it was freed from those expectations and could mature as an all-weather, low-level interdictor...yes. Marvelous airplane. Actually, I'm a little surprised that they never went the next step and built a successor with advanced avionics.

[@retrieversqbd]

⁠@@pastorjerrykliner3162I became interested in the 111 when my uncle gave me a picture of an EF-111. It became a favorite of mine in short order. Somewhat the redheaded step-child of aircraft but it did the job very well. When they started working on the Mission Adaptive Wing I held out hope the Aardvark would be improved for many more years of service. Sad it didn’t really turn out the way I wished. And McNamara was a dummy. Had to say it.

[@dahawk8574]

​@@pastorjerrykliner3162 The Vark DID get an advanced avionics upgrade! In the late 80s, the Mark II system got augmented with 'AMP', the Avionics Modernization Program. Dual INS, glass cockpit, state of the art for 1990. ...Just before the Air Force retired them, sending a bunch of them Down Under. I'm sure the Aussies loved the glass cockpit. Though I've never heard anyone in the RAAF speak specifically about how they liked the upgrade. These were the -G models.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

It was a great plane for other things but it failed to do what it was built to do.

[@dahawk8574]

​@@Justanotherconsumer ? It was built to do low level all weather ground attack, day or night. No one did that better than the Vark. Not even the Beagle. Which came decades later. And as a fleet defense fighter, it would have made for an excellent standoff platform for the Phoenix. Though it would have made for an extremely boring Top Gun movie, when Maverick and Ice Man got all their kills long before you ever saw who was out there with your eyeballs.

[@skidplate4150]

Main gear 15 ft behind the cg ???

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

It ensures that when on the ground the nose wheel is definitely on the ground and tail isn't. But 15ft seems a bit excessive.

[@kristensorensen2219]

🎉❤😂

[@boyvanurk9854]

🤣👍

[@evanmurphy2473]

😂

[@salvagedb2470]

Thanks for a a Refreshing in Depth view , and liked the There you are telling it rather than the Faceless Narration of other Vids.