An alternate F-11 Tiger

[orlovsky]

No problem.

oh lord I am an idiot! Orlovsky.. I thought you were referring to the F-4JB FURY not the Phantom!!!! I apologize

No problem.

We have almost no single engine, mach 2 (or close) jets as examples. Different wing alone will change a lot of parameters, that's why I looked at the F-4 just for illustration.

But looking further, I had not considered how light the F-8 had started out. About 27k lbs (replace rockets with missiles).



135 kts with the higher angle wing. BLC should bring it below 130 (F-8J: 145 kts @31.5k lbs despite blc).
So a j79 and a somewhat lighter plane with some tweaking of the wing might work from the H8 - marginally, but still...

 

[bobtdwarf]

I was using the f-4j as an example only. And it's almost the fj-4, but only almost...

yeah the wing and nearly weight so a fair comparison... I am just not qualified on the difference in performance between leading edge droop and slats when it comes to lift and which is "better"

You could also put telescoping main wheels (or even just taller main gear period) on the Tiger in order to give it an extending nose wheel. It really depends how badly you want to get it on board or not

just had a flash in my mind of a Tiger with active hydraulics like they have on "low riders" which though comedic would have some practical application here: Being able to raise and lower the tail gives great ground clearance for underwing ordinance....

 

[orlovsky]

I was using the f-4j as an example only. And it's almost the fj-4, but only almost...

yeah the wing and nearly weight so a fair comparison... I am just not qualified on the difference in performance between leading edge droop and slats when it comes to lift and which is "better"

You could also put telescoping main wheels (or even just taller main gear period) on the Tiger in order to give it an extending nose wheel. It really depends how badly you want to get it on board or not

Funny wheels were quite the rage...

 

[bobtdwarf]

Not sure if this is the right place to pose this question, but it seems to fit.
Why do the US and UK navies go for ever larger aircraft in this period when it is clear that smaller aircraft would be easier to use even on the Forrestals.
We seem to have reversed the process since the 80s with F14 giving way to F18 and then to F35.
The paper exercise here with SuperTiger suggests there were other options.

In short, you got better performance out of the aircraft. Even today, the Super Bug and Lightning don't have anywhere near the range or payload of the aircraft they replaced. And in the Hornet's case, it's also significantly slower than the Tomcat when conducting a deck launched intercept. So yeah, they don't take up as much room, but you're trading off some capability for that space savings

I suppose the end of the Cold War explains that willingness to some extent. But was the high end stuff like the F4 and F14 always necessary?

Yes! Especially as ASMs got longer ranged. Aircraft like the Banshee and Tiger could (barely) intercept a Badger carrying a KS-1 Komet that had a range of 80nm. They had no hope of intercepting a Badger that was carrying a KH-22 that had a range of 320nm, a top speed of Mach 4.6, and possibly packing a nuclear warhead. Keep in mind, a Tiger has a combat radius of 290nm. So a Badger could launch outside of the Tiger's intercept range.

And a Backfire? Forget about it. The Navy needed a plane that could intercept a Backfire at least 500 miles from the carrier, and that could engage multiple bombers from one aircraft. The Navy desperately needed the Tomcat to keep its carriers safe(ish). It was the only aircraft that had any kind of prayer of conducting a successful intercept if we ever went to the war with the USSR.

yeah even my alternative would be weak for later applications. It would do a decent job for a time but it would start showing its weaknesses by '75 at least. That is why in the other thread about what a 40ish million pound carrier might look like think the RN would go for as big as they could get... that PA58 though is a tempting beastie!

 

[orlovsky]

Not sure if this is the right place to pose this question, but it seems to fit.
Why do the US and UK navies go for ever larger aircraft in this period when it is clear that smaller aircraft would be easier to use even on the Forrestals.
We seem to have reversed the process since the 80s with F14 giving way to F18 and then to F35.
The paper exercise here with SuperTiger suggests there were other options.

One key reason apart from speed and endurance is multishot capability to handle several long range bombers with one fighter.

F-4: 4 sparrows, I think first scan and track (?). But you can only shoot one after the other hit or missed.

F-111B and F-14: Phoenix and the AWG-9. 6 targets at the same time.

At the time, this required a large platform. With the current fire-and-forget missiles, a smaller platform suffices.

 

[SSgtC]

I was using the f-4j as an example only. And it's almost the fj-4, but only almost...

yeah the wing and nearly weight so a fair comparison... I am just not qualified on the difference in performance between leading edge droop and slats when it comes to lift and which is "better"

You could also put telescoping main wheels (or even just taller main gear period) on the Tiger in order to give it an extending nose wheel. It really depends how badly you want to get it on board or not

Funny wheels were quite the rage...

View attachment 687477

Yup. Cheap and easy way to increase your wing's angle of attack and lower your launch and recovery speeds. A very good thing with both the H8 and C11 cats

 

[bobtdwarf]

From scanning through the aircraft of similar weights to this super tiger it looks like the ones that operated from H-8 were limited to about 20k or so in launch weight from what little I have seen. Still a viable A2A very light attack load out possible, not saying they would be used there just that they could be used there.

It would be great to have the S-2 converted to turboprop or at least be able to carry a buddy tank wing pod to increase endurance.

 

[SSgtC]

From scanning through the aircraft of similar weights to this super tiger it looks like the ones that operated from H-8 were limited to about 20k or so in launch weight from what little I have seen. Still a viable A2A very light attack load out possible, not saying they would be used there just that they could be used there.

It would be great to have the S-2 converted to turboprop or at least be able to carry a buddy tank wing pod to increase endurance.

Not really needed. The ASW carriers almost never operated on their own. They were at least in the same area with at least one full up Attack Carrier. Particularly in the Atlantic and Med. They tended to operate a bit more independently in the Pacific where the air threat from the USSR was lower.

 

[kaiserd]

Not sure if this is the right place to pose this question, but it seems to fit.
Why do the US and UK navies go for ever larger aircraft in this period when it is clear that smaller aircraft would be easier to use even on the Forrestals.
We seem to have reversed the process since the 80s with F14 giving way to F18 and then to F35.
The paper exercise here with SuperTiger suggests there were other options.

They needed larger aircraft because they needed higher performance aircraft carrying more sophisticated avionics and weapons.
As other contributors have noted the US Navy looked at the evolving threats that faced them and decided they need the Phantom-sparrow combination and then the F-14-phoenix combination to do the required job against likely Soviet threats of the respective times.

There were no light-weight equivalents on offer that could remotely have done the same job.
There were no proto-F-16s or F/A-18s to be had. Those aircraft required revolutions in engines, design, and other technologies (fly-by-wire, relaxed stability, avionic miniaturisation, etc) that were not available to earlier designs.

The F-11 ultimately really wasn’t that good a design and strapping on the postulated alternative wing of a very different even further out of date sub-sonic primarily attack aircraft isn’t likely to have a transformative effect.
The F-11 was too constrained an airframe with limited room/ capacity for growth; those that entered service was an attractive relatively good handling relatively basic fighter aircraft that was ultimately short on power, performance, endurance and avionic and weapon capabilities. Tackling this required a new engine and a spiral of more fuel, more avionics, another person, a bigger wing, more fuel to compensate for the greater drag etc. etc. A heavier and heavier aircraft struggling to actually deliver the required capabilities and performance.
An evolved aircraft manifestly inferior to the Phantom II and the Crusader III and likely struggling to deliver the same, yet alone better, carrier capability re: smaller carriers as those 2 designs.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Not sure if this is the right place to pose this question, but it seems to fit.
Why do the US and UK navies go for ever larger aircraft in this period when it is clear that smaller aircraft would be easier to use even on the Forrestals.
We seem to have reversed the process since the 80s with F14 giving way to F18 and then to F35.
The paper exercise here with SuperTiger suggests there were other options.

They needed larger aircraft because they needed higher performance aircraft carrying more sophisticated avionics and weapons.
As other contributors have noted the US Navy looked at the evolving threats that faced them and decided they need the Phantom-sparrow combination and then the F-14-phoenix combination to do the required job against likely Soviet threats of the respective times.

There were no light-weight equivalents on offer that could remotely have done the same job.
There were no proto-F-16s or F/A-18s to be had. Those aircraft required revolutions in engines, design, and other technologies (fly-by-wire, relaxed stability, avionic miniaturisation, etc) that were not available to earlier designs.

The F-11 ultimately really wasn’t that good a design and strapping on the postulated alternative wing of a very different even further out of date sub-sonic primarily attack aircraft isn’t likely to have a transformative effect.
The F-11 was too constrained an airframe with limited room/ capacity for growth; those that entered service was an attractive relatively good handling relatively basic fighter aircraft that was ultimately short on power, performance, endurance and avionic and weapon capabilities. Tackling this required a new engine and a spiral of more fuel, more avionics, another person, a bigger wing, more fuel to compensate for the greater drag etc. etc. A heavier and heavier aircraft struggling to actually deliver the required capabilities and performance.
An evolved aircraft manifestly inferior to the Phantom II and the Crusader III and likely struggling to deliver the same, yet alone better, carrier capability re: smaller carriers as those 2 designs.

It really just required installing the radar it was wired for but never fitted with, an engine that actually delivered rated output and the bigger wing. Sure I used the FJ-4 wing as an illustration since I did not have access to a decent 98-L image but the navy did and approved it as the F-12 though they did not follow through.


I will say this in defense of the FJ-4 briefly.. it was rated the best non after burning day fighter in the world at the time and its wing from its construction and thickness is a supersonic one.. compare a shot of the F-11 and FJ wings they are nearly identical and both are substantially thinner than the much larger wing of the F-8 which should have larger drag.


The larger wing even if only 300 sqft. will improve range by 10% and substantially improve turn performance, the larger one should improve range by close to 15%... the FJ-4 carried less fuel than the F-11, even with tanks and had several hundred miles more range all while also being IIRC 2000 pounds heavier(I would chalk that weight up to using less aluminum and more steel). With that and the J-79 which improved range by 21% just on burn rate.. You have an aircraft that will carry the same number of AAMs as the Phantom at half the price of it that can out maneuver it and should be able to every Soviet jet for a good long while. Its viable lifetime should also be comparable to the F-4


You make fair points about it not being fully baked at the time.. and not having a huge amount of room for stuffing more avionics in it, but luckily electronics were shrinking rapidly: She could take the same radar as the Crusader III all of her avionics would fit in the SuperTiger.

As has been discussed in this thread Hermes could only fit about 8 Phantoms in the hangar... but could carry 30 of this modification or the 98-L with an appropriate wing fold for the RN spec which could be done where it could not be on the Phantom. So in terms of A2A a slightly evolved Tiger/SuperTiger will be as capable a missile carrier as Phantom and substantially better dog fighter than the Phantom while still carrying half the A2G load and being half the price and you can operate it in numbers that matter on Hermes and Victorious.

 

[kaiserd]

A few relevant points

So the US Navy ordered but then very quickly binned the big-wing Tiger for the clearly far superior Phantom 2 and Crusader 3 who then ended up competing against each other.
How does boost or support your argument?

A bigger wing generally increases weight and drag. And generally if you are going to a bigger wing it is to compensate for already increasing weights. It’s not some kind of magic trick and generally indicates a design in a weight spiral and in potential trouble (and at the very least suggests a lack of “stretch”/ room for growth in the underlying design). Apparently the US Navy shared this view re: the big-wing F-11 given its binning.

The Crusader III was a substantially larger heavier aircraft with substantially more room and scope for heavier avionics.
It’s not credible to suggest that it’s avionics fit could just be lifted into the big wing F-11. Any even if you could elbow it in what impact does that have on the F-11 team in terms of overall weight, displacing fuel, etc? And that’s before evaluating if the one man crew could handle these Crusader 3 avionics/ mission as effectively as the Phantom 2’s 2 man crew. Or does the big wing Tiger have a 2 man crew further driving up the weight and displacing/ competing with the avionics and fuel for space/inclusion in finite take-off and landing weight and driving up take-off and landing speeds?

How can a really heavy F-11 carrying the same approx missile load of a F-4, the drag of a larger wing, these Crusader 3 avionics, all the extra fuel, and possibly an extra crew man, have equivalent (yet alone superior) performance as the F-4 on literally half the power? And operating off smaller carriers than the F-4 could in that context?
And be remotely a great dog fighter in this context?

A big-wing F-11 trying to match Phantom 2 or Crusader 3 capabilities is likely to be a bit of a dog of an aircraft and you’d be much better off going for either of those more capable aircraft. And if you want something not as a capable (or at least something that could fit on and operate from smaller carriers) your’re better off with a vanilla-Crusader variant. That’s literally the decisions the US Navy and then the French Navy actually made in reality.

Despite my comments above I’m actually a bit of a fan of the F-11 Tiger that actually entered service; it’s a beautiful graceful elegant aircraft.
But ultimately it was an evolutionary dead end, not a proto- F-16 or F/A-18.
And it’s certainly not nor ever was it ever the fantasy aircraft some contributors appear to see it as.

 

[zen]

Increasing aircraft size and weight is about changing requirements and the demands of fuel burn and electronics.

RN went from 1 hour CAP to 2 to wanting 4 hours.
They went from 2 AAMs of close range to 4 of long range.
They went from supersonic to Mach 2.5+ requirements and thinking beyond to even faster.
They went from single role to multirole aircraft.

All that imposes increases in size, weight, operational limits (TO&L) and increased demands on the carrier.

 

[orlovsky]

The Crusader III was a substantially larger heavier aircraft with substantially more room and scope for heavier avionics.
It’s not credible to suggest that it’s avionics fit could just be lifted into the big wing F-11. Any even if you could elbow it in what impact does that have on the F-11 team in terms of overall weight, displacing fuel, etc? And that’s before evaluating if the one man crew could handle these Crusader 3 avionics/ mission as effectively as the Phantom 2’s 2 man crew. Or does the big wing Tiger have a 2 man crew further driving up the weight and displacing/ competing with the avionics and fuel for space/inclusion in finite take-off and landing weight and driving up take-off and landing speeds?

Was thinking about the crusader III, too.
Weight with fuel and missiles: ~38k lbs
Thrust: 16,5k lbs mil, 26k lbs AB
3 sparrows
Later planned with 32 or 34 inch radar.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F8U-3_Crusader_SAC_-_31_January_1958_(Tommy).pdf

J79, early versions about 15k lbs AB. Early version for phantoms 10.7k lbs mil, 17k lbs AB.

So if you want to build a H8-compatible fighter around the J79, you roughly have to scale down 2:3.

25k lbs, including 9k lbs fuel and 2 sparrows.
24-26 inch radar dish.

And the stall speed from the crusader III is still 134 kts with the higher angle wing and blc. So the supertiger/minicrusader would need additional measures to bring that down to 120-125 kts.

Getting pretty similar to this, just a little bigger... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-2-2-naval-fighter-proposal-from-1956-57.142/

 

[orlovsky]

Now Grumman just has to sell the design to Breguet, and we get the Breguet Super Tigre on a Clemenceau carrier...

 

[bobtdwarf]

A few relevant points

So the US Navy ordered but then very quickly binned the big-wing Tiger for the clearly far superior Phantom 2 and Crusader 3 who then ended up competing against each other.
How does boost or support your argument?

A bigger wing generally increases weight and drag. And generally if you are going to a bigger wing it is to compensate for already increasing weights. It’s not some kind of magic trick and generally indicates a design in a weight spiral and in potential trouble (and at the very least suggests a lack of “stretch”/ room for growth in the underlying design). Apparently the US Navy shared this view re: the big-wing F-11 given its binning.

The Crusader III was a substantially larger heavier aircraft with substantially more room and scope for heavier avionics.
It’s not credible to suggest that it’s avionics fit could just be lifted into the big wing F-11. Any even if you could elbow it in what impact does that have on the F-11 team in terms of overall weight, displacing fuel, etc? And that’s before evaluating if the one man crew could handle these Crusader 3 avionics/ mission as effectively as the Phantom 2’s 2 man crew. Or does the big wing Tiger have a 2 man crew further driving up the weight and displacing/ competing with the avionics and fuel for space/inclusion in finite take-off and landing weight and driving up take-off and landing speeds?

How can a really heavy F-11 carrying the same approx missile load of a F-4, the drag of a larger wing, these Crusader 3 avionics, all the extra fuel, and possibly an extra crew man, have equivalent (yet alone superior) performance as the F-4 on literally half the power? And operating off smaller carriers than the F-4 could in that context?
And be remotely a great dog fighter in this context?

A big-wing F-11 trying to match Phantom 2 or Crusader 3 capabilities is likely to be a bit of a dog of an aircraft and you’d be much better off going for either of those more capable aircraft. And if you want something not as a capable (or at least something that could fit on and operate from smaller carriers) your’re better off with a vanilla-Crusader variant. That’s literally the decisions the US Navy and then the French Navy actually made in reality.

Despite my comments above I’m actually a bit of a fan of the F-11 Tiger that actually entered service; it’s a beautiful graceful elegant aircraft.
But ultimately it was an evolutionary dead end, not a proto- F-16 or F/A-18.
And it’s certainly not nor ever was it ever the fantasy aircraft some contributors appear to see it as.

The binning took place after a change in USN leadership, had nothing to do with technical aspects of the aircraft and everything to do with the new guy valuing larger aircraft over smaller. That is the long and the short of it.


In this case your assumption about wing size is incorrect. See the F9F-6/8... the Tiger starts with an undersized wing: To save you the time they are the same weight and general dimension as the Tiger and the -8 was built deliberately with a wing just 2-3 sqft. smaller in overall area to the alternative in this thread specifically to reduce launch and recovery speeds at the request of the USN. Oddly the -8 is the faster of the two with a level max of 704 MPH given that they have engines of exactly the same thrust rating and the -6 is a 300 sqft wing and the -8 is a 337 sqft. All changes made added up to about 200 pounds, probably because they had slightly thinner outer wing panels. It is worth noting that the FJ-4 could do M 1.41 with 12,000 pounds of thrust which is rather amazing considering it was not area ruled.

The Crusader III used the 24 inch dish APQ-72 which is the same size as the APQ-50 and has the same form factor: Dustbin with a hat. The long nose Tigers are wired for but not fitted with that family of radar but most importantly for this discussion they were also BALLASTED for them and the fitting of the avionics in the Cru III was already discussed IRL in regards the SuperTiger in place of its existing behind the seat avionics, inclusive of the fix Vought discussed for increasing the dish size by moving the "dustbin" portion of the APQ behind the seat which would reduce the fuel capacity of the tank there by 50 gallons to make room for the volume needed. Given that I have been using a flat 25,000 pounds for the launch weight here I have already added about 1,000 pounds to compensate for weight differences. Which will bring us to how it can be a better dog fighter.


They are called GUNS, Tiger has them, Phantom don't. Now let;s talk about wing loading... at combat weight a Phantom has a wing loading of just under 72.. the biggest wing of this alternative at a combat weight 2000 pounds GREATER than the historic has one of just under 59. The combat weight of the Phantom is about 38,000 pounds, Tiger historically is a wee bit over 18,000 but I am using 20k here... Power to weight ratios are a wash and the Tiger can out turn you by not just a little but a LOT! That is a greater differential in wing loading than between a Spitfire and an HE-111(27 V 33), to give you a comparison in agility. Pilots that have flown the F-8, F-4 and Tiger have said that the Tiger had better visibility.... That should all add up to more times than not the Phantom losing.

 

[bobtdwarf]

A sizable chunk of the differences in size and weight between the three are engines and fuel load. The Cru III has a honking giant of a power plant! Is 15+ feet longer than the 2 seat version of the SuperTiger detailed in Corky's book and has an empty weight 1,000 pounds greater than what I used above for the Alt-Tigers combat weight. Oh and it carries just about 1000 gallons more fuel... For reference at a 38k pound combat weight its wing loading would be 84 so the Phantom would out turn it easily. Using the comparison of the He-111 and Spitfire's 6 unit difference the Phantom and Cru III 12 is ugly; the 24 unit difference between Cru III and Alt-Tiger is frightening. Can you imagine trying to get a lock on outside of BVR?


Could she work on a smaller carrier? She is almost 60 feet long, she would have to fold up just behind the cockpit to make it down the lift

 

[bobtdwarf]

Increasing aircraft size and weight is about changing requirements and the demands of fuel burn and electronics.

RN went from 1 hour CAP to 2 to wanting 4 hours.
They went from 2 AAMs of close range to 4 of long range.
They went from supersonic to Mach 2.5+ requirements and thinking beyond to even faster.
They went from single role to multirole aircraft.

All that imposes increases in size, weight, operational limits (TO&L) and increased demands on the carrier.

And the increasing desire for greater "bring back" capability will have an effect as well. As Orlovsky reminds us the heavier the load the higher the recovery speed

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with the F-11 Tiger is the same one the earlier F8F Bearcat, and the contemporary F-104 has. All three were conceived as maximum performance interceptor aircraft. At the time they were first going operational, electronics were still very bulky, and often heavy items.
None of these aircraft really had the room to fit anything like that, and their short range made them undesirable as offensive fighter aircraft.

For example, the USAF Air Defense Command (ADC) to which the F-104 was initially given didn't want the plane because of its short range and inability to be fitted with electronics compatible with SAGE. The F-11 is the same way. The Navy saw it as a purely day fighter lacking even the basic in electronics. With no room to rectify that, it was short-lived in service

As a potential export plane it might have done well, like the F-104 did, but that requires Grumman to have stellar salesmen, something Lockheed had at the time. Of course, the Folland Gnat didn't sell well either...

 

[bobtdwarf]

The problem with the F-11 Tiger is the same one the earlier F8F Bearcat, and the contemporary F-104 has. All three were conceived as maximum performance interceptor aircraft. At the time they were first going operational, electronics were still very bulky, and often heavy items.
None of these aircraft really had the room to fit anything like that, and their short range made them undesirable as offensive fighter aircraft.

For example, the USAF Air Defense Command (ADC) to which the F-104 was initially given didn't want the plane because of its short range and inability to be fitted with electronics compatible with SAGE. The F-11 is the same way. The Navy saw it as a purely day fighter lacking even the basic in electronics. With no room to rectify that, it was short-lived in service

As a potential export plane it might have done well, like the F-104 did, but that requires Grumman to have stellar salesmen, something Lockheed had at the time. Of course, the Folland Gnat didn't sell well either...

read the thread.. we have been quite exhaustive in dissecting the aircraft. It has room in the long nose which is all but the very early development units.

 

[SSgtC]

They are called GUNS, Tiger has them, Phantom don't.

So did the Crusader. Want to guess how many more gun kills the F-8 got then the F-4 over Vietnam? Zero. The Crusader did not score a single gun kill over Vietnam. The Colt 20mm was a garbage gun that would jam as soon as you pulled any kind of G.

 

[SSgtC]

For reference at a 38k pound combat weight its wing loading would be 84 so the Phantom would out turn it easily

Not true at all with regards to the Crusader III. The Super Crusader humiliated the Phantom in turn and burn dog fighting. The Super Crusader's combat weight was only 30,500 pounds. So the wing loading will be lower (in addition to having an absolute brute of an engine). That was one reason that the -3 was preferred over the Phantom by pilots, it was able to turn and burn with anything in the sky. The Phantom was compared unfavorably to a brick.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with the F-11 Tiger is the same one the earlier F8F Bearcat, and the contemporary F-104 has. All three were conceived as maximum performance interceptor aircraft. At the time they were first going operational, electronics were still very bulky, and often heavy items.
None of these aircraft really had the room to fit anything like that, and their short range made them undesirable as offensive fighter aircraft.

For example, the USAF Air Defense Command (ADC) to which the F-104 was initially given didn't want the plane because of its short range and inability to be fitted with electronics compatible with SAGE. The F-11 is the same way. The Navy saw it as a purely day fighter lacking even the basic in electronics. With no room to rectify that, it was short-lived in service

As a potential export plane it might have done well, like the F-104 did, but that requires Grumman to have stellar salesmen, something Lockheed had at the time. Of course, the Folland Gnat didn't sell well either...

read the thread.. we have been quite exhaustive in dissecting the aircraft. It has room in the long nose which is all but the very early development units.

Room for what? A simple gunsight tracking radar is hardly what the Navy wanted.

 

[bobtdwarf]

They are called GUNS, Tiger has them, Phantom don't.

So did the Crusader. Want to guess how many more gun kills the F-8 got then the F-4 over Vietnam? Zero. The Crusader did not score a single gun kill over Vietnam. The Colt 20mm was a garbage gun that would jam as soon as you pulled any kind of G.

true but if you don't even have a gun and your opponent has a serious maneuver advantage you can't contest your being the better "dogfighter".

 

[SSgtC]

They are called GUNS, Tiger has them, Phantom don't.

So did the Crusader. Want to guess how many more gun kills the F-8 got then the F-4 over Vietnam? Zero. The Crusader did not score a single gun kill over Vietnam. The Colt 20mm was a garbage gun that would jam as soon as you pulled any kind of G.

true but if you don't even have a gun and your opponent has a serious maneuver advantage you can't contest your being the better "dogfighter".

Sure you can! The Navy proved, repeatedly, that all you needed were the proper tactics. The F-4 couldn't turn for shit. And everyone knew it. But what it could do was rocket it's ass straight up like no one's business. And that's exactly what the Navy trained it's pilots to do at Top Gun. By the end of Vietnam, the NVAF would regularly engage USAF Phantoms, but would haul ass the second they saw Navy one's. Because the Navy had learned the proper tactics to counter a plane that can out turn it.

 

[bobtdwarf]

For reference at a 38k pound combat weight its wing loading would be 84 so the Phantom would out turn it easily

Not true at all with regards to the Crusader III. The Super Crusader humiliated the Phantom in turn and burn dog fighting. The Super Crusader's combat weight was only 30,500 pounds. So the wing loading will be lower (in addition to having an absolute brute of an engine). That was one reason that the -3 was preferred over the Phantom by pilots, it was able to turn and burn with anything in the sky. The Phantom was compared unfavorably to a brick.

fair point, my screw up. That puts her at 67.7 so about 5 lower than the Phantom.. Alt-T is 8 better than the Cru III.. so it still has the turn advantage while Cru III has a better power to weight. EDIT: But only in AB

 

[bobtdwarf]

The problem with the F-11 Tiger is the same one the earlier F8F Bearcat, and the contemporary F-104 has. All three were conceived as maximum performance interceptor aircraft. At the time they were first going operational, electronics were still very bulky, and often heavy items.
None of these aircraft really had the room to fit anything like that, and their short range made them undesirable as offensive fighter aircraft.

For example, the USAF Air Defense Command (ADC) to which the F-104 was initially given didn't want the plane because of its short range and inability to be fitted with electronics compatible with SAGE. The F-11 is the same way. The Navy saw it as a purely day fighter lacking even the basic in electronics. With no room to rectify that, it was short-lived in service

As a potential export plane it might have done well, like the F-104 did, but that requires Grumman to have stellar salesmen, something Lockheed had at the time. Of course, the Folland Gnat didn't sell well either...

read the thread.. we have been quite exhaustive in dissecting the aircraft. It has room in the long nose which is all but the very early development units.

Room for what? A simple gunsight tracking radar is hardly what the Navy wanted.

it has room for a full APQ-50 series.. as I said read the thread. ALL the long nose Tigers were wired and ballasted for the installation of them, the navy never installed them.

 

[bobtdwarf]

They are called GUNS, Tiger has them, Phantom don't.

So did the Crusader. Want to guess how many more gun kills the F-8 got then the F-4 over Vietnam? Zero. The Crusader did not score a single gun kill over Vietnam. The Colt 20mm was a garbage gun that would jam as soon as you pulled any kind of G.

true but if you don't even have a gun and your opponent has a serious maneuver advantage you can't contest your being the better "dogfighter".

Sure you can! The Navy proved, repeatedly, that all you needed were the proper tactics. The F-4 couldn't turn for shit. And everyone knew it. But what it could do was rocket it's ass straight up like no one's business. And that's exactly what the Navy trained it's pilots to do at Top Gun. By the end of Vietnam, the NVAF would regularly engage USAF Phantoms, but would haul ass the second they saw Navy one's. Because the Navy had learned the proper tactics to counter a plane that can out turn it.

That won't work as well or at all with an opponent with the same power to weight. With lowering wing loading it will also out climb the Phantom it just generates more lift. So zoom and boom being a wash all ya got is turn and burn and a Phantom is going to play holy hell getting tone on this bird.

 

[kaiserd]

There is a a lot of selective and incomplete information being quoted to artificially boost the F-11 and to avoid the reality of its limitations,

For example the FJ-4 was only supersonic in a dive or (with the FJ-4F test aircraft) with a powerful rocket strapped to it in the thin air at very high altitude.
The 1.41 Mach speed quoted above was reportedly done using that rocket at approx 70 thousand feet, completely unrepresentative of any service FJ-4 or re-winged and/or re-engined F-11.
Performance misrepresented to apparently boost the argument to use one essentially subsonic aircraft’s wing on an existing barely supersonic aircraft in a theoretical exercise that was never even contemplated in reality.

To dodge the reality that the real big wing F-11 was clearly a case of trying to get more out from an airframe than that airframe had left to give; in reality it wasn’t remotely this all singing all dancing design that some are trying to paint it as - it couldn’t compete with the Phantom 2 and the Crusader 3 (and the basic F-11 ultimately was judged less useful to the US Navy than the “base-line” F-8 Crusader).

However I fear we are talking about an individuals treasured fantasy rather than something that can be debated to a rationale conclusion.

 

[SSgtC]

That won't work as well or at all with an opponent with the same power to weight. With lowering wing loading it will also out climb the Phantom it just generates more lift. So zoom and boom being a wash all ya got is turn and burn and a Phantom is going to play holy hell getting tone on this bird.

No, the Navy didn't teach Boom & Zoom for the Phantom. The Navy trained their Phantom drivers to work in teams, one bird would stay low to keep the enemy in a turning fight, the other would climb like hell, then roll over the top, and dive down on the target, placing them in the Sparrow's no escape zone before launching.

 

[bobtdwarf]

That won't work as well or at all with an opponent with the same power to weight. With lowering wing loading it will also out climb the Phantom it just generates more lift. So zoom and boom being a wash all ya got is turn and burn and a Phantom is going to play holy hell getting tone on this bird.

No, the Navy didn't teach Boom & Zoom for the Phantom. The Navy trained their Phantom drivers to work in teams, one bird would stay low to keep the enemy in a turning fight, the other would climb like hell, then roll over the top, and dive down on the target, placing them in the Sparrow's no escape zone before launching.

I would consider a "dogfight" to be a non missile engagement, maybe AIM-9.. Phantom initial climb rate is 41,000 feet per minute. The historic ST was 48,000... assuming that drag offsets increased lift to zero and you get no increase at all for it that should remain the same and even if we assume it degrades it that is a fair piece to fall to parity.

Superior pilot is going to win all things being equal, hell even unequal some guys got good results with the Brewster Buffalo... that does not nor has it ever meant the Buffalo was the better dog fighter.

We are talking about the raw potential of the aircraft..

 

[bobtdwarf]

There is a a lot of selective and incomplete information being quoted to artificially boost the F-11 and to avoid the reality of its limitations,

For example the FJ-4 was only supersonic in a dive or (with the FJ-4F test aircraft) with a powerful rocket strapped to it in the thin air at very high altitude.
The 1.41 Mach speed quoted above was reportedly done using that rocket at approx 70 thousand feet, completely unrepresentative of any service FJ-4 or re-winged and/or re-engined F-11.
Performance misrepresented to apparently boost the argument to use one essentially subsonic aircraft’s wing on an existing barely supersonic aircraft in a theoretical exercise that was never even contemplated in reality.

To dodge the reality that the real big wing F-11 was clearly a case of trying to get more out from an airframe than that airframe had left to give; in reality it wasn’t remotely this all singing all dancing design that some are trying to paint it as - it couldn’t compete with the Phantom 2 and the Crusader 3 (and the basic F-11 ultimately was judged less useful to the US Navy than the “base-line” F-8 Crusader).

However I fear we are talking about an individuals treasured fantasy rather than something that can be debated to a rationale conclusion.

Nothing was misrepresented at all the fact remains that the wing is a 5/6% thickness, 35 degree all metal wing milled from single billet materiel just as the wing for the Tiger was a 5/6% thickness, 35 degree all metal wing milled from single billet materiel.

Can you perhaps explain to us all how the two hunks of metal know which one is the supersonic one?

Edit: More to the point since I have made it abundantly clear more than once I am using it as a shape donor.. I am not saying take a wing off an existing FJ and weld it onto a Tiger. It was a shape, to make a presentable representation of the concept to save me a ton of time.

Sorry if the tone comes across as argumentative but seriously there is no functional difference in the shapes, hell there is no functional difference in the materials used to make the actual wings and it would be assumed to use the same grade of aircraft aluminum in any event.

Your observations about the airframe itself being played out are not backed up by the IRL evaluations of multiple services including the USAF. All services noted its growth potential.

 

[Archibald]

WESTINGHOUSE
APQ-50 24 inch no Sparrow F4D Skyray
APQ-64 24 inch Sparrow II F5D Skylancer
APQ-72 32 inch Sparrow III Phantom

If the 24 inch APQs fits inside one of the delta Douglas noses, then Super Tiger is a go, too.

 

[bobtdwarf]

WESTINGHOUSE
APQ-50 24 inch no Sparrow F4D Skyray
APQ-64 24 inch Sparrow II F5D Skylancer
APQ-72 32 inch Sparrow III Phantom

If the 24 inch APQs fits inside one of the delta Douglas noses, then Super Tiger is a go, too.

APQ-72 in its earliest form was 24 inch too so it would fit in the nose of the Cru III. For this thread and the RN using the aircraft the possibility of the 18 inch AI.23 leaves open the question of staying with the 18 inch dish allowing a greater range of motion for the dish or upgrading to 24 with the same range of motion... the additional volume would allow for tacking on electronics needed for Sparrow usage on the AI.23 central core in either case.

 

[Archibald]

Yes, I had forgotten that. That's how the F-4B and all the other Phantoms got their peculiar nose, different from the YF-4As. I found via Google books that the change happened circa 1956, when the AH1 attack aircraft became the F4H Phantom.

I use to think that, with the Sparrow II related to the APQ-64, Canadian Westinghouse should have taken a licence for the Avro Arrow and then bid against Hughes and RCA.

And then the antenna would have grown: 24 inch for the Skylancer, 32 inch for the Phantom, next logical step: 40 inch for the Arrow, which was the diameter requested by the RCAF.

Alas, instead they went for RCA and goddam ASTRA-1, and it single handedly (or close) sunk the Arrow by going immensely over budget.

Had they picked Canadian Westingouse and their APQ-64 (the VERY Sparrow II radar for the Skylancer) they could have shifted to Sparrow III & APQ-72 & SARH when Sparrow II proved unworkable. In turn this mean the Arrow and early Phantoms would have had the very same radar and AAMs. This can only help the CF-105 !

But I digress...

 

[Volkodav]

They are called GUNS, Tiger has them, Phantom don't.

So did the Crusader. Want to guess how many more gun kills the F-8 got then the F-4 over Vietnam? Zero. The Crusader did not score a single gun kill over Vietnam. The Colt 20mm was a garbage gun that would jam as soon as you pulled any kind of G.

A Tiger did shoot itself down with guns if I recall correctly

 

[Volkodav]

The problem with the F-11 Tiger is the same one the earlier F8F Bearcat, and the contemporary F-104 has. All three were conceived as maximum performance interceptor aircraft. At the time they were first going operational, electronics were still very bulky, and often heavy items.
None of these aircraft really had the room to fit anything like that, and their short range made them undesirable as offensive fighter aircraft.

For example, the USAF Air Defense Command (ADC) to which the F-104 was initially given didn't want the plane because of its short range and inability to be fitted with electronics compatible with SAGE. The F-11 is the same way. The Navy saw it as a purely day fighter lacking even the basic in electronics. With no room to rectify that, it was short-lived in service

As a potential export plane it might have done well, like the F-104 did, but that requires Grumman to have stellar salesmen, something Lockheed had at the time. Of course, the Folland Gnat didn't sell well either...

read the thread.. we have been quite exhaustive in dissecting the aircraft. It has room in the long nose which is all but the very early development units.

Room for what? A simple gunsight tracking radar is hardly what the Navy wanted.

Read the thread and any decent reference material on the tiger, they had space and weight for radar, even requiring ballast when the radar was not in the end fitted.

 

[bobtdwarf]

They are called GUNS, Tiger has them, Phantom don't.

So did the Crusader. Want to guess how many more gun kills the F-8 got then the F-4 over Vietnam? Zero. The Crusader did not score a single gun kill over Vietnam. The Colt 20mm was a garbage gun that would jam as soon as you pulled any kind of G.

A Tiger did shoot itself down with guns if I recall correctly

Own goals are still a goal LOL

 

[Archibald]

F11F-1 Shoots Itself Down

Talk about bad luck, to the point of sheer absurdness.

 

[orlovsky]

Looking through the sacs: spotting 80 F-11 on an essex class, vs 81 F-8. The wingfold is very far out; moving inward will reduce the fuel cells. Larger wing will not help there....

 

[orlovsky]

Now Grumman just has to sell the design to Breguet, and we get the Breguet Super Tigre on a Clemenceau carrier...

I was kidding there, but looking through the designs it might not be completely unrealistic.

The reengined j79 version: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F11F-1F_Super_Tiger_CS_-_21_February_1956_(Tommy_-_Incomplete).pdf
Longer with 48 ft, larger intakes (?), but no other significant changes.

The F12 looks pretty much the same, just with a larger wing (350 sqft indtead of 250 sqft). J79 9300 lbs mil, 14350 lbs AB.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F12F-1_CS_-_15_August_1955.pdf

Then, there's wiki quoting Buttler: "After the addition of 60° wing root fillets, a 13.5 in (35 cm) fuselage extension, and an uprated J79 engine, the F11F-1F reached an impressive Mach 2.04 in 1957"

There would be no license production of a new plane that Grumman itself did not sell, but for the original tiger with a few tweaks, why not?

So France wants a fast fighter flying from the PA54, replacing the aquilon. Give a Tiger license to SNCASE, Breguet or Dassault. It would get the atar (2 ft longer than the J79, bit less power) and cyrano radar (small enough) as in the Mirage III. Playing around as with the F-8E to get two Matra 530 carried. Longer airframe, small changes maybe for the wing.

Export potential? Difficult.

Fun could be in upgrades, that was the big problem for the F-8. For example, could you fit the mirage 2000 radar ?

Drawback: it won't fly from essex class CVS.