Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Killed The F-20 Tigershark?  
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4938 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 19779 times:

I'm intrigued as to the reasons why the Northrop Grumman F-20 Tigershark did not progress. I also had read that Taiwan was interested in it, but potential sale to them was not allowed. Could an order from Taiwan have started production and export to other air forces? Are there any surviving prototypes?


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 19790 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
I'm intrigued as to the reasons why the Northrop Grumman F-20 Tigershark did not progress.

Simple answer: The F-16.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19775 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
Simple answer: The F-16

And more specificly the US Goverment's willingness to allow it to be sold to countries that armed through the MAP program. These countries where buyers of the older F-5 and the F-20 would have been a good follow-on, but these countries wanted more sophisticated aircraft, and the US was willing too send over F-16's.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3997 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19759 times:

According to Air International writer Roy Braybrook the F-20's wing should have been enlarged - it couldn't take advantage of its engine power when turning hard. He also says the 'kiss-of-death designation' F-5G was retained for far too long.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19702 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
What Killed The F-20 Tigershark?

Three words:

politics, politics, politics.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
Simple answer: The F-16.

In some areas, the Tigershark outperformed the Falcon.


User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 19650 times:

The fact that the USAF didn't intend to acquire it also dampened interest from overseas. I imagine it would have made quite an adversary aircraft for the USAF and Navy. Weren't two of the three built lost, with some suspicion that it could pull too many Gs for the pilots?

User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 19585 times:

Quoting RC135U (Reply 5):
Weren't two of the three built lost, with some suspicion that it could pull too many Gs for the pilots?

I think you're right.

Taken from this site....

Quote:
Four Tigershark aircraft were started by Northrop at their own expense. The first two were used extensively to fly demonstrations for potential customers. Both aircraft were lost in crashes, one in Korea, the other in Canada. Both accidents were pilot error related to the aircraft being able to outperform the humans who fly them. The third aircraft was set up much more closely to the final production configuration. It was used extensively in testing. It survives today in a California museum. The fourth airframe was never completed.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19385 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
the F-20 would have been a good follow-on, but these countries wanted more sophisticated aircraft, and the US was willing too send over F-16's.

So, those countries not needing the sophistication for basic air defense, but just something to maintain pilot and ground support crew proficiency and skills, could have gotten a cheaper jet fighter in the Tigershark?.....

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 4):
In some areas, the Tigershark outperformed the Falcon.



Quoting RC135U (Reply 5):
it would have made quite an adversary aircraft for the USAF and Navy



Quoting RC135U (Reply 5):
it could pull too many Gs for the pilots

That still boasted impressive perfomance in some areas of its flight envelope.

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 6):
It survives today in a California museum.

Do you happen to know which museum? Thanks.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19375 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 7):
Do you happen to know which museum?

It's in the California Science Center.



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineRomeoKC10FE From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19298 times:

I believe Chuck Yeager did a lot of the flying in the F-20.

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9537 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19284 times:

Quoting RomeoKC10FE (Reply 9):
I believe Chuck Yeager did a lot of the flying in the F-20.

You may be right but I thought it was the F-5 he raved about. Damn - now I'll need to re-read his book.  Smile


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19251 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 6):
Four Tigershark aircraft were started by Northrop at their own expense.

The death of the F-20A Tigershark was simply because it was a company sponsered venture. Northrop did not have any active or retired USAF general Officer running the program, so the USAF saw the program never went anywhere.

The F-20A was the best fighter the USAF or USN never bought.


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 19197 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 10):
I believe Chuck Yeager did a lot of the flying in the F-20.

You may be right but I thought it was the F-5 he raved about. Damn - now I'll need to re-read his book.

It's true. In fact, I remember Chuck Yeager was quoted as saying the F-20 Tigershark was the best jet fighter he had ever flown.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The F-20A was the best fighter the USAF or USN never bought.

 checkmark  It's a shame that a pair of F-20's could not have been stationed in each state pre 9/11. With it's reaction time from cold start to FL300 at around one minute, maybe the outcome could have been different.


User currently offlineBigFish From United States of America, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19192 times:

Quote:
It's a shame that a pair of F-20's could not have been stationed in each state pre 9/11. With it's reaction time from cold start to FL300 at around one minute, maybe the outcome could have been different.

You may want to re-read those numbers. There is one aircraft that can get to FL300 in one minute and it's called the Space Shuttle. Aside from that, it wouldn't have mattered if we had a whole squadron flying over New York on Sept. 11th. Nobody knew exactly what was going on, and who was talking to who. The many headed snake wasn't talking to each other.
We got caught with our pants down around our ankles and strained our backs bending over to try to pull them up. That is how we sum up September 11th.


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19167 times:

Quoting BigFish (Reply 13):
You may want to re-read those numbers. There is one aircraft that can get to FL300 in one minute and it's called the Space Shuttle.

I suggest you do the same. The max climb rate of the F-20 is in access of well over 50,000 ft per minute. F-20 Specifications I agree with the rest of your post, I was just in the "what if" zone.

[Edited 2006-02-28 17:44:33]

User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19153 times:

That is the RATE of climb at SEA LEVEL. Assuming it is 50,000 ft/min, it might be down 49,000ft/min at 1000 ft, etc., lowering with increase in altitude. 50,000ft/min does not mean it will get to 50,000 from the ground in 1 min.

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9537 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19145 times:

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 12):
Chuck Yeager was quoted as saying the F-20 Tigershark was the best jet fighter he had ever flown

I'll take your word for it. I've lent the book to someone, anyway. Now, if I can just remember who I lent it to.  Smile


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19132 times:

Quoting Sean1234 (Reply 15):

Duh, I didn't think of that.  footinmouth  I do recall that Northrop touted the fact that the F-20 could go from a cold start to combat level in a minute. ( FL300 I think ) But I think that this time was started from on the runway itself. Still impressive though.


User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19073 times:

Quoting Sean1234 (Reply 15):

Airplane manufacturers are fond of quoting instantaneous performance figures since they sound more impressive, in the same way that car manufacturers quote peak horsepower even though it's only available at 7500 RPM.
That being said, I don't doubt that the F-20 had a very high climb rate to FL300. As for lack of orders, I would attribute that to short range & lack of payload in addition to what's already been mentioned. As a point defense fighter though, it really would've excelled.



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19052 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 3):
the F-20's wing should have been enlarged - it couldn't take advantage of its engine power



Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 18):
I would attribute that to short range & lack of payload



Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 6):
The third aircraft was set up much more closely to the final production configuration.

Did the final configuration not address the above shortcomings?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19043 times:

Man, I should have checked my own link I posted better. It gives the times!

Scramble order to 29,000 ft took 2.5 minutes.

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 18):
As for lack of orders, I would attribute that to short range & lack of payload in addition to what's already been mentioned.

It could carry over 4 tons of armament on five pylons.


User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 18899 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 19):



Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 20):

I stand corrected, I guess I should've done a little more homework with this internet thingy. I knew they had fired the AIM-7 in tests, but was unaware that the payload was that high.
I also didn't know that one of the crashes occured at CFB Goose Bay. Here is a copy of the report from the Canadian Aviation Safety Board (predeccessor of the Canadian TSB) http://members.aon.at/mwade/f20crash.htm



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18714 times:

Rest In Peace.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Reppucci




"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18612 times:

According to Air & Space, which did an excellent article on the F-20 a while back, foreign governments wanted to buy what the USAF operated, which was the F-16. When it became available, even though the F-20 was cheaper and in some ways superior, they bought F-16s.

User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18568 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 6):

I always thought it was a great looking aircraft with good potential. Thanks for the information on the airframes. Nice to know there is one that survives.



One Nation Under God
25 DEVILFISH : The F-16 was available long before the F-20. Whatever inherent cost and performance advantage the F-20 had over the F-16 was negated when the U.S. di
26 MD-90 : Not for unrestricted sale to foreign governments, it wasn't. That didn't happen until the F-20 was in development. The other points that you make are
27 L-188 : The F-16 was really the first airplane that was offered under MAP that was also being used in the front line by the USAF. Most other times either the
28 neutrino : That's right. Because the peanut farmer did not give the green light for the standard F-16, Singapore had to evaluate both the F-20 and the F-16/J-79
29 Max Q : Love the Tigershark, It was the epitome of the ultimate lightweight fighter. Simple as that.
30 trex8 : F104?? Actually was MAP even still around in the late 70s?? Interestingly at the turn of the century AIDC offered the ROCAF a F5E upgrade with a new
31 Post contains images F27Friendship : Didn't we have this discussion like a million times already? I even remember posting a graph once that compared F-20 with F-16 but I can't find it any
32 checksixx : A reply 7 years later...this thread can't die, like the F-20 can't die! LoL
33 neutrino : Stillborn/aborted fighters don't die, they live on in the memories of enthusiasts....
34 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Two days too early..... .....a great line for April 1st..... . http://www.airpowerworld.info/jet-fi...lanes/northrop-f-20-tigershark.jpg The PAF orde
35 SCAT15F : For the Air Defense role. the F-20 was superior to the F-16, no question about it. The production version with the electro-hydraulic flap actuators wo
36 solarflyer22 : Quite true. I have flown the F-20 in simulation and its very impressive. Its basically as good as the F-16 but faster and with more electronics. This
37 Max Q : Faster than the F16 and the Tornado ? Thats very quick, how fast was it ?
38 GDB : The Tornado GR.4 and the original GR.1, were not designed to be 'fast and dangerous in the air', it was designed and successfully did/still does, str
39 L-188 : Ro follow up on GDB thise marjs are really ibtended to be attack aircraft. More apt comparison aircraft woukd be the A-7, Mig-27, SU-22. I woukd even
40 Max Q : Actually I think the Tornado, especially the ADV version was one of the fastest fighters ever at low altitude. I have seen a photo on another site of
41 ThePointblank : It should be noted that the F-16 grew due to a number of added requirements and for growth potential; the F-16's nose area grew compared to the YF-16
42 Confuscius : A Fighting Falcon.
43 Post contains images Devilfish : The first reply beat you to it by 7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days and 15 hours... ... .....albeit, if in a slightly different term.
44 Post contains images neutrino : Sus na lang! Why must you be so pedantic.
45 spudh : I think the official closed circuit record is held by an F104 but that doesn't mean the others are not faster. IIRC the F111 had a max low level spee
46 Post contains links and images Devilfish : It's just a game Padi and I play. But seriously...if the Tigershark were available now with the F414 engine..... . http://files.gereports.com/wp-cont
47 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : I would argue that the F-16 Block 60 with the GE engines is an incredible aircraft: Nothing accelerates like a F-16 with the GE engine, except for the
48 SCAT15F : The YF-16 with the Pratt would out accelerate the Block 60, which due to massive weight growth, weighs 19,600 lbs empty. F-20 with the F414 EPE would
49 ThePointblank : The F-16's powered by the GE F110 is generally accepted as being the better accelerator, because the the F110 engine has more thrust. The GE F110 eng
50 Ozair : Unless you include aesthetics within the definition and then it fails miserably....
51 Max Q : Sorry, no such thing as an ugly F16 !
52 Post contains links and images Confuscius : Do I make the Guinness World Record? With the conformal tanks it reminds me of a GMC SUV with things sticking out its side.
53 trex8 : A block 20 F16A at altitude can out accelerate a block 50 with any engine as the higher thrust(at sea level TO) GE or pratt -229 is not actually prod
54 ThePointblank : The biggest reason is that the Block 20's are piloted by Taiwanese pilots and their instructors, and for the longest time, the Taiwanese F-16's had a
55 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Still have to run that through the screening committee . Back to our 'conceptually modernized' F-20...the only thing lacking now is this..... http://
56 Post contains images neutrino : Maybe not Guinness but in high probability the A.net Record. If so, its with a little help from yours truly
57 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Found some that are a little behind the times..... http://air.blastmagazine.com/files/2012/06/F-20_cockpit_mock-up.jpg http://air.blastmagazine.com/fi
58 avnut43 : The Tigershark would have made a good T-38 replacement.
59 HaveBlue : If talented instructors in A-4's and F-5's could run circles around and out kill F-14's... I'm quite certain those same instructors in F-20's would h
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What Killed The F-20 Tigershark?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is The Latest On Rutan's Space Ship 2? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 02:08:36 by CTR
What Is The Deadliest Russian Fighter? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 06:10:51 by ThirtyEcho
What Is The Loudest Jet To Get Lunch Off A Carrier posted Wed Jul 26 2006 20:58:56 by 747400sp
What Took The F-22 So Long To Enter Service? posted Sun Jul 23 2006 20:47:25 by Afrikaskyes
What Is The A400M Airlifter? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 16:57:38 by Mlglaw
What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 01:09:56 by 747400sp
What Replaces The S-3? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 22:54:57 by Cancidas
What Replaces The F-5 Freedom Fighter? posted Mon Apr 10 2006 22:16:18 by Art
F-20 Tigershark posted Thu Apr 6 2006 03:15:23 by Checksixx
What Is The Power Output Of A Super Nova? posted Thu Jan 12 2006 22:50:48 by Lehpron

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format