Grumman Design 110 Study

In February and March, 1955, Grumman accomplished a design study of options for a carrier-based Navy fighter airplane using the full range of engines expected to be available. The aircraft were all Design 110s, with dash numbers assigned to differentiate the different configurations. The specification and assumptions were Grumman developed: single-seat all-weather; semi-submerged store capability (Mk 7 shape); basic armament of two semi-submerged Sparrows and two 30mm cannon; search and fire control radar with a 24" dish; first flight in late 1958 with production deliveries in 1960; minimum 60,000-foot ceiling at combat weight; broad supersonic speed/altitude envelope with a maximum speed goal of Mach 2.0; cycle time of at least 2.5 hours; combat radius of at least 500 nm; good low-speed, high angle of attack control; maximum surface temperature of 300 degrees F; and 6.5 g structural strength at combat weight.

The schedule limited engine alternatives to those expected to pass the 150-hour production qualification test in 1958 or 1959. These included the J67, J75, J79, and J85.

The 1957 design baseline was the Grumman Design 98L, one of many paper variations on the F9F-9/F11F Tiger. Powered by a single J79, if fell short of the Mach 2.0 goal and did not have the semi-submerged store capability.

110-1: Single J75; 34,500 lbs gross weight; wing, horizontal tail, and canard for lower supersonic trim drag and better supersonic maneuverability.

110-2: Single J-79; 25,250 lb gross weight;similar to F11F but with lower drag fuselage

110-4: Single J67 or J75; 32,000 lbs gross weight; scaled-up F11F

How much thrust was the J-67 predicted to produce?

KJ Lesnick

Some interesting designs, Tommy. The 110-1 especially is quite unusual.

KJ_Lesnick said:

How much thrust was the J-67 predicted to produce?

KJ Lesnick

Click to expand...

According to the Grumman report, the Wright J67 had 24,000 lbs of thrust at sea level. The J75 was expected to be rated at 25,000 lbs. However, Grumman was not enthusiastic about it. For one thing, the total weight of the J67 and the fuel required for a 2.5 hour mission was 18,700 lbs compared to the J75's 19,600 lbs. The J67 also produced more thrust at 55,000 feet and Mach 0.9. However, two growth J79s were even more attractive in terms of total thrust and thrust to engine plus fuel weight, which resulted in the Design 118.

overscan said:

Some interesting designs, Tommy. The 110-1 especially is quite unusual.

Click to expand...

I'll try to get the rest of the set of drawings. In summary, the 110-3 was powered by one J79 and two J85s, the latter apparently in power pods. It was also a canard.

The 110-5, -6, and -8 were powered by two J79s. The -5 had the engines mounted on the wings, a bomb bay, and a high tail. The -6 had the engines mounted inboard and a "split tail" to avoid the jet blast. The -8 also had the engines mounted inboard and the "jet blast utilized for partial control."

The 110-7 was a VTOL "cartoon" powered by eight J85s.

the 110-3 was powered by one J79 and two J85s, the latter apparently in power pods. It was also a canard.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see that particular iteration, I've heard about it as one of F8U rival designs but it was hard to imagine how it looked.

Thank you very much for your posts


Antonio

pometablava said:

the 110-3 was powered by one J79 and two J85s, the latter apparently in power pods. It was also a canard.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see that particular iteration, I've heard about it as one of F8U rival designs but it was hard to imagine how it looked.

Thank you very much for your posts


Antonio

Click to expand...

The Grumman predesign group was having trouble balancing an airplane with the big new engines so they resorted to canards for a few of the 110 designs. McDonnell reportedly had the same problem at first with the predecessors of the F3H-G/H.

The 110-5 was powered by two J79s. In this case the cg problem was solved by mounting the engines in nacelles. However, its hard to believe that the airplane would have a practical OEI VMC with the engines located that far out along the wing given the size of the tail and rudder. In this case, the airplane has a bomb bay that could accommodate the Mk 7

The 110-6 was powered by two J79s like the 110-5 and projected to have a ceiling of 60,000 feet between Mach 1 and 2, the best speed/altitude performance of all the designs. Note that it has twice the vertical tail volume of the 110-5, which seems to be backwards. The split tail was adopted "to avoid jet blast".

The 110-7 was a VTOL design powered by eight J85s. The "M" wing was something that Grumman had considered for at least the A-6. In this case it was "to provide wing structure at C.G. for engine pivot". Note the tail wheel landing gear for a ground attitude that minimized the engine tilt required. Eight J85s provided a thrust loading of 1.25 thrust to weight, which allowed for an engine failure while in vertical flight.

The 110-8 seems to be the most sensible of the designs. In appearance, it is a scale up of the Super Tiger powered by two J79s. Its performance was the same as the 110-6. The notes state "Jet blast utilized for partial control," apparently by the addition of a control surface at the bottom of the engine exhaust troughs...

Wow, thats an interesting set of designs. I've seen the M wing A-6 design, it was also used in the UK in a design for a Mach 1.2 airliner, but it seems to have been a very short lived idea.

The Design 110 Study included an educated guess at the configuration of the McDonnell F4H with two J79s and the Republic F-105 with a single J75. The F4H, Competition "A", was basically an F-101. Note that it is single-seat. Its performance matched that of the 110-6 and -8. No performance data was provided for the F-105, Competition "B", and in any event it wasn't a carrier-compatible design. The Grumman predesign group clearly didn't think much of a J75-powered solution and went on to develop and propose its Design 118, which was powered by two J79s with a rocket for performance augmentation. "Taken on face value, the J79 (advanced) appears to be in a class by itself, while the P&W J75 appears to be so poor that it would be difficult to sell an aircraft (of the fighter type) using it." Obviously Vought thought differently and was very nearly successfully in doing so with the F8U-3.

Tailspin Turtle said:

The Design 110 Study included an educated guess at the configuration of the McDonnell F4H with two J79s and the Republic F-105 with a single J75. The F4H, Competition "A", was basically an F-101. Note that it is single-seat. Its performance matched that of the 110-6 and -8. No performance data was provided for the F-105, Competition "B", and in any event it wasn't a carrier-compatible design. The Grumman predesign group clearly didn't think much of a J75-powered solution and went on to develop and propose its Design 118, which was powered by two J79s with a rocket for performance augmentation. "Taken on face value, the J79 (advanced) appears to be in a class by itself, while the P&W J75 appears to be so poor that it would be difficult to sell an aircraft (of the fighter type) using it." Obviously Vought thought differently and was very nearly successfully in doing so with the F8U-3.

Click to expand...

Now the thought of the likes of the giant F-105 Thunderchief taking an arrestor hook on a carrier sends a worrying shiver down my spin!
Did Grumman really envisage Republic proposing a carrier-based version of the Thud?

Regards
Pioneer

Pioneer said:

Tailspin Turtle said:

The Design 110 Study included an educated guess at the configuration of the McDonnell F4H with two J79s and the Republic F-105 with a single J75. The F4H, Competition "A", was basically an F-101. Note that it is single-seat. Its performance matched that of the 110-6 and -8. No performance data was provided for the F-105, Competition "B", and in any event it wasn't a carrier-compatible design. The Grumman predesign group clearly didn't think much of a J75-powered solution and went on to develop and propose its Design 118, which was powered by two J79s with a rocket for performance augmentation. "Taken on face value, the J79 (advanced) appears to be in a class by itself, while the P&W J75 appears to be so poor that it would be difficult to sell an aircraft (of the fighter type) using it." Obviously Vought thought differently and was very nearly successfully in doing so with the F8U-3.

Click to expand...

Now the thought of the likes of the giant F-105 Thunderchief taking an arrestor hook on a carrier sends a worrying shiver down my spin!
Did Grumman really envisage Republic proposing a carrier-based version of the Thud?

Regards
Pioneer

Click to expand...

My guess was that it was to calibrate their own configuration definition of a J75-powered, single-engine aircraft. (Predesign was having trouble with weight and balance as noted above.) Not too much detail and no performance projection was provided. It was noted that it was "Light structure", presumably a reference to the fact that it wasn't built to land on a carrier.

It was described as the ultimate tiger and was to use a J75 or J67. This I found in a book by Tommy H. Thomason on the XF8U-3 Crusader III, but nothing else.

I'm curious if anybody has figures such as weight, armament/payload, speed, range, etc...

The Design 110 mission requirements were provided on page 5 of my XF8U-3 monograph. Of course not all the designs met them but I'm pretty sure that the 110-4 design incorporated the armament ones. As explained in the monograph, the desired cycle time was hard to meet. I'll see what else I have.

Tailspin Turtle said:

The Design 110 mission requirements were provided on page 5 of my XF8U-3 monograph.

Click to expand...

From what I read, the information did seem to include

1. Standard Air-to-Air: 2 x AIM-7, 2 x 30mm cannon
2. Overload Air-to-Air: 4 x AIM-7
3. Air-to-Ground: Mk.7 nuclear weapon

I'll see what else I have.

Click to expand...

Thank you: Also, do you have figures for dimensions?