DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 5125 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 20993 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?
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.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4059 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 20973 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.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
RC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 20864 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?
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.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 5125 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20599 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?.....
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12239 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 20465 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.
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.
BigFish From United States of America, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20406 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.
Sean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 20367 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.
Duh, I didn't think of that. 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.
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.
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
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8510 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 19827 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.