Any body want to talk about the best Bomber that ever flew? Just ask the Iraq Military. 111’s for ever
[
Never heard the B-17G called “Aardvark”[:D][}:)][:D]
The B-52 “Aardvark”??? Now I’m confused…
LOL!!!
The F-111. Possibly the Best-Damn Carrier Borne heavy bomber ever! It was never used as a strategic/carpet bomber, but with it’s massive bombload and internal bombay, it could’ve been! It and the A-6E Intruder, two planes the USN needs to bring back!
Ah yes, who could forget the Avro “Aardvark” Her crews fearlessly flying her deep into Germany under cover of the night ont the historic “Dam Buster” raids
They don’t make em like that anymore! 
I thought the B-29 was called the “Superfortress” not the “Aardvark”. The B-52 was the “Stratofortress”. And the B-17G was the “Flying Fortress”. And the B-58 was the “Hustler”. Now I’m confused. [:)]
Uh-oh, looks like I instigated.[}:)] But if I didn’t some one else would’ve.[:D]
TenchiMuyo81:
The Navy never adopted the F-111. It failed carrier trials due to its excessive weight even though the Navy version was put on a diet. The navy removed and/or lightened parts almost to the point of structural failure and it was still too heavy.
Some useless historical triva: This A/C was one of Def. Sec. McNamara’s (sp?) attempt to standardize A/C between services.
P.S. this is the only A/C I know of that has the entire crew compartment to eject.
I humbly suggest that an aircraft actually make a deployment aboard a carrier before anyone can call it the best carrier-borne anything… [}:)]
This is the best joke I have seen on this site in a long time. The F-111 as the best bomber? That would put the P-39 as the best fighter of WWll.
I worked on the F-111F at Mountain Home AFB. I had been on the F-4 prior to goung to Mtn. Goat. Did you know the last F-111 built had to make an emergency landing at Mtn. Goat? With all the AF brass on base for the special event, the Acft was towed to the presentation area. I sure was glad when my next assignment took me back to the F-4.
We had to start our “Wonder Elevens” two hours prior to take off so we could fix any problem and hope they would make an on time take off. The whole aircraft was a malfunction waiting to happen. By far the worst aircraft I have ever put my hands on.
It wasn’t that great when it got in the air. Malfunctions kept it from completing a successful mision.
The airplane always had a bad reputation with aircrews and maint. personnel, and everybody else until the 1986 Libyan raids.
Condemnation aside, it’s still a nice subject. And big. Thank God for its swing wing (Well…if we’re talking about the one-eleven). Now how about ‘Spark Vark’?
I agree, not the best bomber ever. But 'tis still a sentimental fave! I’m glad that, as a modeler, I only have to worry about aesthetics and not serviceability!
Were they really THAT bad to keep flying? You read about stuff, but until you hear it from the horses mouth, you never quite believe it all.
SparkVarks are my favorite variant, I’ve got a sheme all ready to go. Just gotta find me another Academy kit one of these days. Anyone know if there’s ever been a resin or brass set for the Academy SparkVark?
Fade to Black…
Man hours per flight was the highest in the service. The acft was to be the “All Service Fighter Bomber” but the Navy didn’t want it as it was too heavy.
The “black boxes” were 50’s technoligy and could not keep up with the stresses placed on them. The acft had two computers that controled everything. The navigation system, bomb system, flight control auto pilot system and TFR was all linkled to the computers. If one system had a problem it would cause other systems to malfunction.
The engines were a constant problem. Engines blowing up in flight. Engines loosing power on take off. The afterburner was always having problems and could not be relied on at all.
That is why it was called the “Flying Edsel”. We had other names for it, not all flattering.
I’m reading all these comments and finding them very interesting. Bert Kinzey gives the Aardvaark very high praise in his book “US Aircraft & Armament of Operation Desert Storm”. I quote: “Far and away the most successful aircraft during the [Gulf] war”. [^] Maybe he was just referring to the targeting. . . [:)]
hey leave the best aircraft ever in my mind alone the vark it did what it had to do and yes it had problems but so does any other aircraft f-4,s were pigs but they did there job f-16,s have there bug,s but the vark had a love hate relationship as a former crew chief 14 years on the f models at lakenheath and d models at cannon afb nm i really loved working on them after 5 years on t-38,s its about time for a decent model from anyone out there i still have an old aurora kit any takers kevin morrison vark099@yahoo.com[:D]
Hmmm… “Love and hate” would seem to sum it up best!
I still like the Vark, neat jet. Berny, did you ever happen to get a look at a Spark Vark? And can anyone push me in the right direction for some really good PRINTED reference on the EF-111?
Fade to Black…
AH yes the big bad as bomber built by General Dynamics which airframe was used by the EF-111 Ravens because of its battlefield survivability. The best thing about the F-111, when pilots have to eject they eject in a pod which can float. Has any AIRCRAFT company copied this? The answer is NO, this is one of the reason the aircraft became expensive. Pilots need not have to feel the pain of ejecting and suffer neck or back injuriesTo date I think there are only TWO countries which used this the US and Australia. Unfortunately they have been or being retired from service. Their last combat duty was during the 1st Gulf War including with the F-4s (USAF), A-6 (USN), F-8 (USN and FN) which are also retired as of the present. They were love and will be missed by the crew and pilots.
There’s an F-111A escape pod in Moscow, a gift from their Vietnamese friends…
The EF-111 was low time A models that were rebuilt. It wasn’t hard to find low time air frames for the modifications as most A’s spent most of their service life grounded for numerious reasons.
The problem with the F-111 was it was rushed into service before all the bugs were worked out. It was being pushed on the AF by DOD. Still through all the models built, the F being the last, it still had bugs.
As for the F-4 being a pig, I don’t think so. All aircraft have problems. I was a crew chief on an E during Linebacker. My aircraft flew 21 straight Code One missions. When it did break it was flown by Steve Ritchie and he wrote up everything but the paint job. The next day it got its first of two Mig kills during the deployment. We were flying our jets on 3 & 4 hour missions, two missions a day, six or seven days a week. You can’t get a "Wonder Eleven to do that. If you are lucky you might get four missions a week out of one.
The EF-111 did a better job then the regular bombers. The equipment was well proven by the EA-6.
There is an old Crew Chief saying. “Don’t call an aircraft a pig unless you have your blood on it”. Well I have some blood on the F-111 so I am justified in calling it a “PIG”.
Well, I’ve always liked the look of the Aardvark.
As for all the bad comments here, I can’t argue with someone who has worked with it, but it must be remembered that the F-111 was a pioneering aircraft so bugs could be expected. The first mass produced variable geometry aircraft and very advanced avionics for the time in which it was introduced to service.
Read far enough back in the Vark’s history and it had significant teething problems in its development before it ever hit unit service. The Australians had to lease 27 F-4Es for three years due to problems and setbacks in the F-111C’s development. The F-111K order was cancelled by the RAF due to problems (shame, I would have like to see what domestic technology the Brits would outfit her with, RR Olympus engines perhaps…)
A lot of the developmental problems were in conjunction with the new technologies being brought forth in the bird, a lot of those technologies were the first generation of whatever they were and so problems would certainly work their way to the surface.
As for variable geometry itself, from all I’ve read its one of those things thats easier said than done. The Russians had similar developmental problems with the MiG-23 and I understand that such problems also had a lot to do with the demise of the Mirage G.8.
Call it a pig if you will, it flew in the face of conventional aviation design thinking at the time of its inception and for that and it s being able to soldier on fo 20+ years inspite of being dogged by the ghosts of its early development bugs, it does deserve a bit of respect.
Awesome looking bird if nothing else!