A work in progress
The nose gear of the F-111B was very different but so was the main landing gear to a degree. As it happened, with two exceptions, the landing gear of the first three F-111Bs (BuNos 151970/71/72) was essentially identical to the landing gear on production F-111As, making the landing gear in the Hasegawa/Hobby 2000 kits usable as-is for them The two exceptions were that the nose gear on BuNo 151972 was damaged in the first of its two emergency landings and replaced with an F-111B nose-tow gear (at some point prior to its retirement, an F-111A nose landing gear was reinstalled) and the different aft main landing gear door on all seven F-111Bs.
BuNo 151972 with a nose-tow nose landing gear:
The aft main landing gear door was originally identical on the prototype F-111As and Bs. During extension and retraction it was articulated on two pairs of links so that on extension it swung down and back, remaining parallel to the bottom of the fuselage.One pair of links was attached to pivot points on the main landing gear trunnion to which all its other parts were attached, one on either side of it, just below its pivot point on the back of the wheel well. The other pair were attached on the door just outboard of the first pair and to pivot points on each side of the wheel well. When the landing gear was extended or retracted, the door was driven by the first pair of links and remained parallel to the bottom of the fuselage when extended and retracted by the second pair of links (idlers).
Note that the trunnion on the 172 Hasegawa/Hobby 2000 kits is an open frame that should be covered with a thin piece of plastic.
A montage to illustrate the shape of the links and the location of the door:
Apparently the rigging of the original aft main landing gear door was both finicky and subject to going out of adjustment, requiring a gear swing to remediate. As a result, early in F-111A production/operation, the door was simply mounted on the back side of the trunnion. This required that about six inches be removed from the back end of the door to clear the bottom of the fuselage when the landing gear was extended, so when it was retracted, there was a six inch wide opening on the bottom of the fuselage aft of the door.This is the arrangement on all the F-111 kits except for the Revell, which has a simplified version of its original articulation. All seven of the F-111Bs flew with the original door, although in production it seems likely that it would have been mounted on the trunnion as well. While no aftermarket F-111B main landing gear tires are available, the F-111 kit tires can be narrowed and reduced in diameter accordingly.
All of the F-111Bs after the first three were delivered with the Navy landing gear. The F-111B main landing gear was the same as the F-111A’s and subsequent shore-based F-111s with the exception of the tires and the aft main landing gear door. At some point, to minimize a tipback problem in service, at least BuNo 152715 was modified to move the main landing gear wheels eight inches aft.
Note that its shock strut angles forward (this is 151970 with the USAF nose gear) and ends well above the tire; the red markings on the nose wheel door were there to verify that the gear was fully extended:
The Navy nose gear had a somewhat longer (the shock strut extended down to the axle) and beefier shock strut; the retraction actuator was also much beefier and attached above the shock strut piston:
The Navy nose gear strut was mounted vertically (note the location of the wheel relative to the nose landing gear door):
Ready to launch (the trail bar would hold the airplane back at full thrust and then release at the fitting to the strut when the catapult fired, remaining on the ship for reuse):
The radar reflector was attached to the scissors so when the strut was extended in flight, it was raised to be vertical and above the right tire. Note the amber approach light, indicating to the LSO that the pilot is at the proper angle of attack.















What a maintenance nightmare! What with the complex wings, size and weight, I can see why the Navy wanted nothing to do with it. It is hard to believe that anyone would think that an airplane designed to be a medium bomber would also be a good carrier-based fighter.
ReplyDelete"The complex wings, size, and weight" weren't the reasons that the Navy "wanted nothing to do with it" because the F-14 that they replaced it with had complex wings, was about as big, and almost as heavy when configured for Fleet Air Defense with six Phoenix missiles and extra fuel, although not enough for the same time on a CAP station that the F-111B was capable of. The Tomcat was replaced with the F-18E/F Super Hornet in part because it was in fact a "maintenance nightmare", although that wasn't until it served for two decades as a carrier-based fighter. It is true that the F-111A was a medium bomber and the F-111B was basically a one-trick pony, when the Navy wanted a general-purpose fighter with the Phoenix FAD doomsday mission as an overload.
Delete