Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger

Attachments

  • 2024-04-30_2147.jpg
    2024-04-30_2147.jpg
    386.5 KB · Views: 162
  • 2024-04-30_2140.jpg
    2024-04-30_2140.jpg
    271.3 KB · Views: 120
  • 2024-04-30_2140_001.jpg
    2024-04-30_2140_001.jpg
    391.6 KB · Views: 109
  • 2024-04-30_2141.jpg
    2024-04-30_2141.jpg
    322.3 KB · Views: 103
  • 2024-04-30_2156.jpg
    2024-04-30_2156.jpg
    149 KB · Views: 97
  • 2024-04-30_2158.jpg
    2024-04-30_2158.jpg
    148 KB · Views: 99
  • 5cd56f9b.jpg
    5cd56f9b.jpg
    220.2 KB · Views: 124
Followings are continuation of ＃159.

President Hull of Lockheed's overseas business company remained in Japan after the G-98-J-11 was selected as the next fighter jet, and conducted a fierce sales campaign for the F-104. In addition to Lockheed, Convair was promoting the F-102 and F-106, and Northrop was also selling the N-156F. The uproar spread from within the Liberal Democratic Party to the Diet.

The House of Representatives Accounts Committee took up the issue in August 1958 and began investigating government officials on suspicion of corruption in the selection of G-98-J-11. Prime Minister Kishi, government officials, and Liberal Democratic Party officials were summoned as witnesses, but no evidence of corruption was found.

After that, there was a debate that the G-98-J-11 was a ghost fighter with only blueprints, and that it was not desirable to spend blood tax money on it, and in the tumultuous atmosphere, the government passed the year without being able to select the next fighter.

The National Defense Council held on June 15, 1959, reached the following conclusions:

"We will scrap the unofficial decision to select the F11F-1F for the next fighter jet, and send a new survey team to the United States to decide on the model."

Three days after the decision, Ino resigned, and Akagi, who had been Chief Cabinet Secretary, became the head of the Defense Agency. Air Admiral Sato, Chief of Air Staff, also resigned on July 18, and Commander Genda was appointed Chief of Air Staff.
From August 8 to October 26, 1959, a survey team headed by Air Chief Genda conducted another survey of the next fighter in the United States. In response to the report, the National Defense Council held on November 6 decided to adopt a modified version of the F-104C for Japan as the next fighter.

Akagi, the head of the Defense Agency, explained the reason for the selection at a press conference as follows.
１．The F-104 has an unrivaled climbing perfprmance.
2. The maximum speed is excellent, the surplus energy at high altitude is maximum, and the combat power is the strongest.
3. Excellent maneuverability at supersonic speeds
4. Easy to operate on the ground.
5. Safety concerns have been resolved.
6. Radius of action, runway length required meet the demand.
7. All weather ability could be added.
8. At the final stage of the investigation, the F-104 and F-106 were candidates.
 
Last edited:
SSgtC said:
IIRC, one was a stock F11F airframe with the J65 swapped out for the J79 with no other changes. While the other had a few aerodynamic improvements made to the wing
Click to expand...
Yup, and the stock airframe with the engine swap could make Mach 1.61-maybe Mach 1.84; it has been to long since I read the book to remember if they pushed her that far or if the modified one started at 1.84 and went up to 2.04
 
blackkite said:
Hi! Dorsal launcher.
Also you can see folded ventral vertical tail fin.

蛇乃目伍長の「エアフォースの英国面に来い！」 Mk.2 : 虎よ、虎…よ？

blog.livedoor.jp blog.livedoor.jp

The F11F was developed to be the U.S. Navy's first supersonic carrier-based fighter, but its service period was shortened due to the inadequacy of the engine.
In 1955, Grumman developed the F11F-1F Super Tiger, an improved version of the F11F-1F that replaced the engine with the powerful GE J-79, but the Navy was not interested.
The F11F-1F sought overseas sales channels, and at one point almost became the winner of the Air Self-Defense Force's FX selection, but was ultimately defeated by the Lockheed F-104.

Since it was originally a small aircraft, even if the engine was strengthened, not only did the cruising range decrease, but the lack of versatility was not solved.

Perhaps that's why the development plan for the F11F-1F attempted to add more hardpoints.

But the place is a little too whimsical.
The plan was to mount the AIM-9 in tandem on the Dorsal spine/launcher, and the first unit (Bu No. 138646) was actually equipped with it.
In addition, two parallel shots on the underside of the fuselage and two shots on the outboard pylons of the main wing (AIM-7) for a total of 6 shots! Boom!

However, there is no denying the feeling of suffering. (In addition, the folded bentralphin can be confirmed)
This is because the AIM-9 (dummy) in front interferes with the sliding windshield.

By the way, this design was "98J-5" and the aircraft for Japan was "98J-11", so if you are lucky (of course, you can also see "if you are unlucky"), it is possible that the Super Tiger with this armament configuration would have flown in the skies of Japan.

Two prototypes of the F11F-1F were built, and the project was closed.
The first unit in question, Bu No. 138646, was used for fire training and was scrapped at some point in the 1980s.
Click to expand...
the top view in color shows that they could fully open the canopy.. As to range? Just swapping the J-65 with the J-79 improved range by over 20% as well as loiter time, range was over 1500 NM compared to just over 1200 with the J-65. Without the dorsal AAM's she could still carry 9000+ pounds so pretty versatile when you install the radar you can even keep your guns.
 
Last edited:
The thing we frequently forget or just plain did not know; is the USN was legally restricted to operating a single type/make of all weather fighter and day fighter. I do not personally know if the legislation allowed for a general purpose fighter but I suspect that it did not. If it did I think it likely one of two scenarios would have played out: The least likely, classify the Phantom as a GP fighter so they could also purchase the Crusader III as there are indication that they wanted it as well, and the most likely IMHO the purchase of the Super Tiger as the GP so that it could add sparrow capability to the SCB-125 and bolster the A-4 in the strike role on everything.
 
bobtdwarf said:
The thing we frequently forget or just plain did not know; is the USN was legally restricted to operating a single type/make of all weather fighter and day fighter. I do not personally know if the legislation allowed for a general purpose fighter but I suspect that it did not. If it did I think it likely one of two scenarios would have played out: The least likely, classify the Phantom as a GP fighter so they could also purchase the Crusader III as there are indication that they wanted it as well, and the most likely IMHO the purchase of the Super Tiger as the GP so that it could add sparrow capability to the SCB-125 and bolster the A-4 in the strike role on everything.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of any such law or regulation... do you have anything that would help us find it so we can look at the actual wording?

Wondering, since in the mid-late 1950s the USN operated F9F Cougar, F7U Cutlass, FJ Fury, & F11F Tiger day fighters, F3D Skyknight & F4D Skyray all-weather/night fighters, F3H Demon A-A missile fighters (and A-A missile versions of the F3D & F7U) as well as early F8U Crusader day fighters in varying overlapping combinations depending on the aircraft carrier type.
 
Last edited:
The thing we frequently forget or just plain did not know; is the USN was legally restricted to operating a single type/make of all weather fighter and day fighter. I do not personally know if the legislation allowed for a general purpose fighter but I suspect that it did not.
Click to expand...

Same as @BlackBat242 not to embarass you but - because it would be pretty interesting to read how the Crusader + Phantom duopoly of Vietnam fame, was "carved into stone" by Congress or someone else.
Wonder if it also applied to Tomcat+Hornet.
Also F-111B + "first VFAX" , circa 1967-68.

I've long been fascinated by "First VFAX / 1967 VFAX" if only because the Mirage G could have done it. Just like Hornet was "two-third of Tomcat", Mirage G could have been "two-third of F-111B".
 
BlackBat242 said:
I have never heard of any such law or regulation... do you have anything that would help us find it so we can look at the actual wording?

Wondering, since in the mid-late 1950s the USN operated F9F Cougar, F7U Cutlass, FJ Fury, & F11F Tiger day fighters, F3D Skyknight & F4D Skyray all-weather/night fighters, F3H Demon A-A missile fighters (and A-A missile versions of the F3D & F7U) as well as early F8U Crusader day fighters in varying overlapping combinations depending on the aircraft carrier type.
Click to expand...
I don't, I have just heard it referenced in multiple places including quotes in books, all I know is it supposed to have been done in '58(or after). I too want to read the wording of it, but in all the references to it they never name the act and without that it makes searching it out a real PITA.

EDIT: I am reasonably sure that we have seen references to the USN also wanting the Crusader III, without some restriction on type/model there would be basically nothing preventing them from acquiring it and in the case of the SuperTiger there is not enough difference between it and the Tiger logistically to do so given that they kept the type in use in training command for years it already had an active logistics train and if using the APQ-50 that was already in the fleet... it would have been the easiest acquisition and deployment.
 
Last edited:
bobtdwarf said:
I don't, I have just heard it referenced in multiple places including quotes in books, all I know is it supposed to have been done in '58(or after). I too want to read the wording of it, but in all the references to it they never name the act and without that it makes searching it out a real PITA.

EDIT: I am reasonably sure that we have seen references to the USN also wanting the Crusader III, without some restriction on type/model there would be basically nothing preventing them from acquiring it and in the case of the SuperTiger there is not enough difference between it and the Tiger logistically to do so given that they kept the type in use in training command for years it already had an active logistics train and if using the APQ-50 that was already in the fleet... it would have been the easiest acquisition and deployment.
Click to expand...
IF the Navy was going to buy a second Sparrow armed fighter, it 100% would have been the Crusader III. Beyond simply being faster, it also had range for days (seriously, the Crusader III had more range on internal fuel than the Phantom II did with a 600 gallon external tank), and carried a heavier missile load than the Tiger II did. It was also designed to take the same radar as the Phantom II, rather than the older APQ-50.
 
SSgtC said:
IF the Navy was going to buy a second Sparrow armed fighter, it 100% would have been the Crusader III. Beyond simply being faster, it also had range for days (seriously, the Crusader III had more range on internal fuel than the Phantom II did with a 600 gallon external tank), and carried a heavier missile load than the Tiger II did. It was also designed to take the same radar as the Phantom II, rather than the older APQ-50.
Click to expand...
All true, I just don't know for certain if it would operate off SCB-125 at the moment. Main point being ST would have been absolutely brain dead easy to adopt and we both know it would operate off an Essex. If there is nothing stopping the navy from continuing to operate a veritable flying circus they would have continued to do so and bought both just to be damn sure they have the right club for the hole
 
bobtdwarf said:
All true, I just don't know for certain if it would operate off SCB-125 at the moment. Main point being ST would have been absolutely brain dead easy to adopt and we both know it would operate off an Essex. If there is nothing stopping the navy from continuing to operate a veritable flying circus they would have continued to do so and bought both just to be damn sure they have the right club for the hole
Click to expand...
It would have easily operated off the modernized Essex class. At 37,000 pounds, the Crusader III had a power off stall speed of only 134 knots. Given that the C11 catapult installed on the Essex class could launch 39,000 pounds at 136 knots, in real terms, the Essex class could launch a Crusader III while it was tied up pierside. The Essex class are the ideal ships for the Crusader III.

And I'm not so sure about the logistics of the Tiger II. Yes, the Navy flew the F-11A for a number of years, but the line stopped production in 1957. Any spares that the Navy needed after that point would have come from canabalised aircraft.

But the biggest factors that would preclude a Tiger II purchase over the Crusader III, are operational. The Crusader III had a combat radius of 562 miles, and could fly the CAP mission with almost 2 hours of loiter time without inflight refueling. And again, the Crusader III could take the APQ-72/120/AWG-10 system.

There's one other minor issue point that I think would swing in the Crusader's favor. It was a better plane to reduce pilot fatigue. It had probably the most advanced autopilot in the world at the time. At that time, most autopilots were a secondary system. Meaning, the pilot would have to hand fly the aircraft onto the heading and altitude he wanted, then tell the AP to maintain that. The Crusader's AP could turn the plane on its own. It had a Heading Select function that let the pilot adjust course just by turning a knob. And by all accounts, it tamed the OG Crusader's bad habits with landing and recovery onboard.
 
SSgtC said:
It would have easily operated off the modernized Essex class. At 37,000 pounds, the Crusader III had a power off stall speed of only 134 knots. Given that the C11 catapult installed on the Essex class could launch 39,000 pounds at 136 knots, in real terms, the Essex class could launch a Crusader III while it was tied up pierside. The Essex class are the ideal ships for the Crusader III.

And I'm not so sure about the logistics of the Tiger II. Yes, the Navy flew the F-11A for a number of years, but the line stopped production in 1957. Any spares that the Navy needed after that point would have come from canabalised aircraft.

But the biggest factors that would preclude a Tiger II purchase over the Crusader III, are operational. The Crusader III had a combat radius of 562 miles, and could fly the CAP mission with almost 2 hours of loiter time without inflight refueling. And again, the Crusader III could take the APQ-72/120/AWG-10 system.

There's one other minor issue point that I think would swing in the Crusader's favor. It was a better plane to reduce pilot fatigue. It had probably the most advanced autopilot in the world at the time. At that time, most autopilots were a secondary system. Meaning, the pilot would have to hand fly the aircraft onto the heading and altitude he wanted, then tell the AP to maintain that. The Crusader's AP could turn the plane on its own. It had a Heading Select function that let the pilot adjust course just by turning a knob. And by all accounts, it tamed the OG Crusader's bad habits with landing and recovery onboard.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree just going to point out that the line was not torn down so could be started up again, as far as I am aware they did not dismantle things until after the A-7 was awarded as the Grumman entry was based on the Tiger. This is looking like if they did not have restrictions they would not have bought the F-8. I still think ST would make a good purchase because of its A2G capability which was superior to the F-8U variants. I use the example of APQ-50 to stress the low cost, it could also carry the 74 like the Cru III, though not the AP as far as I am aware.

There has to be some kind of legislative hog tying here as I think we would all agree that without such there are more effective combinations of available airframes that could have been fielded; but if you are stuck with 1 all weather and 1 day fighter the best combo IS the F-8/F-4! If you don't have that then you would logically go F-4, Cru III and ST to give you the maximum amount of zoom-zoom and boom-boom.
 
I keep looking at the ST as something you might fly off an improved Centaur. But keep coming back to the issue of catapults.
I just don't see them having the power to launch a fully loaded one
 
There has to be some kind of legislative hog tying here as I think we would all agree that without such there are more effective combinations of available airframes that could have been fielded; but if you are stuck with 1 all weather and 1 day fighter the best combo IS the F-8/F-4! If you don't have that then you would logically go F-4, Cru III and ST to give you the maximum amount of zoom-zoom and boom-boom.
Click to expand...
How about the F5D Skylancer (muhahahaha, evil laugh...) ?
 
GK Dundas said:
I keep looking at the ST as something you might fly off an improved Centaur. But keep coming back to the issue of catapults.
I just don't see them having the power to launch a fully loaded one
Click to expand...
We kicked that around in a "what if" thread and it depends on what other things they do to the ST like BLC and a slightly larger wing but a full bomb truck with full fuel load out is probably a no go without some tweaks. Would have to reread the thread to see what max T/O weight we noodled out was but as I recall an A2A load out would be workable.

This is part of the reason why I bought that the references I have seen to some kind of a legislative restriction being in place was legit... if there is not then there are better combos with more beneficial outcomes possible.
 
Last edited:
bobtdwarf said:
This is looking like if they did not have restrictions they would not have bought the F-8
Click to expand...
I've got to disagree with that point. The Crusader I & II were used to directly replace the Tiger in Navy fighter squadrons. The Navy 100% wanted the Crusader. And it boils down to operational reasons again. The Crusader could fly CAP 150nm from the carrier with 1.7 hours of loiter time. The Tiger, flying the same mission, could only loiter for 0.4 hours due to fuel restraints. That was a huge capability jump over the Tiger.

The Crusader could also carry 2x2,000 pound bombs, the only fighter in the Navy that could do so. A typical close air support mission would be flown with 8xZuni rockets and 12x250 pound bombs. Or 8xZunis and 2x2,000 pound bombs. Or 8xZunis and 2xBullpups. Basically, it was a pretty good strike fighter, if a little limited on air to ground payload.
 
SSgtC said:
I've got to disagree with that point. The Crusader I & II were used to directly replace the Tiger in Navy fighter squadrons. The Navy 100% wanted the Crusader. And it boils down to operational reasons again. The Crusader could fly CAP 150nm from the carrier with 1.7 hours of loiter time. The Tiger, flying the same mission, could only loiter for 0.4 hours due to fuel restraints. That was a huge capability jump over the Tiger.

The Crusader could also carry 2x2,000 pound bombs, the only fighter in the Navy that could do so. A typical close air support mission would be flown with 8xZuni rockets and 12x250 pound bombs. Or 8xZunis and 2x2,000 pound bombs. Or 8xZunis and 2xBullpups. Basically, it was a pretty good strike fighter, if a little limited on air to ground payload.
Click to expand...
Yeah the Tiger had a lower endurance and the SuperTiger a bit less so, and I would agree given the choice of only ONE of the two you have to go with the F-8 on endurance alone and that would cover your "day fighter" requirement/restriction. In the "you can only have one day and one all weather" world the F-8 is the ONLY VIABLE option. But that is not the scenario here.

Now we are talking about a General Purpose fighter... SuperTiger has a 9000 pound carry at the same range of your existing strike A-4s. Anything that the F-8 could do against aircraft the Cru3 can do and do a bit better and in the strike fighter role the SuperTiger is quite literally twice the strike package and as a bonus if you are being swarmed by Soviet bombers they can carry sparrows where the F-8 can't. If the F-8 and the Cru3 have similar spot factors in THIS scenario the F-8 now is not such a good deal/use of hangar space.

EDIT: rescinded the edit as it made no damn sense. Never post with low blood sugar
 
Last edited:
bobtdwarf said:
I don't, I have just heard it referenced in multiple places including quotes in books, all I know is it supposed to have been done in '58(or after). I too want to read the wording of it, but in all the references to it they never name the act and without that it makes searching it out a real PITA.

EDIT: I am reasonably sure that we have seen references to the USN also wanting the Crusader III, without some restriction on type/model there would be basically nothing preventing them from acquiring it and in the case of the SuperTiger there is not enough difference between it and the Tiger logistically to do so given that they kept the type in use in training command for years it already had an active logistics train and if using the APQ-50 that was already in the fleet... it would have been the easiest acquisition and deployment.
Click to expand...
1958: Congress in effect refused to allow the Navy to buy production quantities of both the the F4H and the F8U-3 - it would only fund one or the other (see https://tommythomason.com/books/McDonnell F4H-1/). That's the first incidence that I'm sure of for the Navy being restricted to buying only one fighter type for any mission. As BlackBat242 alluded to, the Navy had a long history, dating back to the 1920s, of contracting with at least two different companies to develop airplanes for flight evaluation to satisfy one of their fighter and (to a lesser extent, attack after WW II) mission requirements, often resulting in production of more than one of them. Monoplane fighters for example (off the top of my head; I may have missed a few): the F2A/F4F, XF4U/XF5F/XFL-1, F4U/F6F (day and night fighter), F7F/F8B "heavy" fighter, F2G/F8F interceptor, FJ-1/FH/F6U, F2H/F9F Panther, F7U-1/Grumman early swept-wing F9F study, F4D/XF3H-1 interceptor, XF10F/F3H-2/F7U-3 general-purpose fighter, F3D/F9F-1/F2H-2N/F2H-3/4 all-weather fighter, FJ-2/F9F-6/F7U-3 day fighter, FJ-3/F9F-8 day fighter, F7U-3M/F7U-2M Sparrow I-armed fighter, F4D/F3H-2 all-weather fighter, FJ-4/F11F/F8U-1 day fighter, F8U-2/F5D/F12F* all-weather-capable fighter, and F4H/F8U-3 FAD fighter (the F6D was an outlier from this dual-source practice but it was basically a low-risk transport for which existing carrier-based aircraft could be substituted to lug around the big and heavy missile control system and missiles). At that point DoD and Congress basically put a stop to the Navy's practice of relying on flyoff competitions for determing the best airplane to buy in quantity for a particular mission.

* https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2018/02/one-more-time-grumman-f12f.html
 
Last edited:
Tailspin Turtle said:
1958: Congress in effect refused to allow the Navy to buy production quantities of both the the F4H and the F8U-3 - it would only fund one or the other (see https://tommythomason.com/books/McDonnell F4H-1/). That's the first incidence that I'm sure of for the Navy being restricted to buying only one fighter type for any mission. As BlackBat242 alluded to, the Navy had a long history, dating back to the 1920s, of contracting with at least two different companies to develop airplanes for flight evaluation to satisfy one of their fighter and (to a lesser extent, attack after WW II) mission requirements, often resulting in production of more than one of them. Monoplane fighters for example (off the top of my head; I may have missed a few): the F2A/F4F, XF4U/XF5F/XFL-1, F4U/F6F (day and night fighter), F7F/F8B "heavy" fighter, F2G/F8F interceptor, FJ-1/FH/F6U, F2H/F9F Panther, F7U-1/Grumman early swept-wing F9F study, F4D/XF3H-1 interceptor, XF10F/F3H-2/F7U-3 general-purpose fighter, F3D/F9F-1/F2H-2N/F2H-3/4 all-weather fighter, FJ-2/F9F-6/F7U-3 day fighter, FJ-3/F9F-8 day fighter, F7U-3M/F7U-2M Sparrow I-armed fighter, F4D/F3H-2 all-weather fighter, FJ-4/F11F/F8U-1 day fighter, F8U-2/F5D/F12F* all-weather-capable fighter, and F4H/F8U-3 FAD fighter (the F6D was an outlier from this dual-source practice but it was basically a low-risk transport for which existing carrier-based aircraft could be substituted to lug around the big and heavy missile control system and missiles). At that point DoD and Congress basically put a stop to the Navy's practice of relying on flyoff competitions for determing the best airplane to buy in quantity for a particular mission.

* https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2018/02/one-more-time-grumman-f12f.html
Click to expand...
You sir are a scholar and a gentlemen!
 
bobtdwarf said:
Don't disagree just going to point out that the line was not torn down so could be started up again, as far as I am aware they did not dismantle things until after the A-7 was awarded as the Grumman entry was based on the Tiger.

There has to be some kind of legislative hog tying here as I think we would all agree that without such there are more effective combinations of available airframes that could have been fielded; but if you are stuck with 1 all weather and 1 day fighter the best combo IS the F-8/F-4! If you don't have that then you would logically go F-4, Cru III and ST to give you the maximum amount of zoom-zoom and boom-boom.
Click to expand...
Everything I have read said that Grumman's entry in the VAL competition was a single-seat A-6 (Model 128G-12, despite the specification that the entry was to use the TF30, Grumman stuck with the 2xJ52 design), going against Vought's "revised Crusader", NAA's TF30-Fury, and Douglas' TF30 SuperSkyhawk.


Yes... that was about the time Congress was cracking down "waste and duplication" on all the services, the USAF as well. Perhaps it was just the F4H vs F8U-3 competition that Congress explicitly laid down the restriction at that time - the following such pronouncements seem to have come from the Secretary of Defense level (TFX/Missileer, USAF Phantom, and so on).

Congress did step in again later - in the late 1960s, when the USMC was wanting to buy the Harrier and the A-7 to replace their A-4s, they were told "Harrier and an improved A-4 OR A-7 only, make your choice".
 
@Tailspin Turtle : awesome post, really. I reshaped it into a list.

Monoplane fighters for example:
- the F2A/F4F - XF4U/XF5F/XFL-1
- F4U/F6F (day and night fighter)
- F7F/F8B "heavy" fighter
- F2G/F8F interceptor
- FJ-1/FH/F6U, F2H/F9F Panther,
- F7U-1/Grumman early swept-wing F9F study, F4D/XF3H-1 interceptor
- XF10F/F3H-2/F7U-3 general-purpose fighter
- F3D/F9F-1/F2H-2N/F2H-3/4 all-weather fighter
- FJ-2/F9F-6/F7U-3 day fighter
- FJ-3/F9F-8 day fighter
- F7U-3M/F7U-2M Sparrow I-armed fighter
- F4D/F3H-2 all-weather fighter
- FJ-4/F11F/F8U-1 day fighter
- F8U-2/F5D/F12F* all-weather-capable fighter
- F4H/F8U-3 FAD fighter
 
BlackBat242 said:
Everything I have read said that Grumman's entry in the VAL competition was a single-seat A-6 (Model 128G-12, despite the specification that the entry was to use the TF30, Grumman stuck with the 2xJ52 design), going against Vought's "revised Crusader", NAA's TF30-Fury, and Douglas' TF30 SuperSkyhawk.


Yes... that was about the time Congress was cracking down "waste and duplication" on all the services, the USAF as well. Perhaps it was just the F4H vs F8U-3 competition that Congress explicitly laid down the restriction at that time - the following such pronouncements seem to have come from the Secretary of Defense level (TFX/Missileer, USAF Phantom, and so on).

Congress did step in again later - in the late 1960s, when the USMC was wanting to buy the Harrier and the A-7 to replace their A-4s, they were told "Harrier and an improved A-4 OR A-7 only, make your choice".
Click to expand...
Grumman did eventually go with the single seat A-6 but their initial idea was a TF-30 powered version of the Tiger/SuperTiger. It did not go further than paper and some desktop models for promotional purposes. Edit: I saw it on tail hook topics.. Really nice pics of the desktop model of it and the Fury version
 
Last edited:
Grumman considered both a TF30-powered F11F derivative and a single-seat A-6 derivative for their VA(L) proposal. With respect to “VA(L) must be a modification of an aircraft currently in the Navy inventory”, the Tiger wasn’t any more of a stretch than the other competitors ( a cynic would say that the only commonality that the Vought proposal had with its Crusader was it looked like one in a dim light and from a parts-count standpoint it retained some hydraulic system components, which were arguably the worst feature of the F8U). Nevertheless Grumman decided that an A-6 derivative with two J52s was much closer to the spirit of that requirement so that was what they proposed, logically claiming lower development cost, significantly better payload-range than required, earlier operational availability, and operating cost savings because of its commonality of engine, structure, and systems with the all-weather A-6s in a carrier’s air wing.
 
bobtdwarf said:
it was part of the German proposal for SuperTiger, it was for a 200 series with reheat in place of the J-79 since Germany had familiarity and or a license for the Avon already.
Click to expand...
That might have been an issue - since the Avon is larger in diameter than the J65 of the F11F Tigers - and thus MUCH larger in diameter and weaker than the J79.

J65-W-18: thrust 7,400 lb (10,500 lb in afterburner); weight 3,485 lb*; length 181" (130" without afterburner); diameter 37.7
* 2,750 lb without afterburner

J79-GE-7: thrust 10,000 lb (15,800 lb a/b); weight 3,385 lb**; length 207.5" (110" w/o a/b); 30.4" (38.3" a/b section)
[test engine was -3A: 9,600 lb (15,000 lb a/b); 3,225 lb; length & diameter same] reached M2.0 with this engine.
In 1959 the -8 flew in the A-5 Vigilante: 10,900 lb (17,000 lb a/b); w 3,630 lb; l 208.5" (110"); d 30.4" (38.3" a/b)
** 2,800 lb without afterburner

Avon RA.24R: thrust 10,800 lb (14,000 lb a/b); weight"***; length 138" 113 w/o a/b); diameter 41'5" (44" a/b)
*** 2,860 without afterburner

Note that in selecting the F-104 Germany had no problems accepting them with the J79 - specifically, the same -7* engine as that intended for production Super Tigers!
* and the -11, which had identical specs to the -7
 
BlackBat242 said:
That might have been an issue - since the Avon is larger in diameter than the J65 of the F11F Tigers - and thus MUCH larger in diameter and weaker than the J79.

J65-W-18: thrust 7,400 lb (10,500 lb in afterburner); weight 3,485 lb*; length 181" (130" without afterburner); diameter 37.7
* 2,750 lb without afterburner

J79-GE-7: thrust 10,000 lb (15,800 lb a/b); weight 3,385 lb**; length 207.5" (110" w/o a/b); 30.4" (38.3" a/b section)
[test engine was -3A: 9,600 lb (15,000 lb a/b); 3,225 lb; length & diameter same] reached M2.0 with this engine.
In 1959 the -8 flew in the A-5 Vigilante: 10,900 lb (17,000 lb a/b); w 3,630 lb; l 208.5" (110"); d 30.4" (38.3" a/b)
** 2,800 lb without afterburner

Avon RA.24R: thrust 10,800 lb (14,000 lb a/b); weight"***; length 138" 113 w/o a/b); diameter 41'5" (44" a/b)
*** 2,860 without afterburner

Note that in selecting the F-104 Germany had no problems accepting them with the J79 - specifically, the same -7* engine as that intended for production Super Tigers!
* and the -11, which had identical specs to the -7
Click to expand...
as I recall the SAC sheet for the Tiger lists the diameter at 41"

yup 184" long and 41" diameter https://www.aahs-online.org/images/Navy_SAC/F-11A.pdf

it is one of the things that drew my attention to the TF-41 in the A-7E. Inch longer and 50 pounds heavier than the J-65 in the Tiger. https://www.aahs-online.org/images/Navy_SAC/A-7E.pdf
 
Last edited:
bobtdwarf said:
as I recall the SAC sheet for the Tiger lists the diameter at 41"
Click to expand...
Which diameter - J79 or J65, and engine body or afterburner?

I see that the SAC doesn't say... so I suspect that that is for the J65 afterburner* - much like the other engines I mentioned had a larger-diameter afterburner (reheat) module than the main engine body.

Nice to see it spelled out, as I didn't have that info on my US engines document.

* the J65 non-afterburning engine diameter is cited as 37.7" in many places, both for the original Sapphire 100 and for the license-built J65.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom