|
Description
| Notes: Multirole tactical fighter primarily for defense. Digital electronics. FLY-BY-WIRE technology. | ||
| Manufacturer: | Northrop | |
| Base model: | F-20 | |
| Designation: | F-20 | |
| Version: | A | |
| Nickname: | Tigershark | |
| Designation System: | U.S. Tri-Service | |
| Designation Period: | 1962-Present | |
| Basic role: | Fighter | |
Specifications
Propulsion
Performance
Recent comments by our visitors
| Dave , CA | I worked on this program as well as several others at Northrop. It would be nice if the editors of this blog did not allow people to post advertisements for purses, sunglasses, etc and other things which do not apply at all to the F-20A.
The F-20A was an It's a darned shame that they did not receive enough orders to make production possible. 08/22/2011 @ 14:14 [ref: 47691] |
| RWT Ruffin, SC | Michelle Barnes I worked at Northrop ASD (and later Northrop B-2) division in the mid to late 80's with your brother. That was good times. I miss all of those people 12/08/2009 @ 21:14 [ref: 25406] |
| Clark , IL | Hi: Im going to say somthing a company i worked for that was building aircraft producing machinery.Was given a large contract to help speed up production of F-16 fighter planes.Before the F-20 Tigershark was even tested this is all im going to say. 03/08/2007 @ 09:07 [ref: 15822] |
| diehard , ON | I have talked to many a pilot, and they like me wonder how the F-20 would perform today if you added forward computer controled canards, and 17% thrust vectoring. In there oppion it would rival anthing in the air today, Bar-None.
I think you would have and exportable air craft that would sell hot cakes. 01/04/2007 @ 06:25 [ref: 15094] |
| Richard Yu Manila, HI | Yup. The F-20 is indeed a great plane and too bad it didn\'t enter production. Currently, I\'m drafting a proposal to make my country consider developing and producing this not only to enforce our sovereignity but also as a contribution to keeping the peace in our region. Considering our background plus limited capabilities, the F-20 would better fit us than the F-16 or Gripen (although the F-18 is being seen as the choice - especially as it has roots to the F-5 too).
So far, some small positive feedbacks but nothing major yet. 08/16/2006 @ 06:25 [ref: 13899] |
| Michelle Barnes New York, NY | My father David Barnes was involved in the "mishap" ( I hate that it is called that)at Goose Bay and lost his life. I have read the accident report but can't bear to watch the film even now so many years later. The F-20 was a great plane and I know personally that he loved flying it as did Darrell. My father was in a commercial for Northrop and he loved to make me watch it over and over.... The loss of these two great pilots is sad, but it is why we have test pilots in the first place. They know the dangers and risks involved, but still chose to push the envelope and make this their chosen careers..... Making sure that these aircraft are safe to fly. Seeing these pitures and reading these comments is hard to do, but I agree that the plane was great and I am sad that they are not in production or even flying today. 06/01/2006 @ 08:15 [ref: 13424] |
| arearule , OTH | I think that f20 was a great loss for US. to offer a capable and cheap fighter to other countries with economic problems to order more capable aircrafts like f16 or f18. Was a pity! 02/09/2006 @ 13:58 [ref: 12448] |
| Raven , FL | En el campo de batalla no importa el avion que uno tenga es el piloto lo que importa. 11/29/2005 @ 18:10 [ref: 11836] |
| Martin , OTH | F-20 was a final developement of F-5, but unfortunately too close in concept to F-16. Better equiped and lighter thaņ F-16A, it actually meant serious threat to General Dynamics, because if exported, that jet could took part of the fighter market for itself.
I personally believe this was better jet that the hyped F-16A, but lacked political support, as Northrop was never a strong dagger-and-cloak player. F-20 simply beated F-16A on F-16īs turf - lighter but better, but it was enough to stop rolling F-16 machine. 09/20/2005 @ 07:52 [ref: 11288] |
| maximillian Burlington, VT | 1) As far as Yeager is concerned, with respect to his assertions about the F-20s performance. Anybody,
who's ever met the man, or talked to someone who's met the man, will explain. Nobody, but nobody, tells Yeager what to say, or think, payroll, or no payroll. He's that kind of person, super strong willed, and opinionated, in spades, that's the first and primary impression everybody walks away with. Regardless of what one may think of his egocenticites, and persona, and even flying reputation, what he said about the F-20 he truely believes, and nobody, forced him, co-erced him, or put ideas in his head. 2) Sustained turn rates with comparison against the F-16 are essentialy moot, and even without further development, were very close. Here's the rub, from what I've gathered, in a clear airmass visual domain 1v1 scenario, I'd predict that in the right hands, an F-20 stands a high probability of killing an F-16C, and no less than, probably 3 times within the first minute of an encounter. "everything else is bullshit" Von Rictofen. That's why GDC was so scared of the F-20, and did absolutley every in their power to halt the program. Reagrds. Max 03/30/2005 @ 12:34 [ref: 9831] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
