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, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 17662 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, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 17672 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, 29706 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 17656 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, 3884 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 17637 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 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 17584 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 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17532 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 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17467 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, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17266 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, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17257 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 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17180 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, 9487 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17166 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, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 17129 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 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17077 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 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17071 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 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17048 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 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17033 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, 9487 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17027 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 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 17013 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 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 16955 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, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16935 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 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 16924 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 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 16781 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, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 16596 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, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 16493 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 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 16451 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
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16879 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
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.



Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
but these countries wanted more sophisticated aircraft, and the US was willing too send over F-16's.



Quoting RC135U (Reply 5):
The fact that the USAF didn't intend to acquire it also dampened interest from overseas.



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 23):
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.

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. didn't buy the Tigershark, as the huge development costs could not then be spread among a hoped for U.S. order, (which could have started production) preventing unit cost to be lowered, plus there'd be no assured after sale spares and service support. And not placing it in the MAP meant that favorable rates and conditions associated with the program could not be availed of by interested countries, further limiting the market base and causing it to die a natural death.

[Edited 2006-03-09 23:34:51]

[Edited 2006-03-09 23:42:59]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 26, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16709 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 25):
The F-16 was available long before the F-20.

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 very valid as well.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29706 posts, RR: 59
Reply 27, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 17041 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 25):
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. didn't buy the Tigershark,

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 US used obsolecent types such as the F-86, F-100 after they had been replaced in US service or they sold an aircraft that was not in widespread US service-the F-5.

That only changed after Reagan entered office.

If fact GD did fly a dumbed down F-16 prototype that was powered by an older J-79 engine. This was because of concerns over the engine technology going to MAP countries.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13015 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 26):

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 25):
The F-16 was available long before the F-20.

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 very valid as well.
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 26):
If fact GD did fly a dumbed down F-16 prototype that was powered by an older J-79 engine. This was because of concerns over the engine technology going to MAP countries.

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 with the latter emerging the Winner. Luckily, soon with Reagan in power, the ban was liftrd and Singapore reverted to its preferred choice: the F-16A/Bs.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4087 posts, RR: 19
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12945 times:

Love the Tigershark,


It was the epitome of the ultimate lightweight fighter.


Simple as that.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4497 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12632 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 27):
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.

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 radar, the GD53 from the IDF (which was in turn really a variant of the F20s APG67) and a single engine. ie a F20!!


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12577 times:

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 anymore...


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12356 times:

A reply 7 years later...this thread can't die, like the F-20 can't die! LoL

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 12162 times:

Stillborn/aborted fighters don't die, they live on in the memories of enthusiasts....


Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11818 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 32):
A reply 7 years later...this thread can't die, like the F-20 can't die! LoL

Two days too early.....

Quoting neutrino (Reply 33):
Stillborn/aborted fighters don't die, they live on in the memories of enthusiasts....

.....a great line for April 1st.....   .


http://www.airpowerworld.info/jet-fighter-planes/northrop-f-20-tigershark.jpg
http://www.airpowerworld.info/jet-fi...lanes/northrop-f-20-tigershark.jpg

The PAF ordering two squadrons would've been a fantastic gag if it wasn't too incredible!   



[Edited 2013-04-01 19:58:00]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11812 times:

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 would have been superior to the F-16 in turn rate and undeniably quicker on the draw.

This was always about the money, not the best aircraft for the job.

Merging Air Defense Command (ADC) into TAC was the beginning of the end. Pathetic.

Merging TAC into Air Combat Command is even more pathetic.

Basically its all an excuse for a totally offensive oriented Air Force. The defensive portion of the military--the whole purpose for the US military in the first place--accounts for maybe 5% of expenditures. Extremely pathetic.


User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 822 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 10460 times:

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

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 plane was intended mostly for export and was really an excellent craft. Its a shame USAF did not dump some f-16s and order F-20s. When Gulf I hit, this would have been an ideal plane and I am sure there are some NATO members that would have loved to have it. It was considerably faster and more dangerous in the air than a Tornado GR4 of the era.

I do think part of the technology in the F-20 went to live on in the X-29.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4087 posts, RR: 19
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 10377 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 36):

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 plane was intended mostly for export and was really an excellent craft. Its a shame USAF did not dump some f-16s and order F-20s. When Gulf I hit, this would have been an ideal plane and I am sure there are some NATO members that would have loved to have it. It was considerably faster and more dangerous in the air than a Tornado GR4 of the era.

I do think part of the technology in the F-20 went to live on in the X-29.

Faster than the F16 and the Tornado ?


Thats very quick, how fast was it ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13047 posts, RR: 78
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9997 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 36):
It was considerably faster and more dangerous in the air than a Tornado GR4 of the era.

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, strike/attack/recon missions. The GR.4 having updated avionics and the ability to carry systems like the Brimstone anti armour missile, the Storm Shadow long range stand off missile and the Raptor sensor/recce pod.

It's just not a lightweight fighter.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29706 posts, RR: 59
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 9889 times:

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 call the F.2 or F.3 Tornados, the are much more old school interceptors.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4087 posts, RR: 19
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 9848 times:

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 an ADV at low altitude indicating over 900 Knots.


Those swing wing fighters and attack aircraft like the Tornado F14 and F111 were very, very fast down low and at altitude for that matter.


Always wondered which would be fastest down low out of the old B1A,F14, F111 and the Tornado.
An interesting match to be sure !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9758 times:

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 as they wanted a bigger radar and more avionics. The F-20 was already at its limits with growth, while the F-16, as demonstrated today, had a lot more room to add new capabilities and systems.

For the simple-point defence role, the F-20 was better than the F-16. However, I don't think it would have held up to the multi-mission taskings that have been taken on by the F-16, or at least not have done them as well.


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3825 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9753 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
What Killed The...Tigershark?

A Fighting Falcon.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9647 times:

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 42):
A Fighting Falcon.

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.  



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9626 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 43):
7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days and 15 hours...
Sus na lang! Why must you be so pedantic.  



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9524 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 40):
fastest down low out of B1A , F14, F111 and the Tornado

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 speed of Mach 1.3, F14A (B/D may have been higher) and Tornado M1.2. Don't know about B1 but I doubt it was faster than the F111 although I think its engines were specifically designed for high speed at low level so it may have a higher sustained speed than the others.

Legend has it that during exercises with US Forces the Aussie F111's were uncatchable until the F14B/D came on line with the GE engines from the B1

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):
The F-20 was already at its limit with growth

I think that was the nub of the issue for any potential US sales. It was still an awesome fighter, one of my all time favorites, you'd think a fleet of 30 or so would have made for an incredible aggressor squadron capable of giving any of the teen fighters a real hard time.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9509 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 44):
Sus na lang! Why must you be so pedantic.

   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-content/uploads/2010/10/jet-engine1.jpg


.....and Northrop Grumman could further scale its SABR aesa radar to fit the F-20.....

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Photos/pgM_SC-10151_005.jpg
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Photos/pgM_SC-10151_005.jpg

.....and update its avionics...then the PAF could kiss their Geagle or Gripen dreams goodbye    .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JZnrtB9rRT8


Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 35):
For the Air Defense role.

        

[Edited 2013-04-16 16:27:28]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9487 times:

I would argue that the F-16 Block 60 with the GE engines is an incredible aircraft:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/F-16e_block60.jpg

Nothing accelerates like a F-16 with the GE engine, except for the F-22.

Quoting spudh (Reply 45):
I think that was the nub of the issue for any potential US sales. .

Indeed, look at what they managed to get out of the F-16 with the various versions, up to and including the Block 60's. A very potent multirole fighter. And the F-16 will still be a front line fighter for nations without access to 5th gen fighters for years to come.


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9477 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 47):
Nothing accelerates like a F-16 with the GE engine, except for the F-22.

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 out-accelerate the F-22 by a significant margin. 12,500 lb empty weight and 26,500 lbs thrust


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9464 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 48):
The YF-16 with the Pratt would out accelerate the Block 60, which due to massive weight growth, weighs 19,600 lbs empty.

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 engine as fitted to the F-16 pumps out 5,000lb more thrust than the PW F100, which in turn means that the engine needs more air.

This in turn required that the area of the air intake be increased, and starting with the Block 30, F-16's fitted with the GE F110 engine have a bigger air intake known as the modular common air intake duct. F-16's with the PW F100 engine continued to use the smaller air duct, known as the normal shock inlet, as the F100 engine could not use the extra air provided by the modular common air intake duct.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 792 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9437 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 47):
I would argue that the F-16 Block 60 with the GE engines is an incredible aircraft:

Unless you include aesthetics within the definition and then it fails miserably....


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4087 posts, RR: 19
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9388 times:

Sorry, no such thing as an ugly F16 !


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3825 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9307 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 43):

Do I make the Guinness World Record?  
Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):
Unless you include aesthetics within the definition and then it fails miserably....

With the conformal tanks it reminds me of a GMC SUV with things sticking out its side.

http://www.spare-wheel.com/files/media/Active-noise-tehnology-GMC-Terrain3.jpg



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4497 posts, RR: 14
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
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 engine as fitted to the F-16 pumps out 5,000lb more thrust than the PW F100, which in turn means that the engine needs more air.

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 producing that much more thrust and the block 20 is a lot lighter. This was one of many reasons why the block 20s at Luke regularly thrashed block 40/50s in exercises.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9208 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 53):
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 producing that much more thrust and the block 20 is a lot lighter. This was one of many reasons why the block 20s at Luke regularly thrashed block 40/50s in exercises.

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 better computer and avionics set in their aircraft, up until the CCIP upgrades for the USAF Viper fleet.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9125 times:

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 52):
Do I make the Guinness World Record?

Still have to run that through the screening committee   .


Back to our 'conceptually modernized' F-20...the only thing lacking now is this.....

http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LITENING-Pod.jpg
http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-c...t/uploads/2012/11/LITENING-Pod.jpg

...much better if they could have the kit built-in...though I wonder if all these modifications wouldn't displace the guns?    ...

Coupled with a new mission computer and the latest weapons that could be integrated...our 'souped-up' F-20NG is ready to kick serious butt...    .

Of course, the 'pilots' have to be trained well first    .

Lastly, all Northrop Grumman has to come up with is a CGI video of the Tigershark going against a gaggle of 'baddies'...then we're done!   

Now, who said the F-20 was at the end of its development?   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9066 times:

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 52):
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 43):

Do I make the Guinness World Record?  

Maybe not Guinness but in high probability the A.net Record.
If so, its with a little help from yours truly      



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9031 times:

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/files/2012/06/F-20_cockpit_mock-up.jpg

http://air.blastmagazine.com/files/2012/06/F-20_Agressor.jpg
http://air.blastmagazine.com/files/2012/06/F-20_Agressor.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FD_EufwRdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6BDgQwlfHII


Enjoy!   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineavnut43 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8574 times:

The Tigershark would have made a good T-38 replacement.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 hours ago) and read 8439 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 45):
you'd think a fleet of 30 or so would have made for an incredible aggressor squadron capable of giving any of the teen fighters a real hard time.

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 have just decimated them.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
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