• Review: F-111 Aardvark By Just Flight

    by
    Nels_Anderson
    Published on 11-30-2012 04:37 PM
    15 Comments
    Pages: Review: F-111 Aardvark By Just Flight  Next

    Review: F-111 Aardvark By Just Flight

    By Bill Stack

    F-111 by Just Flight
    F-111 by Just Flight F-111 by Just Flight F-111 by Just Flight

    Screen shots by Just Flight

    The F-111 Aardvark was a tactical military fighter that served many roles from the 1960s through the 1990s. Its primary role was interdictor, which operates behind enemy lines to disrupt, delay, or destroy enemy forces or supplies to prevent them from harming friendly forces in battle. Various versions provided strategic bombing, aerial reconnaissance, and electronic warfare services. Several new technologies that are now commonplace were deployed with F-111s, such as variable-sweep wings, afterburning turbofan engines, and terrain-following radar. It was flown by the United States Air Force, the U.S. Navy, and the Royal Australian Air Force. Its final operator was the RAAF, which retired its F-111s in 2010.

    A 1965 pop-art painting of an F-111 Aardvark by James Rosenquist hangs in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Sounds of an F-111 are recorded on the Voyager Golden Record that went into deep space with the famous Voyager spacecraft launched in 1977.

    The F-111 Aardvark is unlike any stock FSX aircraft, so I can give only a generalized comparison: It's longer than a Learjet 45 (73 feet versus 58 feet) but not as long as a Bombardier Regional Jet 700 (106 feet). It's about one-third heavier than a CRJ-700 (100,000 LBS versus 72,500 LBS), and more than three times faster than the CRJ-700 (1,650 MPH versus 515 MPH ).

    Aircraft Specifications
    Specification F-111
    Occupants 2
    Maximum Take-off Weight 100,000 LBS
    45,300 KG
    Empty Weight 47,200 LBS
    21,400 KG
    Useful Load 52,800
    23,950 KG
    Fuel Capacity 7,620 USG
    28,842 L
    Maximum Speed 2 Mach 2.5
    1,650 MPH
    2,655 KPH
    Cruising Speed 3 KTS
    685 MPH
    110 KPH
    Ceiling 2 66,000 FT
    20,100 M
    Range 2 432 NM
    800 KM
    Length 73.5 FT
    22.4 M
    Wing Span 63 FT, 19.2 M, spread
    32 FT, 9.75 M, swept
    Power 17,000 LBS, dry thrust
    25,100 LBS, afterburner
    Sources: Just Flight unless otherwise noted, 2) Wikipedia, 3) USAF Museum
      Next
    Pages: Review: F-111 Aardvark By Just Flight  Next
    15 Comments
    1. hangar32's Avatar
      hangar32 - 12-01-2012, 10:59 AM
      Regarding "and further reducing power to "on-speed indication," which it doesn't specify." - I think they mean for you to shift your attention to the Angle of Attack (AOA) indicator and reduce power (and adjust AOA) until you get the O indication - at least that's the way I understood it and seems to work.

      R/ WCK
    1. normac's Avatar
      normac - 12-01-2012, 02:23 PM
      Please explain the relevance of any comparison with randomly chosen civilian jets. It may only take a few lines, but it leads me to question the value of the rest of the review.
    1. Treetop193's Avatar
      Treetop193 - 12-01-2012, 06:48 PM
      Since when has the Voyager probes have reason to become "infamous"? You mean "famous". Open a dictionary if you don't know the difference. Also, as normac pointed out, what was the point of comparing the F-111 to default FSX civilian jets?

      This review is typical Bill Stack fare. Overly simplistic, soulless writing. Occasional misuse of vocabulary and terms. Frequent and redundant references to irrelevant, pointless, minor, and/or obvious details. Glossing over, getting wrong, or outright ignoring more important, relevant, and in-depth details. Why does Flightsim.com allow this man to continue writing material about important products from prominent developers?

      Makes one long for the days of Andrew Herd...
    1. Cromwell's Avatar
      Cromwell - 12-02-2012, 12:31 AM
      Interestingly , have now read through three seperate reviews on this product and have picked up different points of interest from each based on the various reviewers' writing
      style. Nothing is perfect, but if suspect that perfection can be pretty dull indeed. So a
      " tip of the old flying helmet" to you Mr Stark, for taking the time and putting in the effort
      on our behalf. Thanks..Fly High..Punch Holes in the Sky !
    1. hangar32's Avatar
      hangar32 - 12-02-2012, 11:44 AM
      Voyager is "Infamous" because it went through a worm hole and hooked up with some artificial intelligence and came back and almost destroyed the Earth in Star Trek the Motion Picture.
    1. hangar32's Avatar
      hangar32 - 12-02-2012, 12:04 PM
      . . . and correct me if I'm wrong, but this site is free, supported by advertising and the folks that purchase a First Class Membership (sadly I let mine lapse - my bad) - I think the folks that provide articles and reviews do it on their own dime and time. IMHO, I can easily deal with a typo or two and a review that isn't as crisp as one would find in PC Aviator (which a pay a pretty penny is subscription fees . . . and still occasionally find a typo). As for "soulless writing" Really? Seriously? This is a review of a piece of software--essentially a critique of bunch of 1's and 0's--not exactly "War & Piece" material to begin with.

      I think the reviews are just fine - having already purchased this product I generally agreed with the critique. Had I not already had the F-111 this would have helped me decide on a purchase...typos and all . . . which is the whole point to begin with.

      If anything Mr. Herd, I could do without the comment section - the forums suit me well enough. In any event, this is my favorite FS site bar none.
    1. David Zaleski's Avatar
      David Zaleski - 12-03-2012, 12:04 AM
      With the new format for flightsim.com, I find this comment section totally unnecessary. It serves no purpose except to attract all the butt heads that hang around the forums posting crap just so they can read their own post.

      Many of the writers and long time members who through the years have provided some excellent incite into a new product, Op ED's and the like don't need to read the critique by a bunch of wacko's who probably wouldn't spend a dime on a product and provide their own review.

      I read some of the comments made throughout the features page and for the most part it is the same cranks. You people need to get a life and return to the kiddy forums as most of us long time members find your antics less than amusing, particularly you English scholars or alleged scholars. Butt out, chill and go find another hobby.
    1. Nels_Anderson's Avatar
      Nels_Anderson - 12-03-2012, 06:28 PM
      Anyone who feels they can do a better job is welcome to apply as a reviewer. I would truly love to have more qualified reviewers writing for us as there are so many flightsim products that we never get around to reviewing.
    1. brian00's Avatar
      brian00 - 12-04-2012, 04:59 PM
      Thanks for the review!
    1. Keith100's Avatar
      Keith100 - 12-05-2012, 11:29 PM
      All I wanted to know is whether you liked it or not.
      Thanks
    1. normac's Avatar
      normac - 12-07-2012, 02:58 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by David Zaleski View Post
      With the new format for flightsim.com, I find this comment section totally unnecessary. It serves no purpose except to attract all the butt heads that hang around the forums posting crap just so they can read their own post.

      Many of the writers and long time members who through the years have provided some excellent incite into a new product, Op ED's and the like don't need to read the critique by a bunch of wacko's who probably wouldn't spend a dime on a product and provide their own review.

      I read some of the comments made throughout the features page and for the most part it is the same cranks. You people need to get a life and return to the kiddy forums as most of us long time members find your antics less than amusing, particularly you English scholars or alleged scholars. Butt out, chill and go find another hobby.
      Well you certainly made use of this "totally unnecessary" comment section to express YOUR opinion, not of the review, but of other people's views which they are perfectly entitled to express. I don't like your tone at all sir!
    1. hangar32's Avatar
      hangar32 - 12-07-2012, 11:19 PM
      Well, I like his tone - probably because I don't feel I resemble any of the folks he is advising to get a life. Once again, Mr. Herd, the review section is for reviews which I think are just fine. I've agreed with some and not with others. Perhaps, a comments section is unnecessary or should be heavily edited to comments germane to the review. For example, I started this series of comments with what I thought was a helpful mention on the review with respect to F-111 final approach airspeed (of all things). I was trying to be helpful. It was nor critique of the reviewer or his work. Simply an observation from somebody else who had purchased the product. I think that's what your you were looking to establish with this feature. I'm afraid that may have been lost. I say just drop this section - the reviews are fine as is. . . .IMHO. Happy Holidays!
    1. hlsathaven's Avatar
      hlsathaven - 12-20-2012, 03:24 PM
      Bill Stack has written many reviews and some excellent articles for top notch Flight Sim magazines - PC Pilot springs to mind. I have always enjoyed them and found them informative and interesting. Has the writer of this assessment of Bill's review ever had anything of worth published - apart from forum comments. I'd love to see some of his published work!
    1. starglider's Avatar
      starglider - 12-28-2012, 05:30 PM
      I appreciate the effort made for this review. However, having "flown" the Just Flight F-111 several times now over the last few days I have a few questions:

      1. Rotating course and heading knobs on the HSI does not change the needle / bug position. Either with AP on or OFF, the HSI does not respond (only mouse tool tips indicate the changes).

      2. How do you shut down the engines? The "pilot's notes" engine shutdown checklist item 7 and 9, "Applicable / Remaining throttle OFF" does not seem to work because it moves the throttle in reverse (not realistic for an F-111) and not to OFF. Engine feed selector and fuel tank selector switches selected to OFF has no result. When using CTR+SHIFT+F1 as an alternative, the engines shut down but then the starters continuously attempt to restart the engines. Am I missing something?

      If someone knows the answers, thanks in advance.
    1. shess57's Avatar
      shess57 - Yesterday, 12:46 PM
      I highly reccomend you download the Demo version before handing out any money for the aircraft