An alternate F-11 Tiger

[bobtdwarf]

Okkaaaaay so I was looking at Aerion atempts at finding an engine for their SSBJ. It happens that they tried a smart trick related to the JT8D. Which was a civilian J52. And then Wikipedia mentionned it was used as basis for the Viggen engine. So that made it supersonic. Hence the core was both civilian and supersonic, and that's why Aerion wanted it.
Later they tried the same trick with the CFM56 / F101 core dual nature: RR Affinity.
...
And there, SHAZAM !
I realized that made the Viggen and Skyhawk engine cousins if not half-brothers.
Also that the Swedes had essentially added an afterburner to the J52.
(facepalm)
I've been reading for years that a J52 with an afterburner might be an intriguing alternative for supersonic fighters. But I was like "Meh, it never had an AB, unlike the J79".
Also "at least the TF41 could have had an afterburner, if taken from the British Phantoms. " Never thought this exactly applied to the J52 going the Swedish way.

Now I'm feeling like a Simpson. D'oh, d'oh, d'oh !!! (as would say Frank Grimes when he goes over the edge).

We need a TL where those foreigners (GB, Sweden) provides "free" AB to the J52 and TF41... no need to reinvent the wheel !

There are sooooooo many fun little combos just waiting to happen. As was pointed out to me.. the J-52 is a derivative of the J-57 so you could use a scaled down version of the AB from it if you are wanting.
I think the max width on the J-65 in the Tiger was at the AB which was 41 inches.. internally I think it was about 37 or 38

 

[Archibald]

Rockets are not lego. But jet engines are.

 

[GK Dundas]

In a earlier post of mine I mentioned that the RCN would love sixty or so Super Tigers more as of joke the anything. However at roughly the same time the RCAF are also looking for a replacement for the F86 .
And if you could say licence build say at old Avro plant. Canadair will be busy building the CF 104 for the 1st Canadian Air Division. But a SuperTiger would provide another customer for the Orenda J - 79 .
And that might just allow for (Under the heading of enlightened self "political "interest ) an increase in the Navy's order.
Mind you , can you actually land this modified SuperTiger a Majestic class carrier ?

 

[Archibald]

That's the big problem indeed... Colossus / Majestic were tinies - by supersonic jets standards at least.

In my own story involving the Skylancer, I had Gerald Bull putting the Arrow analog FBW (quite similar to the Mirage 2000's, except exactly 20 years before) on the Skylancer. This resulted in a drastic drop of the approach and landing speed, as happened between the Mirage III and the 2000 (200 kt to 140 kt, from memory). Enough to land Skylancers on Bonnie-venture...

 

[CV12Hornet]

Eh, I wouldn't take the RM8 as much of a basis for J52 development. The Swedes almost entirely redesigned the JT8D to make it suitable for supersonic flight - it got new fans, turbines, fuel control, and a new combustion chamber.

However, there was one afterburning variant, designed by the Chinese for the Sabre II project. That one was 12,000 lbs dry and 16,000 lbs wet, about the thrust output of the later Avon variants.

 

[Archibald]

I didn't suggested that: rather, to get a J52 afterburner "for free" from the Swedes and, voilà, a competitor to the J79.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Would there be a surplus Essex or two around at this time? As an additional NATO contribution it might serve the US to just transfer a couple if possible and I believe a super Tiger might be doable.

 

[Archibald]

There were a number of them (24) in varied shapes - mothballs (the two crippled of 1945) then AVT, CVS, CVA...

 

[SSgtC]

Mind you , can you actually land this modified SuperTiger a Majestic class carrier ?

If it was modified a bit, I believe so. You would need a BLC system, drooping ailerons and an extended nose wheel to decrease launch speed. But it's doable

 

[Archibald]

Would be a bit marginal or dangerous no ? Weren't Magessus / Colectics at the very edge for supersonic aircraft ? Skyhawks and obsolete straight wing jets maybe, but beyond that... or maybe I'm just biased by OTL, where everybody and his dog went with "Skyhawks + AIM-9s" per lack of any viable (supersonic) alternative, the closest thing being the Crusader.
As a matter of fact, nobody tried to "shrink" the Crusader around a J79, or go even smaller. Crusader killed Skylancer and Super Tiger, N-156N never happened, SR-177 was scrapped in infancy and France went for Crusaders.

Still BLC can do wonders. Provided it is done correctly, not like Etendard IVB.

 

[SSgtC]

Would be a bit marginal or dangerous no ? Weren't Magessus / Colectics at the very edge for supersonic aircraft ? Skyhawks and obsolete straight wing jets maybe, but beyond that... or maybe I'm just biased by OTL, where everybody and his dog went with "Skyhawks + AIM-9s" per lack of any viable (supersonic) alternative, the closest thing being the Crusader.
As a matter of fact, nobody tried to "shrink" the Crusader around a J79, or go even smaller. Crusader killed Skylancer and Super Tiger, N-156N never happened, SR-177 was scrapped in infancy and France went for Crusaders.

Still BLC can do wonders. Provided it is done correctly, not like Etendard IVB.

It would probably be right on the edge of what's possible. In OTL it made sense to go with Skyhawks because they had good low and slow handling characteristics and pilots loved them. And it was better than nothing.

 

[bobtdwarf]

In a earlier post of mine I mentioned that the RCN would love sixty or so Super Tigers more as of joke the anything. However at roughly the same time the RCAF are also looking for a replacement for the F86 .
And if you could say licence build say at old Avro plant. Canadair will be busy building the CF 104 for the 1st Canadian Air Division. But a SuperTiger would provide another customer for the Orenda J - 79 .
And that might just allow for (Under the heading of enlightened self "political "interest ) an increase in the Navy's order.
Mind you , can you actually land this modified SuperTiger a Majestic class carrier ?

They were also looking at the ST as the F-86 replacement as has been discussed, so there is the possibility of a unified fighter here. In regards landing on a Majestic? Depends on the wing. At 250 sqft no.. at 300 or above oh yeah! You could launch Banshee' and Cougar' from Bonnie with zero problems and both were as heavy as the F-11 but had more wing area and thus lower wing loading. With a 300 sq.ft wing the wing loading is the same as the A-4 with my "big" wing alternate in this thread you are looking at about 340 square feet and nearly identical landing and launch speeds to the F9 with the 337 square foot wing so a power on approach speed of about 91 mph. fit it with BLC you are looking at about 74 MPH.

I would be comfortable in saying that launching from Bonnie or Melbourne would be possible

 

[bobtdwarf]

Would there be a surplus Essex or two around at this time? As an additional NATO contribution it might serve the US to just transfer a couple if possible and I believe a super Tiger might be doable.

As noted there a few...lol. Historically F-11 went to sea on Hancock class carriers, but I have never seen any actual record of them being used on H-8 equipped ships; saw an illustration of one claiming to be from the Bennington but nothing backing that up factually. The bigger wing, allows launch from any H-8 ship starting at 300 square feet of wing, at 300 she has the same wing loading as an A-4 and very likely the same limitations as the A-4.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I posted some images that have called into question how big the historical Tiger's wing actually WAS! The mockup in this thread that I slapped together is constant though...

If the USN had not canceled existing orders for the F-11 but instead converted the remaining to the F-12/98-L standard and Grumman modified the fold point for RN carrier users.. you have a Mach 2 aircraft that launch from Majestic class and fit 3 across in the hangar capable of carrying a good AI radar and a useful war-load.

 

[GK Dundas]

In a earlier post of mine I mentioned that the RCN would love sixty or so Super Tigers more as of joke the anything. However at roughly the same time the RCAF are also looking for a replacement for the F86 .
And if you could say licence build say at old Avro plant. Canadair will be busy building the CF 104 for the 1st Canadian Air Division. But a SuperTiger would provide another customer for the Orenda J - 79 .
And that might just allow for (Under the heading of enlightened self "political "interest ) an increase in the Navy's order.
Mind you , can you actually land this modified SuperTiger a Majestic class carrier ?

They were also looking at the ST as the F-86 replacement as has been discussed, so there is the possibility of a unified fighter here. In regards landing on a Majestic? Depends on the wing. At 250 sqft no.. at 300 or above oh yeah! You could launch Banshee' and Cougar' from Bonnie with zero problems and both were as heavy as the F-11 but had more wing area and thus lower wing loading. With a 300 sq.ft wing the wing loading is the same as the A-4 with my "big" wing alternate in this thread you are looking at about 340 square feet and nearly identical landing and launch speeds to the F9 with the 337 square foot wing so a power on approach speed of about 91 mph. fit it with BLC you are looking at about 74 MPH.

I would be comfortable in saying that launching from Bonnie or Melbourne would be possible

I'd feel comfortable as well but then again the both of us will never have to , will we?* Chuckle*

 

[H_K]

If you want a good proxy to the F11F, best is to look at the Etendard IVM/IVB/Super Etendard. That’ll give a good sense of what a 300 sq ft wing will allow, plus the impact of various lift devices.

Etendard IVM: Approach speed was 2-4 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights… they weighed within 50kg/100lbs of each other so that’s a reasonable comparison). Still too fast for the Majestics.

Super Etendard: Approach speed was 10-11 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights). Compared to the IVM, the SuE had full span slats and better flaps. In practice the SuE was 450kg/1,000lbs heavier than the F11F (more avionics), which would add +3kts on approach (100kg = +0.7 knots) so the real world approach speed would be 7-8 knots less than the F11F. Was marginally capable off 25 de Mayo.

Etendard IVB: Used BLC to shave ~10 knots off the IVM and 2-3 knots vs. the SuE, so ~13 knots lower approach speed vs the F11F. Would have been fully capable off the Majestics but still weight constrained with limited warload and bring back capability, especially in tropical conditions.

As far as catapult launch weights were concerned, the 103ft BS4 catapults could launch an IVB @ 22,000lbs (tropical 35C) or 23,000lbs (ISA 15C), with 22 knots wind. Add 1,000lbs for every 3 kts wind plus maybe another 2,000lbs with afterburner thrust and you’re looking at a max take off weight of 26,000lbs in the most optimistic conditions (ISA with 25 knots wind over deck). That is basically an F11F with small drop tanks and 2,000lb loadout…

So even with a 300 sq ft wing and various lift enhancement devices it’s likely that the F11F would have been severely payload limited off the Majestics….

 

[bobtdwarf]

If you want a good proxy to the F11F, best is to look at the Etendard IVM/IVB/Super Etendard. That’ll give a good sense of what a 300 sq ft wing will allow, plus the impact of various lift devices.

Etendard IVM: Approach speed was 2-4 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights… they weighed within 50kg/100lbs of each other so that’s a reasonable comparison). Still too fast for the Majestics.

Super Etendard: Approach speed was 10-11 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights). Compared to the IVM, the SuE had full span slats and better flaps. In practice the SuE was 450kg/1,000lbs heavier than the F11F (more avionics), which would add +3kts on approach (100kg = +0.7 knots) so the real world approach speed would be 7-8 knots less than the F11F. Was marginally capable off 25 de Mayo.

Etendard IVB: Used BLC to shave ~10 knots off the IVM and 2-3 knots vs. the SuE, so ~13 knots lower approach speed vs the F11F. Would have been fully capable off the Majestics but still weight constrained with limited warload and bring back capability, especially in tropical conditions.

As far as catapult launch weights were concerned, the 103ft BS4 catapults could launch an IVB @ 22,000lbs (tropical 35C) or 23,000lbs (ISA 15C), with 22 knots wind. Add 1,000lbs for every 3 kts wind plus maybe another 2,000lbs with afterburner thrust and you’re looking at a max take off weight of 26,000lbs in the most optimistic conditions (ISA with 25 knots wind over deck). That is basically an F11F with small drop tanks and 2,000lb loadout…

So even with a 300 sq ft wing and various lift enhancement devices it’s likely that the F11F would have been severely payload limited off the Majestics….

as was the A-4.. as I said they would have about the same limitations and roughly the same as the RCN Banshees.. could be done, but...there are replacement options for relatively cheap: Wonder what the RN would let Centaur go for?

 

[SSgtC]

So even with a 300 sq ft wing and various lift enhancement devices it’s likely that the F11F would have been severely payload limited off the Majestics….

Honestly. If you're putting Super Tigers on these ships, it's almost certainly being done as a pure Fleet Air Defense fighter. So it's normal loadout would probably only be 2-4 AIM-9s and maybe a single external tank. You're probably not using them as a strike asset

 

[bobtdwarf]

So even with a 300 sq ft wing and various lift enhancement devices it’s likely that the F11F would have been severely payload limited off the Majestics….

Honestly. If you're putting Super Tigers on these ships, it's almost certainly being done as a pure Fleet Air Defense fighter. So it's normal loadout would probably only be 2-4 AIM-9s and maybe a single external tank. You're probably not using them as a strike asset

Now if you want to convert some S2's to turboprops you could do some buddy tanking... get you some bomb load for a bunch of bother.

 

[Pioneer]

As a matter of fact, nobody tried to "shrink" the Crusader around a J79, or go even smaller. Crusader killed Skylancer and Super Tiger, N-156N never happened, SR-177 was scrapped in infancy and France went for Crusaders.

Well Archibald there was the Chance-Vought V-384 design, a smaller derivative of larger V-383 (F8U-1 Crusader), powered by the J65 turbojet. Although not the J79, the J65/V-384 derivative would have been supersonic, smaller and lighter and hence more suited to the smaller Majestic-class type carrier.

How many V-384 do you thing would have to be ordered before Vought would actually tool up and produced them?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Volkodav]

All this talk of Swedish engines got me thinking of the RM6C, but then again, the AVON Mk. 301 would do too.

 

[bobtdwarf]

All this talk of Swedish engines got me thinking of the RM6C, but then again, the AVON Mk. 301 would do too.

Given we have performance numbers of the historic Tiger with the early stage J-79 and the figures for the FJ-4B with an extra 5000 lbs of thrust from a rocket assist in the tail a lot of interesting permutations come in depending upon the amount of ZOOM you want with your boom-boom. 12,000 lbs of thrust should be enough to push her to Mach 1.41-1.61 and we know 10k was enough to push the historic Tiger to 1.1.

You could make a decent case that a non AB Spey might be workable... and imagine an update program like was proposed for the Phantom in the future

 

[GK Dundas]

If you want a good proxy to the F11F, best is to look at the Etendard IVM/IVB/Super Etendard. That’ll give a good sense of what a 300 sq ft wing will allow, plus the impact of various lift devices.

Etendard IVM: Approach speed was 2-4 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights… they weighed within 50kg/100lbs of each other so that’s a reasonable comparison). Still too fast for the Majestics.

Super Etendard: Approach speed was 10-11 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights). Compared to the IVM, the SuE had full span slats and better flaps. In practice the SuE was 450kg/1,000lbs heavier than the F11F (more avionics), which would add +3kts on approach (100kg = +0.7 knots) so the real world approach speed would be 7-8 knots less than the F11F. Was marginally capable off 25 de Mayo.

Etendard IVB: Used BLC to shave ~10 knots off the IVM and 2-3 knots vs. the SuE, so ~13 knots lower approach speed vs the F11F. Would have been fully capable off the Majestics but still weight constrained with limited warload and bring back capability, especially in tropical conditions.

As far as catapult launch weights were concerned, the 103ft BS4 catapults could launch an IVB @ 22,000lbs (tropical 35C) or 23,000lbs (ISA 15C), with 22 knots wind. Add 1,000lbs for every 3 kts wind plus maybe another 2,000lbs with afterburner thrust and you’re looking at a max take off weight of 26,000lbs in the most optimistic conditions (ISA with 25 knots wind over deck). That is basically an F11F with small drop tanks and 2,000lb loadout…

So even with a 300 sq ft wing and various lift enhancement devices it’s likely that the F11F would have been severely payload limited off the Majestics….

as was the A-4.. as I said they would have about the same limitations and roughly the same as the RCN Banshees.. could be done, but...there are replacement options for relatively cheap: Wonder what the RN would let Centaur go for?

Centaur and Albion please, if you're going to do Carriers do it right. When 25 % of your annual operating budget goes to your Carrier Force.Simply put, you cannot afford gaps during refits.
You might want to keep Bonnie as an LPH.

 

[bobtdwarf]

If you want a good proxy to the F11F, best is to look at the Etendard IVM/IVB/Super Etendard. That’ll give a good sense of what a 300 sq ft wing will allow, plus the impact of various lift devices.

Etendard IVM: Approach speed was 2-4 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights… they weighed within 50kg/100lbs of each other so that’s a reasonable comparison). Still too fast for the Majestics.

Super Etendard: Approach speed was 10-11 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights). Compared to the IVM, the SuE had full span slats and better flaps. In practice the SuE was 450kg/1,000lbs heavier than the F11F (more avionics), which would add +3kts on approach (100kg = +0.7 knots) so the real world approach speed would be 7-8 knots less than the F11F. Was marginally capable off 25 de Mayo.

Etendard IVB: Used BLC to shave ~10 knots off the IVM and 2-3 knots vs. the SuE, so ~13 knots lower approach speed vs the F11F. Would have been fully capable off the Majestics but still weight constrained with limited warload and bring back capability, especially in tropical conditions.

As far as catapult launch weights were concerned, the 103ft BS4 catapults could launch an IVB @ 22,000lbs (tropical 35C) or 23,000lbs (ISA 15C), with 22 knots wind. Add 1,000lbs for every 3 kts wind plus maybe another 2,000lbs with afterburner thrust and you’re looking at a max take off weight of 26,000lbs in the most optimistic conditions (ISA with 25 knots wind over deck). That is basically an F11F with small drop tanks and 2,000lb loadout…

So even with a 300 sq ft wing and various lift enhancement devices it’s likely that the F11F would have been severely payload limited off the Majestics….

as was the A-4.. as I said they would have about the same limitations and roughly the same as the RCN Banshees.. could be done, but...there are replacement options for relatively cheap: Wonder what the RN would let Centaur go for?

Centaur and Albion please, if you're going to do Carriers do it right. When 25 % of your annual operating budget goes to your Carrier Force.
Simply put you cannot afford gaps during refits.
You might want to keep Bonnie as an LPH.

I wonder if a combined Anglo-Dutch crew could have been used to keep Centaur an ASW asset?

Regarding the quoted post the max take off weight for the historic Tiger was 23.5k and the Super was just over 26k per wiki...

Bonnie as an LPH sounds interesting

 

[Archibald]

After the two Clems IOC in 1961 & 63 France granted Arromanches another decade of life (1963-1973, approximately) to do exactly that.
It was used as a swiss-knife carrier
- training ship (with Fouga Zephyrs)
- hospital ship / crisis ship (helicopters)
- ASW (helicopters, but also fixed-wing Alizés, which was one hell of a bargain)
- Commando carrier (more helicopters, including Pumas from the Army)
- Command and control ship

Only for the Alizés and Zephyrs, it was worth it. Plus helicopters.

It was retired the year of the first oil shock and was badly missed, it brought capabilities far superior to Jeanne d'Arc. Its main flaws was its 24 kt, too slow for Foch and Clems hitting 31 kt. Still, I remember reading it operated along them in big naval manoeuvers out of Ivory Coast - from Toulon and back.

In fact it had created such a capability all by itself, PH75 was created as an up-to-date Arromanches "swiss knife" multirole platform, except with nuclear power to get plenty of juice during crisis.

A good case could be made that Arromanches sheer versatility wasn't replaced until the Mistrals LPH in the 2000s.

 

[GK Dundas]

If you want a good proxy to the F11F, best is to look at the Etendard IVM/IVB/Super Etendard. That’ll give a good sense of what a 300 sq ft wing will allow, plus the impact of various lift devices.

Etendard IVM: Approach speed was 2-4 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights… they weighed within 50kg/100lbs of each other so that’s a reasonable comparison). Still too fast for the Majestics.

Super Etendard: Approach speed was 10-11 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights). Compared to the IVM, the SuE had full span slats and better flaps. In practice the SuE was 450kg/1,000lbs heavier than the F11F (more avionics), which would add +3kts on approach (100kg = +0.7 knots) so the real world approach speed would be 7-8 knots less than the F11F. Was marginally capable off 25 de Mayo.

Etendard IVB: Used BLC to shave ~10 knots off the IVM and 2-3 knots vs. the SuE, so ~13 knots lower approach speed vs the F11F. Would have been fully capable off the Majestics but still weight constrained with limited warload and bring back capability, especially in tropical conditions.

As far as catapult launch weights were concerned, the 103ft BS4 catapults could launch an IVB @ 22,000lbs (tropical 35C) or 23,000lbs (ISA 15C), with 22 knots wind. Add 1,000lbs for every 3 kts wind plus maybe another 2,000lbs with afterburner thrust and you’re looking at a max take off weight of 26,000lbs in the most optimistic conditions (ISA with 25 knots wind over deck). That is basically an F11F with small drop tanks and 2,000lb loadout…

So even with a 300 sq ft wing and various lift enhancement devices it’s likely that the F11F would have been severely payload limited off the Majestics….

as was the A-4.. as I said they would have about the same limitations and roughly the same as the RCN Banshees.. could be done, but...there are replacement options for relatively cheap: Wonder what the RN would let Centaur go for?

Centaur and Albion please, if you're going to do Carriers do it right. When 25 % of your annual operating budget goes to your Carrier Force.
Simply put you cannot afford gaps during refits.
You might want to keep Bonnie as an LPH.

I wonder if a combined Anglo-Dutch crew could have been used to keep Centaur an ASW asset?

Regarding the quoted post the max take off weight for the historic Tiger was 23.5k and the Super was just over 26k per wiki...

Bonnie as an LPH sounds interesting

Actually it was suggested at least 4 or 5 times between 1961and '71.

 

[SSgtC]

Actually it was suggested at least 4 or 5 times between 1961and '71.

Sadly, I can see it being suggested, and shot down because of a combination of pride, politics and one real world concern. Namely, what if the UK gets into a war that Canada (or vice versa) isn't part of (like the Falklands)? Does the joint ship take part and put half the sailors who aren't belligerents in harms way? Or is the ship strictly a NATO asset? Which would severely reduce its usefulness.

 

[GK Dundas]

Look for the Burchell ( sp. ?) Report roughly 63-64.
It laid out a marvelous possible general purpose Navy . It made not only for interesting reading because it wasn't the usual attempt at fantasy.
Burchell was one of the Government's top men and had a no nonsense reputation.

 

[GK Dundas]

Actually it was suggested at least 4 or 5 times between 1961and '71.

Sadly, I can see it being suggested, and shot down because of a combination of pride, politics and one real world concern. Namely, what if the UK gets into a war that Canada (or vice versa) isn't part of (like the Falklands)? Does the joint ship take part and put half the sailors who aren't belligerents in harms way? Or is the ship strictly a NATO asset? Which would severely reduce its usefulness.

Oh sorry!
I ment using Bonneventure as an helicopter carrier.

 

[bobtdwarf]

If you want a good proxy to the F11F, best is to look at the Etendard IVM/IVB/Super Etendard. That’ll give a good sense of what a 300 sq ft wing will allow, plus the impact of various lift devices.

Etendard IVM: Approach speed was 2-4 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights… they weighed within 50kg/100lbs of each other so that’s a reasonable comparison). Still too fast for the Majestics.

Super Etendard: Approach speed was 10-11 knots lower than the F11F (at identical weights). Compared to the IVM, the SuE had full span slats and better flaps. In practice the SuE was 450kg/1,000lbs heavier than the F11F (more avionics), which would add +3kts on approach (100kg = +0.7 knots) so the real world approach speed would be 7-8 knots less than the F11F. Was marginally capable off 25 de Mayo.

Etendard IVB: Used BLC to shave ~10 knots off the IVM and 2-3 knots vs. the SuE, so ~13 knots lower approach speed vs the F11F. Would have been fully capable off the Majestics but still weight constrained with limited warload and bring back capability, especially in tropical conditions.

As far as catapult launch weights were concerned, the 103ft BS4 catapults could launch an IVB @ 22,000lbs (tropical 35C) or 23,000lbs (ISA 15C), with 22 knots wind. Add 1,000lbs for every 3 kts wind plus maybe another 2,000lbs with afterburner thrust and you’re looking at a max take off weight of 26,000lbs in the most optimistic conditions (ISA with 25 knots wind over deck). That is basically an F11F with small drop tanks and 2,000lb loadout…

So even with a 300 sq ft wing and various lift enhancement devices it’s likely that the F11F would have been severely payload limited off the Majestics….

This is all valuable information to me, I have no access to that kind of data and have been using F9F series as my close analogs since I have access to their SAC sheets

 

[H_K]

have been using F9F series as my close analogs

I’ve read that wing thickness is also an important determinant for lift. Subsonic designs like the F9F had thicker wings which produced lots of lift but weren’t suitable for supersonic flight. As the wings got thinner for supersonic flight the approach speeds got higher (even keeping wing loading constant)…. maybe someone with a better understanding of aerodynamics could confirm.

 

[bobtdwarf]

have been using F9F series as my close analogs

I’ve read that wing thickness is also an important determinant for lift. Subsonic designs like the F9F had thicker wings which produced lots of lift but weren’t suitable for supersonic flight. As the wings got thinner for supersonic flight the approach speeds got higher (even keeping wing loading constant)…. maybe someone with a better understanding of aerodynamics could confirm.

I have heard similar things but have never been able to confirm it even my dad who used to be a pilot wasn't entirely sure about it

 

[SSgtC]

have been using F9F series as my close analogs

I’ve read that wing thickness is also an important determinant for lift. Subsonic designs like the F9F had thicker wings which produced lots of lift but weren’t suitable for supersonic flight. As the wings got thinner for supersonic flight the approach speeds got higher (even keeping wing loading constant)…. maybe someone with a better understanding of aerodynamics could confirm.

Yeah, that's pretty much straight physics. With a thicker wing, the air moving over the top of the wing has a much greater distance to travel than the air moving along the bottom of the wing. This results in a greater disparity in their relative speeds, which generates a greater amount of lift than a thinner wing of the same size. Conversely, the thinner wing will create less drag, resulting in higher speeds and better fuel economy. To determine how big a difference there is between a thicker and thinner wing though? Well, that takes a lot of math. Lol. And seeing as it's nearly midnight here, I don't have the available brain cells to do it. Lol

 

[starviking]

Look for the Burchell ( sp. ?) Report roughly 63-64.
It laid out a marvelous possible general purpose Navy . It made not only for interesting reading because it wasn't the usual attempt at fantasy.
Burchell was one of the Government's top men and had a no nonsense reputation.

Tried to find the Burchell Report of 1964: lots of references on the web, no hits for the report itself

 

[bobtdwarf]

have been using F9F series as my close analogs

I’ve read that wing thickness is also an important determinant for lift. Subsonic designs like the F9F had thicker wings which produced lots of lift but weren’t suitable for supersonic flight. As the wings got thinner for supersonic flight the approach speeds got higher (even keeping wing loading constant)…. maybe someone with a better understanding of aerodynamics could confirm.

Yeah, that's pretty much straight physics. With a thicker wing, the air moving over the top of the wing has a much greater distance to travel than the air moving along the bottom of the wing. This results in a greater disparity in their relative speeds, which generates a greater amount of lift than a thinner wing of the same size. Conversely, the thinner wing will create less drag, resulting in higher speeds and better fuel economy. To determine how big a difference there is between a thicker and thinner wing though? Well, that takes a lot of math. Lol. And seeing as it's nearly midnight here, I don't have the available brain cells to do it. Lol

I thought that was the deal, but like you said that involves a bit of the maths... speaking of I did look up what difference in wing area makes... forgot I did it for the first post it has been so long.

"the increase in wing area over the historic Tiger reduces the launch/landing speed by 10%; if fitted with the extended tips 15%. The historic Tiger had a power on stall speed of about 105 MPH and a safe approach airspeed of 138 MPH so that translates to a power on stall of 94.5 short, 89.25 extended with a safe approach speed of 127.5 and 122.25 MPH respectively. If fitted with BLC and using the figures from Grumman installations of it on Cougars we can reduce this by a further 17 MPH, this will also give the equivalent of 7 MPH of WOD at launch. However fitting BLC with the J-65 would IMHO be quasi suicidal, but something to keep in mind for a better power plant."

The formula I found online was for X % change in area you get Y % of change in airspeed so it doesn't take into account difference in thickness of wing since it assumes that remains a constant...

 

[Lascaris]

So are we concluding here that the actual Super Tiger could operate off a Majestic?

 

[kaiserd]

No they couldn’t - the Majestics, even when significantly refitted, could just about take straight wing generation combat jets and later (only relatives lightly loaded) subsonic designs like the Skyhawk.
The Crusader with specific modifications only just about operated off the rather larger and more modern French carriers.

 

[Archibald]

BIG MOD'THER IS WATCHING YOU

Fact is, naval Mach 2 fighter lower bound seems to be somewhere between a) SBC-125 Essex, b) Hermes final shape post-1959, or c) clean sheet Clemenceau. All of them 1955-1960 era. Dare I say - 25 000 tons absolute minimum ? but there are many others parameters.
French Crusaders got BLC and improved flaps, and that was so efficient the USN retrofitted them into the huge Crusader A/B/C/D/E upgrade plan in the Vietnam era.
Still, out of 42 French Crusader at least 24 (never remember the exact number) were lost in mishaps. Crusader was a hot rod.

 

[bobtdwarf]

So are we concluding here that the actual Super Tiger could operate off a Majestic?

oh no... you might be able to land it if you were lucky.. but you are going to get craned off!

Let me add a caveat here: That is IF the actual size of the wing is 250 square feet, if it as is noted in the margin notes on the 98-L illustrations 300? Might be possible, all the wing loading math I have seen is simple weight/area to give you how much lift is generated by X amount of wing; none of them take into account thickness of wing. Would it be weight limited? Yup just as much as an A-4 at the same weights since each of their wings is generating the same amount of lift by area.

Now in specific to the wing on my alternate the wing is functionally identical to the FJ-4 Fury and that aircraft was used extensively on H-8 Essex class ships; same weights, same wing, same lift same launch speed and H-8 could hurl 15k pounds at 105 MPH(got no figures for 28k since it is not listed). So it should be able to operate with the same weight limits on any carrier that has cats with overlap in performance figures.

 

[zen]

As a matter of fact, nobody tried to "shrink" the Crusader around a J79, or go even smaller. Crusader killed Skylancer and Super Tiger, N-156N never happened, SR-177 was scrapped in infancy and France went for Crusaders.

Well Archibald there was the Chance-Vought V-384 design, a smaller derivative of larger V-383 (F8U-1 Crusader), powered by the J65 turbojet. Although not the J79, the J65/V-384 derivative would have been supersonic, smaller and lighter and hence more suited to the smaller Majestic-class type carrier.

How many V-384 do you thing would have to be ordered before Vought would actually tool up and produced them?

Regards
Pioneer

I did raise a thread on this once if I reccal correctly.....no one wanted to engage with it oddly...

Since more could be achieved by AS on the Sapphire it wasn't unreasonable a concept.

On the Colossus/Majestic front, there were studies into Trade Protection Carriers based on the Scimitar. It was possible to design them to operate such in limited numbers.