Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger

Pioneer · 3 July 2006

Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger

I was reading about the Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) the other day.
One of the things I found interesting was the fact that when looking to modernise its fighter interceptor force in the late 1950,s / early 1960’s to replace its F-86 Sabre fighters. One of the designs it evaluated and came that close to putting into production was the Grumman F11F-2 (later changed to F11F-1F) Super Tiger light weight fighter.
The article stated that the Japanese had literally signed the licensed production contract with Grumman, when like many things military and business, at the eleventh hour the Japanese did a back flip and instead chose the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter in November1960.
I have not been able to find much on the Super Tiger design, apart from it being powered by a General Electric J79 turbojet engine and because of this being somewhat heavier in weight and supersonic.
Does anyone have any specification / technical data, pictures and a 3-view drawing of the F11F-2 / F11F-1F Super Tiger design?

P.S. I also believe that the Luftwaffe also evaluated the Super Tiger, but like Japan chose the F-104 Starfighter instead.
I wonder if the high accident and mortality rate of Luftwaffe F-104’s and their pilots would have been very different had they chosen the Super Tiger over the Starfighter??
The main reason that the Starfighter gained its infamous name ‘The Widow Maker’

Regards
Pioneer

Archibald · 3 July 2006

Interesting thread! I heard about this story, but you give new details!

I also think that the Super Tiger would have not killed so much pilots. Its configuration was less radical than the Starfighter, I mean it had ordinary wings and more, no T-tail.
The T-tail was responsible of a big part of the Starfighter accidents... At high AoA, it was blanked by the wings, and the plane went into a spin (remember the right stuff ? this is a real accident, occured in 10th december 1963)
Aparently the F-104 also needed bribes to smashed the concurrence...
My personal opinion about the F-104 is that the fuselage was good, but the wing / tail combo was a disaster!
Later, Lockheed improved the Starfighter design into the CL-1200... with different wings and tail!!

overscan (PaulMM) · 3 July 2006

I have a 3 view of this I can post tonight.

[Edit] I was thinking of XF12F-1. XF11F-1F was simply reengined with J-79.

Skybolt · 3 July 2006

Italy too evaluated the SuperTiger. The story is very well told in the Naval Fighters N.44 on the SuperTiger. Find it here http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF44.htm, but in a lot of other places too (Amazon, and B&N)

fightingirish · 3 July 2006

Pioneer said:
Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger

.....I have not been able to find much on the Super Tiger design, apart from it being powered by a General Electric J79 turbojet engine and because of this being somewhat heavier in weight and supersonic.
Does anyone have any specification / technical data, pictures and a 3-view drawing of the F11F-2 / F11F-1F Super Tiger design?

....

Regards
Pioneer

Two threads at Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums:

- Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

Matej · 3 July 2006

Probably the most unusual using of F-11F Tiger was to place them in submarine Boeing AN-1, proposed under secret Flying Carpet project. Submarine had two independent hangars, each with four planes. Aircrafts were modified with folding wings, tail surfaces and ZELL rocket booster. Concept was tested when two Tigers were carried in hangars in SSG-574 Grayback submarine.

I was working on this web update, but project for some reasons freezed, so probably I will publish something already finished here.

elmayerle · 3 July 2006

Ginter Books has a whole volume dedicated just to the Super Tiger, http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF44.htm, that covers the story quite thoroughly, especially considering that the author is intimately familiar with the subject.

overscan (PaulMM) · 14 July 2006

From Steve Ginter's book on the Super Tiger as detailed above. I recommend this book if you are interested in the Super Tiger!

overscan (PaulMM) · 14 July 2006

two seat and photo-rec versions

Pioneer · 30 August 2006

Sorry gents

I failed to notice your effort in response to my request, regards the Grumman Super Tiger, all the way back in July.

Great drawings!!!!!
I never new about the upper fuselage mounted Sidewinder AAM arrangement.
Interesting - almost Vought/LTV in a way
I like it

This could have been a very interesting and effective lightweight carrier-based and land-based fighter aircraft.
It could have been the answer to a credible fighter for the likes of Argentina, Australia, India, Brazil, France, Canada, and even the Dutch with thier lighter carriers

Regards
Pioneer

Skybolt · 30 August 2006

The real stuff would have been as a land based fighter interceptor, to transition the European air forces to mach 2 aircraft having hopped the F-100 generation.. This the role for which it was evaluated by Germany, Japan, etc. They bought F-104 instead, IMHO a mistake: great point-interceptor but poor air superiority, dangerous striker (except as a nuclear hit and run light bomber, the role in which the Germans wanted it initially), I mean, dangerous to its pilot, and too steep a ramp tfor transitioning from the Sabre to mach 2. The more I study, the more I think the SuperTiger would have been perfect for a European role. And lot of growth potential, too, as a striker for example, and new engines, etc etc.

Mike Pryce · 8 July 2007

One part of the Super Tiger lives on - it had a version of the diverterless inlet used on the F-35, as can be seen in some of the pics above, esp. '98J5' top view.

elmayerle · 8 July 2007

I'd have to look over the drawings more closely. In any case, it doesn't have some of the aerodynamic aspects that make the diverter-less inlet work on the F-35. There's some definite tailoring that has to be done to the inlet shape and it's not visible here. Mind you, I'm not putting down the Super Tiger, a, IMHO, superb aircraft - save perhaps that it looks a bit low on fuel load, but I know the F-35 and its inlet well.

Mike Pryce · 8 July 2007

I found this from a book by Ray Whitford, written in 1989, saying that the Super Tiger avoided the use of an intake splitter by using a fuselage bump to cause a pressure rise to divert the boundary layer away from the inlet. So it sounds like it did 'the necessary'. However, a decent photo of the Super Tiger would help to see what was built, but I can't find one online.

As the J-79 was a pure turbojet it could presumably tolerate greater distortion than a fan, so maybe less tailoring would be required.

elmayerle · 8 July 2007

harrier said:
I found this from a book by Ray Whitford, written in 1989, saying that the Super Tiger avoided the use of an intake splitter by using a fuselage bump to cause a pressure rise to divert the boundary layer away from the inlet. So it sounds like it did 'the necessary'. However, a decent photo of the Super Tiger would help to see what was built, but I can't find one online.

As the J-79 was a pure turbojet it could presumably tolerate greater distortion than a fan, so maybe less tailoring would be required.

That could well be. The J79 also had a fairly sophisticated compressor design which would help in dealing with distortion. These days, the design tools available allow one to design fans to cope with large amounts of distortion with equanimity. The fan on the F118 in the B-2 being a case in point, it's related to the fans on the F101, F110, and CFM56 but is tailored to deal with much higher distortion levels than any of those other engines, without using a variable compressor vane set-up like the J79 has.

From the comment you reported, it does sound like the F11F-2 did have the basic concept. The other features of the f-35 inlet may well be signature-reduction measures that the Super Tiger wouldn't need. I agree, though, that we need some better evidence. Anyone care have a copy of the Ginter Super Tiger book and can provide appropriate low-res scans?

Mark Nankivil · 8 July 2007

Here's the images out of the Ginter book. The caption that goes with this reads:

"two views of the final intake and boundary layer intake bump. The bump was constructed of wood and its protective coating has worn away leaving the black area shown in the photos." It also notes that this aircraft is on display at China Lake...

HTH! Mark

elmayerle · 8 July 2007

Thanks. It looks like you've still got diverter channels as well as the layer being removed through the bump with those perforations. An early approximation of what's used on the F-35, but not the whole by a long shot.

Mark Nankivil · 9 July 2007

True, but we're talking 45+ years ago which is impressive all things considered. I wonder if Grumman patented that and L-M needs to pay royalties?

Enjoy the Day! Mark

elider · 9 July 2007

Drawings of the Vought V-1100, LWF, and photos of Boeing ATF models show similar "bumps". Does anyone know if these are DSIs?

Mike Pryce · 9 July 2007

Thanks for those pics of the bump Mark.

Looks to me like the perforations were part of the bump, but the splitter 'gap' looks like it may be a legacy from the original Tiger intake - the bump blocks most of it. Perhaps it was all a bit trial and error, which would make sense thanks to lack of CFD etc., and a wooden bump is eminently modifiable. Was the Super Tiger flown with a regular intake first?

These days, the design tools available allow one to design fans to cope with large amounts of distortion with equanimity

For conventional aircraft pretty much, but still STOVL ones with pressure AND temperature distortion can have issues - still a lot of trial and error involved getting it right.

overscan (PaulMM) · 19 August 2007

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-e56l19.pdf

Performance of external-compression bump inlet at Mach numbers of 1.5 and 2.0

1957 NACA report

zen · 19 August 2007

Why did the USN say it was too heavy?

IS it really its approach speed?

Archibald · 27 August 2007

Yeah, seem bizarre to me, too. If the Super Tiger was found too heavy for USN carriers , wouldn't the Phantom be in trouble ?

;D

Pioneer · 27 August 2007

zen said:
Why did the USN say it was too heavy?

IS it really its approach speed?

This is US Navy talk for 'we do not want this aircraft'!

Regards
Pioneer

zen · 27 August 2007

Is it?

After all other potential customers choose the F104 instead, sometimes at the last minute, we know Lockheed was playing dirty back then.

Skybolt · 27 August 2007

Lockheed didn't have a competitor to the Super Tiger for the Navy. The dirty tricks and the marketing (see here...http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,714.msg5368.html#msg5368 were done in Europe, chiefly in Germany, and later in Japan. When Germany fell in place, all other Europeans followed suite. Japan was harder to crack and needed direct bribes. Lockheed distributed bribes later in Italy for the C-130, but were the politician to ask bribes to not stop the contract. The military had already chosen.

Pyrrhic victory · 2 October 2008

Here's an in house ad from 1957.

KJ_Lesnick · 21 June 2009

Financially, what would have happened to Lockheed has the F11F tiger won the export fighter deal?

Skybolt · 21 June 2009

Too hard to compute. Too many variables. Maybe they'd abandoned the idea of re-entering the civil market with the L-1011, and they'd be much better later...

KJ_Lesnick · 21 June 2009

Pioneer,

This is US Navy talk for 'we do not want this aircraft'!

So whenever the Navy doesn't want a plane, they only have to claim it's too heavy or it's landing characteristics are unsatisfactory?

Awesome...

fightingirish · 29 May 2010

Here the pictures at the SDASM Archives.
Link: http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=49487266%40N07&q=F-11F-1F+super+tiger&m=text
Notice the boundary layer intake bump.
Edit:
2 more pictures from that book,

overscan said:
From Steve Ginter's book on the Super Tiger as detailed above. I recommend this book if you are interested in the Super Tiger!

[Attached Images defunct due to copyright issues & forum rules!]

bercr · 3 November 2012

More photos from http://www.flickr.com/photos/66845958@N06/

fightingirish · 3 February 2013

From the book "F11F Tiger in Detail and Scale - D & S Vol. 17" by Bert Kinzey, Aero Publishers 1984
Another source:

https://nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/singleitem/image/p16694coll109/21869/default.jpg

circle-5 · 3 March 2013

Grumman factory display models of the USN F-11F-1F (2-seat variant) and USAF G-38J-1 Super Tiger designs.

Lascaris · 6 September 2014

How accurate was the claim that Super Tiger was unsuitable for carrier operation? And could it had been used from light carriers? Hermes for example or Foch and Clemanceau?

blackkite · 6 September 2014

Motocar · 27 September 2016

I have my Cutaway free interpretation of this fighter...!

Pioneer · 8 October 2016

Motocar said:
I have my Cutaway free interpretation of this fighter...!

Sorry Motocar but where am I able to find your

Cutaway free interpretation of this fighter

?

Regards
Pioneer

Archibald · 9 October 2016

Lascaris said:
How accurate was the claim that Super Tiger was unsuitable for carrier operation? And could it had been used from light carriers? Hermes for example or Foch and Clemanceau?

The Crusader needed some rework to launch from Clemenceau class carriers. Long story: the J-57 was big and bulky resulting in along fuselage and then, even with the variable incidence wing the Crusader landed too fast - you couldn't raise the nose too much otherwise the rear fuselage would have scrapped the deck. So the French had blown air added to the flaps to reduce the landing speed.

Specifications (F11F-1F)

General characteristics

Crew: one
Length: 48 ft 9 in (14.85 m)
Wingspan: 31 ft 8 in (9.65 m)
Height: 14 ft 4 in [8] (4.36 m)
Wing area: 250 ft² (23.25 m²)
Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6,277 kg)
Loaded weight: 21,035 lb (9,561 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 26,086 lb (11,833 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric J79-GE-3A turbojet
Dry thrust: 12,533 lbf (53.3 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 17,000 lbf (75.6 kN)

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.04 (1,400 mph, 2,253 km/h[8]) at 40,000 ft (12,192 m)
Range: 1,536 mi[8] (1,336 nmi, 1,826 km)
Service ceiling: 59,000 ft[8] (19,980 ft)

Specifications (F-8E)

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Payload: 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) of weapons
Length: 54 ft 3 in (16.53 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 8 in (10.87 m)
Height: 15 ft 9 in (4.80 m)
Wing area: 375 ft² (34.8 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 65A006 mod root, NACA 65A005 mod tip
Aspect ratio: 3.4
Empty weight: 17,541 lb (7,956 kg)
Loaded weight: 29,000 lb (13,000 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 34,000 pounds (15,000 kg) ()
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney J57-P-20A afterburning turbojet
Dry thrust: 10,700 lbf (47.6 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 18,000 lbf (80.1 kN)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0133
Drag area: 5.0 ft² (0.46 m²)
Fuel capacity: 1,325 US gal (5,020 L)

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.86 (1,225 mph, 1,975 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Cruise speed: 570 mph (495 knots; 917 km/h)
Combat radius: 450 mi (730 km)
Ferry range: 1,735 mi () with external fuel
Service ceiling: 58,000 ft (17,700 m)
Rate of climb: 19,000 ft min [93] ()
Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft² (377.6 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.62
Lift-to-drag ratio: 12.8

Overall the Super Tiger has a smaller footprint, which wouldn't be a bad thing for the Clemenceaus.

Tailspin Turtle · 10 October 2016

Lascaris said:
How accurate was the claim that Super Tiger was unsuitable for carrier operation? And could it had been used from light carriers? Hermes for example or Foch and Clemanceau?

Where was it claimed that the Super Tiger was unsuitable for carrier operation?

Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger

Seek out and close with the enemy

ACCESS: USAP

Administrator

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Multiuniversal creator

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Administrator

Attachments

Administrator

Attachments

Seek out and close with the enemy

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Confidential

ACCESS: Top Secret

Administrator

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: USAP

Seek out and close with the enemy

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

This is going to hurt

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Secret

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....

Attachments

I really should change my personal text

Seek out and close with the enemy

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.