An alternate F-11 Tiger

[bobtdwarf]

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....

It thought that as well initially, first post I go into it. Upon further research a surprising number of aircraft stored fuel in the outer (outside the fold) panels. So it WILL reduce it but by how much is yet to be seen. A good example would once more be the F9F-6 and -8. As I have said in other threads the thought of storing a bunch of fuel outside the fold gives me the hives!


We have discussed in the past how the aircraft folds up and its dimensions.. in short in either the version that is my mock up or the Grumman 98-L your wings will be 17 feet or less and the length after the RN nose is applied about 40 feet. So about as long as an A-4 but not as wide.. so the A-4 spot would be closer to accurate.

 

[bobtdwarf]

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.

Funny you mention it... Check page 3 of this thread there is a bunch of delightful items to feast your eyes on.

But back to the story.. France tested the historic SuperTiger and wrecked the #1 prototype. The #1 was a bog standard off the line long nose with a J-79 stuffed inside it no other alterations were made. With the 13k pound early J-79 phase 0 engine it did M 1.61 when they expected only 1.3

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Actually, what I suspect is that the proposed plane here is better fitted to the F5D Skylancer than the F-11 Tiger. The Skylancer has more room for upgrades and is still a very compact aircraft. With wings folded it's 28 feet wide.
The Skylancer has a better rate of climb, higher service ceiling, and about half the wing loading of a Tiger. It has the room for electronics and could have been fitted for hard points for ordinance so it wouldn't be role limited to being a fighter only aircraft.
All of that would make it more suited for operations from smaller carriers with less catapult capacity in terms of launch weight and speed.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Actually, what I suspect is that the proposed plane here is better fitted to the F5D Skylancer than the F-11 Tiger. The Skylancer has more room for upgrades and is still a very compact aircraft. With wings folded it's 28 feet wide.
The Skylancer has a better rate of climb, higher service ceiling, and about half the wing loading of a Tiger. It has the room for electronics and could have been fitted for hard points for ordinance so it wouldn't be role limited to being a fighter only aircraft.
All of that would make it more suited for operations from smaller carriers with less catapult capacity in terms of launch weight and speed.

it is a good aircraft. The major issues for small carriers would be its folded span. Allied light carriers their hangars range from 52-67 feet wide. Assuming a hangar length of 364 feet which is the length of one of the RN's you are looking at 7-14 aircraft depending on hangar width... this is why the Aussies carried so few A-4's on Melbourne her hangar was 52 feet across. That wing loading though! God she must have danced

 

[H_K]

We have discussed in the past how the aircraft folds up and its dimensions.. in short in either the version that is my mock up or the Grumman 98-L your wings will be 17 feet or less

Problem is you have provided no evidence that it is structurally feasible to fold the wing so compactly, particularly in terms of resistance to the stresses of flying high Gs… are there any fighters out there with the wing fold located mid wing?

 

[orlovsky]

We have discussed in the past how the aircraft folds up and its dimensions.. in short in either the version that is my mock up or the Grumman 98-L your wings will be 17 feet or less

Problem is you have provided no evidence that it is structurally feasible to fold the wing so compactly, particularly in terms of resistance to the stresses of flying high Gs… are there any fighters out there with the wing fold located mid wing?

Also, you won't achieve a4 density. This is how skyhawk spots in the hangar (left) vs tiger (right).

Fitting In

At some point, the compactness of a folded carrier-based airplane became determined by the number that could be "spotted" on the Essex-clas...

thanlont.blogspot.com

 

[bobtdwarf]

We have discussed in the past how the aircraft folds up and its dimensions.. in short in either the version that is my mock up or the Grumman 98-L your wings will be 17 feet or less

Problem is you have provided no evidence that it is structurally feasible to fold the wing so compactly, particularly in terms of resistance to the stresses of flying high Gs… are there any fighters out there with the wing fold located mid wing?

The G limit is 6.5 just like the historic Tiger and the Phantom while supersonic. Mid? Neither of the examples

We have discussed in the past how the aircraft folds up and its dimensions.. in short in either the version that is my mock up or the Grumman 98-L your wings will be 17 feet or less

Problem is you have provided no evidence that it is structurally feasible to fold the wing so compactly, particularly in terms of resistance to the stresses of flying high Gs… are there any fighters out there with the wing fold located mid wing?

Also, you won't achieve a4 density. This is how skyhawk spots in the hangar (left) vs tiger (right).
View attachment 687616

Fitting In

At some point, the compactness of a folded carrier-based airplane became determined by the number that could be "spotted" on the Essex-clas...

thanlont.blogspot.com

and this version doesn't fold at the tips

Ok that is pretty screwed up.. merged two posts and dropped a bunch of text.

https://imgur.com/N5R6oNt

View: https://i.imgur.com/N5R6oNt.jpg
. They are limited to 7.5 G from what I gather.. but other examples of 7.5 G limit fighters nearer the period folding the whole span of their "wing" include the F9F Cougar. The Banshee also folded up at the wing root as did two types from the UK, one of which I have seen images of with wingtip fuel tanks.. That is a LOT of strain on that joint as it has the whole of the wing for leverage. EDIT.. since this post or parts of it are duplicated for some reason.. I will also post this here.. https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/FJ-3_Fury_(J65-W-2)_SAC_-_1_July_1953.pdf. A direct mid wing fold

And more importantly to this conversation the actual Tiger itself. The AN-1 project folded them up to a 10 foot span They modified seven aircraft to fit in Regulus missile tubes

 

[T. A. Gardner]

We have discussed in the past how the aircraft folds up and its dimensions.. in short in either the version that is my mock up or the Grumman 98-L your wings will be 17 feet or less

Problem is you have provided no evidence that it is structurally feasible to fold the wing so compactly, particularly in terms of resistance to the stresses of flying high Gs… are there any fighters out there with the wing fold located mid wing?

Also, you won't achieve a4 density. This is how skyhawk spots in the hangar (left) vs tiger (right).
View attachment 687616

Fitting In

At some point, the compactness of a folded carrier-based airplane became determined by the number that could be "spotted" on the Essex-clas...

thanlont.blogspot.com

Well, assuming that the US deck park model is used, it really doesn't matter, because only aircraft down for maintenance and issues are hangered. Those that can fly missions are deck parked. So, it goes back to how many aircraft does the navy the carrier belong to really want to operate?

If you have an F5D that can perform dual roles of strike and fighter then that's a huge bonus over the F-11. If you use the F5D with A-4's on a smaller carrier you have a very flexible and potent airwing even with limited numbers.

 

[bobtdwarf]

We have discussed in the past how the aircraft folds up and its dimensions.. in short in either the version that is my mock up or the Grumman 98-L your wings will be 17 feet or less

Problem is you have provided no evidence that it is structurally feasible to fold the wing so compactly, particularly in terms of resistance to the stresses of flying high Gs… are there any fighters out there with the wing fold located mid wing?

The G limit is 6.5 just like the historic Tiger and the Phantom while supersonic. There are examples of aircraft with 7.5 G limit folding nearly the whole span of the wing root outward.. F9F either Panther or Cougar, the Banshee and that is a very high stress joint as it has the whole wing for leverage.. then there is this

https://imgur.com/N5R6oNt

View: https://i.imgur.com/N5R6oNt.jpg
. Though they are from what I understand limited to 7.5 G

And this one is directly a mid wing span fold https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/FJ-3_Fury_(J65-W-2)_SAC_-_1_July_1953.pdf

 

[orlovsky]

Well, assuming that the US deck park model is used, it really doesn't matter, because only aircraft down for maintenance and issues are hangered. Those that can fly missions are deck parked. So, it goes back to how many aircraft does the navy the carrier belong to really want to operate?

The deckpark numbers scale pretty well with those for the hangar. Overall, ~80 F-11 or F-8 vs ~105 A-4.

 

[bobtdwarf]

We have discussed in the past how the aircraft folds up and its dimensions.. in short in either the version that is my mock up or the Grumman 98-L your wings will be 17 feet or less

Problem is you have provided no evidence that it is structurally feasible to fold the wing so compactly, particularly in terms of resistance to the stresses of flying high Gs… are there any fighters out there with the wing fold located mid wing?

Also, you won't achieve a4 density. This is how skyhawk spots in the hangar (left) vs tiger (right).
View attachment 687616

Fitting In

At some point, the compactness of a folded carrier-based airplane became determined by the number that could be "spotted" on the Essex-clas...

thanlont.blogspot.com

Well, assuming that the US deck park model is used, it really doesn't matter, because only aircraft down for maintenance and issues are hangered. Those that can fly missions are deck parked. So, it goes back to how many aircraft does the navy the carrier belong to really want to operate?

If you have an F5D that can perform dual roles of strike and fighter then that's a huge bonus over the F-11. If you use the F5D with A-4's on a smaller carrier you have a very flexible and potent airwing even with limited numbers.

I am assuming the deck park.. that is where all the other aircraft are.. except those that can fit alongside in the remaining hangar space. Which would usually be helicopters and ships boats. US requirement was to be able to fit two abreast in the 58 foot wide hangars of the CVL's.

I also know from your previous statements that you really don't know the volume of avionics room that the F-11 had https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/an-alternate-f-11-tiger.33038/page-3. There are a couple of images of the 98-J SuperTigers.. top pic on the one is the single seater and the volume of avionics room behind the seat is comparable to that of the A-7 and that version other than having the uninstalled radar in the nose installed is functionally identical to flown aircraft.

Edit: Well that link did not work as well as I wanted so lets give this a shot.
That works better... now if you really, REALLY need a lot of room you put the two seater fuselage plug in but don't put the second seat.. that is a gigantic volume of room.

As to the strike role.. ST had 7 underbody hard points with a carrying capacity greater than 9000 pounds with extensive flight testing.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Well, assuming that the US deck park model is used, it really doesn't matter, because only aircraft down for maintenance and issues are hangered. Those that can fly missions are deck parked. So, it goes back to how many aircraft does the navy the carrier belong to really want to operate?

The deckpark numbers scale pretty well with those for the hangar. Overall, ~80 F-11 or F-8 vs ~105 A-4.

The SAC sheets break it down with how many in the deck park and how many in the hangar sometimes depending on the year, and that can be downright frightening.

I know you are coming in kind of late in the thread but post one, page one gives you the dimensions and parameters of the version under discussion. With the RN folding nose you get to A-4 lengths and much narrower than the A-4.. so you can fit 3 across in a 52 foot hangar. IIRC the exact length comes out as the same as an A-4E

 

[Archibald]

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.

Funny you mention it... Check page 3 of this thread there is a bunch of delightful items to feast your eyes on.

But back to the story.. France tested the historic SuperTiger and wrecked the #1 prototype. The #1 was a bog standard off the line long nose with a J-79 stuffed inside it no other alterations were made. With the 13k pound early J-79 phase 0 engine it did M 1.61 when they expected only 1.3

Dassault ? forget it. Breguet or Sud Aviation ? YES.
Radars & missiles
- 1960 Mirage III: Cyrano II & R-530, no better than early Sparrows before AIM-7F (that is: piece of junk)
- 1980 Mirage F1: Cyrano IV & Super 530F, far better
- 1985 Mirage 2000: RDM, Super 530D, look down / shoot down, pulse doppler

Mirages had small noses, Crusader got R-530s, so no reason why un Super Tigre couldn't get a Cyrano II.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Posting this just in case.. honestly don't remember it has been awhile.. it was not posted earlier in the thread https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm

And reference, though not exactly what I was looking for on the AN-1 https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ne-aircraft-carriers-projects.2390/post-31194

And before you ask the reason I don't use this is because I don't trust wing folds.. to me they are made out of voodoo and fairy dust!

 

[Archibald]

Actually, what I suspect is that the proposed plane here is better fitted to the F5D Skylancer than the F-11 Tiger. The Skylancer has more room for upgrades and is still a very compact aircraft. With wings folded it's 28 feet wide.
The Skylancer has a better rate of climb, higher service ceiling, and about half the wing loading of a Tiger. It has the room for electronics and could have been fitted for hard points for ordinance so it wouldn't be role limited to being a fighter only aircraft.
All of that would make it more suited for operations from smaller carriers with less catapult capacity in terms of launch weight and speed.

Skylancer, me love that one so much. I had tons of fun in my TL with it. Just think about it: it was the very plane to carry the Sparrow II that was passed to Canadair, for the Arrow after the Velvet Glove AAM was canned in 1955.

So the canadians "borrowed" the Sparrow II, but NOT its APQ-64 radar (d'oh !) and even less the fighter attached to it (the Skylancer).
In my TL, they take all three of them. The Sparrow II as per OTL, then the APQ-64 through Canadian Westinghouse, and then...
"Tabernacle (I LOVE Quebec swearing, Hostie de callice de chrisse !) that Skylancer looks like a baby CF-105 Arrow, look at the canopy for a start... !"

Then Canadair and the RCAF are looking for a Mach 2 LWF to replace those 1815 Sabres, the last (for Germany) rolling out in 1957... OTL this was filled by the CF-104 (shudders) but the Super Tiger almost got the job instead.

So why not the Skylancer ? Douglas dumps the program at Canadair, on top of Sparrow II. That's the idea. Meanwhile Canadian Westinghouse steps in, taking an APQ-64 licence from their US parent company...

And then the fun intensifies. Gerald Bull has entered the chat. OTL he shot Arrow models out of his guns at CARDE, and found the Arrow fin was too short. And that's how the CF-105 got analog FBW similar to Concorde, F-16 and Mirage 2000 except decades ahead.

Since a Skylancer is quite similar to a Mirage 2000, I reasoned the Arrow analog FBW, also being similar to a Mirage 2000, would be a good fit for it.

End result: a FBW Skylancer. Next step in the reasonning: I do know that, between the Mirage III & 2000 the analog FBW most spectacular result was to drop the landing speed from 200 to 140 kt, no less. I reasonned the Skylancer would reap similar benefits.

And I wondered if that analog FBW Skylancer could land on the Canadian Navy Bonaventure carrier...

 

[orlovsky]

Well, assuming that the US deck park model is used, it really doesn't matter, because only aircraft down for maintenance and issues are hangered. Those that can fly missions are deck parked. So, it goes back to how many aircraft does the navy the carrier belong to really want to operate?

The deckpark numbers scale pretty well with those for the hangar. Overall, ~80 F-11 or F-8 vs ~105 A-4.

The SAC sheets break it down with how many in the deck park and how many in the hangar sometimes depending on the year, and that can be downright frightening.

I know you are coming in kind of late in the thread but post one, page one gives you the dimensions and parameters of the version under discussion. With the RN folding nose you get to A-4 lengths and much narrower than the A-4.. so you can fit 3 across in a 52 foot hangar. IIRC the exact length comes out as the same as an A-4E

I've read the initial post, but this is not what I'm talking about. The delta shape allows for a different spotting, especially in the hangar. That's how 4 Tomcats folded to a delta fit side by side into the Nimitz class hangar, vs the much smaller F-18:

 

[bobtdwarf]

Well, assuming that the US deck park model is used, it really doesn't matter, because only aircraft down for maintenance and issues are hangered. Those that can fly missions are deck parked. So, it goes back to how many aircraft does the navy the carrier belong to really want to operate?

The deckpark numbers scale pretty well with those for the hangar. Overall, ~80 F-11 or F-8 vs ~105 A-4.

The SAC sheets break it down with how many in the deck park and how many in the hangar sometimes depending on the year, and that can be downright frightening.

I know you are coming in kind of late in the thread but post one, page one gives you the dimensions and parameters of the version under discussion. With the RN folding nose you get to A-4 lengths and much narrower than the A-4.. so you can fit 3 across in a 52 foot hangar. IIRC the exact length comes out as the same as an A-4E

I've read the initial post, but this is not what I'm talking about. The delta shape allows for a different spotting, especially in the hangar. That's how 4 Tomcats folded to a delta fit side by side into the Nimitz class hangar, vs the much smaller F-18:

View attachment 687619

Fair point. In my head since I don't have the means to game out the jig saw puzzle other than in my head and lets be honest I can do it to a point but the "graphics card" just goes nope at a certain point... I use the stupid method of side by side front to back columns. So if the A-4 is 27.5 feet wide and the Alt-Tiger is 13.5 and their lengths are the same that is a rough 2-1 swap. But you are right about the shapes themselves will have a big influence on the actual layout and numbers.


Edit: As an example using a 500 foot by 66 foot hangar of a conjectural carrier I get 44 of these in the hangar using the stupid low res method.

 

[orlovsky]

You have to try it with the specific carrier. I looked at the Clemenceau class and got a maximum of 72 A-4 or 54 Etendards. I think H_K did the same with slightly different results.

 

[Archibald]

Sounds rather logical, the Skyhawk was tiny, Etendard a touch bigger but Clems generally took the sea with 30 to 40 aircraft, no more.
Wow, 72 Skyhawks ? That's close from a Supercarrier number, not bad for a 33000 tons ship.
France nearly bought the Scooter back in '1972, but S.E prevailed.

Fun fact: 71 is one of the key procurement number for the Aéronavale: S.E, Jaguar M. So the full and entire buyout of Skyhawks could have been packaged into just one Clemenceau. Better not to get it sunk Red Storm Rising style, otherwise the full and entire attack wing of the Aéronavale sinks with just one ship !

 

[orlovsky]

Sounds rather logical, the Skyhawk was tiny, Etendard a touch bigger but Clems generally took the sea with 30 to 40 aircraft, no more.
Wow, 72 Skyhawks ? That's close from a Supercarrier number, not bad for a 33000 tons ship.
France nearly bought the Scooter back in '1972, but S.E prevailed.

Fun fact: 71 is one of the key procurement number for the Aéronavale: S.E, Jaguar M. So the full and entire buyout of Skyhawks could have been packaged into just one Clemenceau. Better not to get it sunk Red Storm Rising style, otherwise the full and entire attack wing of the Aéronavale sinks with just one ship !

That's a theoretical number, operational would be 75-90% of that. Essex class cva had about 105, super carriers something like 150-170 (?).
If you take 75 % of the maximum etendard spotting, you get about 40 aircraft of that size.

 

[Archibald]

Makes sense .... packing aircraft to the hangar roof and deck max would cripple any air ops. And 40 indeed, that the Clems max ever, helicopters included (must be GW1, but I could be wrong).

 

[uk 75]

The one thing that would have got the Supertiger aboard RN carriers would have been a US buy.
The RN goes overboard to get its own Forrestal in the form of CVA01 and specifies aircraft designs similar to F111B for the 70s.
Selling the RN an aircraft not used by the USN was not going to happen as P1154 found.
Only when the US Marines bought the Harrier did the RN start to look again at the plane.
Buccaneer is the exception to the above because it was designed solely for the RN.
A6 Intruders could have performed the role bringing better electronics. If CVA01 had been built Intruders might have competed with Buccaneer S2 upgrades in the 80s. Prowlers particularly.
So if you want RN Supertigers get them aboard US carriers otherwise forget it.
As F4 and F35 have shown dont expect big numbers even then.
Bulwark and Albion would still become Commando Ships.
Centaur with its Sea Vixen only airgroup still goes out even if it flies STs instead.
Hermes is the carrier that ST might have saved. But as I have written elsewhere money and manpower shortages by the end of the 60s mean that only one carrier and one commando ship can be in service at any time.
So you still get back to Ark Royal/Eagle as the carrier and Hermes/Bulwark as the Commando Ship.

 

[orlovsky]

Makes sense .... packing aircraft to the hangar roof and deck max would cripple any air ops. And 40 indeed, that the Clems max ever, helicopters included (must be GW1, but I could be wrong).

H_K managed 61 Etendard or 47 F-8:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/larger-british-light-fleet-carriers.39265/post-534333

That would mean about 45 Et spots operational.

The MN was initially looking at 46 F-8, later 50 AFVG. 100 Etendard, 100 Jaguar M, 100 SuE. That translates into 3 quadrons of 12 jets per Carrier, so 36 fast jets of that size.

12 F-8 would be ~16 Et spots.
24 Etendard = 24 spots
Add Alizés/Helos, and we're pretty much there.

If the Tigre would be more Etendard sized, up to 16 might be possible.

 

[bobtdwarf]

You have to try it with the specific carrier. I looked at the Clemenceau class and got a maximum of 72 A-4 or 54 Etendards. I think H_K did the same with slightly different results.

is the Etendard at 27.5 feet folded or at 13.5? In looking at the above F-18/F-14 comparison I can almost see it in my head doing a 2-1, but the "double nose" is throwing me off in imagining the pattern laid out.

What program are you using to build your puzzle?

 

[orlovsky]

Wingspan folded is 7.8m/25.6 ft.
25-27.5 ft seems to be the holy grail of folded span at the time...

Fitting In III

One of the interesting aspects of the maximum folded span of 27 feet six inches that set the wing span of the Skyhawk was that it was two fe...

thanlont.blogspot.com

I used paint. The original plans of Foch are on the web, planes and other ships are I think on shipbucket.

 

[bobtdwarf]

The one thing that would have got the Supertiger aboard RN carriers would have been a US buy.
The RN goes overboard to get its own Forrestal in the form of CVA01 and specifies aircraft designs similar to F111B for the 70s.
Selling the RN an aircraft not used by the USN was not going to happen as P1154 found.
Only when the US Marines bought the Harrier did the RN start to look again at the plane.
Buccaneer is the exception to the above because it was designed solely for the RN.
A6 Intruders could have performed the role bringing better electronics. If CVA01 had been built Intruders might have competed with Buccaneer S2 upgrades in the 80s. Prowlers particularly.
So if you want RN Supertigers get them aboard US carriers otherwise forget it.
As F4 and F35 have shown dont expect big numbers even then.
Bulwark and Albion would still become Commando Ships.
Centaur with its Sea Vixen only airgroup still goes out even if it flies STs instead.
Hermes is the carrier that ST might have saved. But as I have written elsewhere money and manpower shortages by the end of the 60s mean that only one carrier and one commando ship can be in service at any time.
So you still get back to Ark Royal/Eagle as the carrier and Hermes/Bulwark as the Commando Ship.

Centaur with an all ST/Alt-T air group could be fun

 

[bobtdwarf]

Wingspan folded is 7.8m/25.6 ft.
25-27.5 ft seems to be the holy grail of folded span at the time...

Fitting In III

One of the interesting aspects of the maximum folded span of 27 feet six inches that set the wing span of the Skyhawk was that it was two fe...

thanlont.blogspot.com

I used paint. The original plans of Foch are on the web, planes and other ships are I think on shipbucket.

That is what I suspected, The reason for the 27.5 feet thing is the USN requirement to fit two side by side in the 58 foot hangars of the CVL's (which they never modernized and I don't think made any post WW2 deployments). With a foot between them and a foot between them and the wall that is 58 feet.

You can almost do a straight 2-1 swap of the Alt-T in that first post. The case of the A-4 with the safety margin her span is 29 feet with safety margin the aircraft in the first post at maximum fold is 15 feet. The Su-E is 27.2 with safety margin.. I see where our disconnect may have been.. the A-4 shape wise stores up in a nice dense pattern, I was using density to mean numbers. You should be able to get at least 50% more of the Alt-T in the space taken up by virtue of them being not quite half as wide.. that should translate more easily with the Tiger/Su-E since they are same general shape

 

[orlovsky]

I don't think this will work so neatly, but give it a try on a carrier of your choice.
Will the horizontal stabilizers fold, too? They are 15+ ft on the tiger, probably 18 ft on the super tiger with 36+ ft wingspan...

And that wingfold would be extremely far in. Might be possible, but will increase complexity and weight - blc, wet pylons etc... the crusader has a similar unfolded span and went to 22.5 ft, one of the narrowest. Buccaneer ~20ft. 13.5 ft is I think the happy little sea hawk, but that was about half the weight...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Hawker_Sea_Hawk_FGA.6_WV828_AWk_Hurn_15.07.67_edited-3.jpg

 

[orlovsky]

Which leads to another question: which carrier aircraft had a wing tank outside the wingfold? With a short look, I just found the A-6. Any ideas?

 

[uk 75]

One snag for RN Supertiger is the Sea Vixen/Scimitar combo that replaces the Seahawk/Wyvern combo used at Suez in 1956.
The Vix and Scim are both two engined. The Vix 1 has 4 Firestreak and the Vix 2 4 Red Top.. The Scims get both early Sidewinders and Bullpups.. Both aircraft are obsolete by 1964 but the Vix 2 survives until Eagle decommissions in 1972.
Getting the RN to buy Supertigers instead of these two would require a pretty major change in UK procurement.
The single emgine thing is really an issue for the RN.
The P1154 in its single engined form could have given the RN a better aircraft than the Sea Harrier but their keenness for two engines and big radar/missiles kills it.

 

[uk 75]

Treading on Archibald's territory France does not have the same hang ups as the RN and settles for F8 and Etendard.
Perhaps because the MN is more focussed on the Med and coastal protection around France.
Having Supertiger instead of F8 makes much more sense than it does for the RN.
Another potential Supertiger user is the West German Navy who are still using the Seahawk until the F104 arrives.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Which leads to another question: which carrier aircraft had a wing tank outside the wingfold? With a short look, I just found the A-6. Any ideas?
View attachment 687666

F9F, FJ-3, speaking of the FJ-3 that is a full on mid wing fold. and if you really want to amaze yourself the way they modified actual F-11's to work for the AN-1 submarine project

 

[bobtdwarf]

One snag for RN Supertiger is the Sea Vixen/Scimitar combo that replaces the Seahawk/Wyvern combo used at Suez in 1956.
The Vix and Scim are both two engined. The Vix 1 has 4 Firestreak and the Vix 2 4 Red Top.. The Scims get both early Sidewinders and Bullpups.. Both aircraft are obsolete by 1964 but the Vix 2 survives until Eagle decommissions in 1972.
Getting the RN to buy Supertigers instead of these two would require a pretty major change in UK procurement.
The single emgine thing is really an issue for the RN.
The P1154 in its single engined form could have given the RN a better aircraft than the Sea Harrier but their keenness for two engines and big radar/missiles kills it.

We covered this ground in prior pages.

 

[orlovsky]

Which leads to another question: which carrier aircraft had a wing tank outside the wingfold? With a short look, I just found the A-6. Any ideas?
View attachment 687666

F9F, FJ-3, speaking of the FJ-3 that is a full on mid wing fold. and if you really want to amaze yourself the way they modified actual F-11's to work for the AN-1 submarine project

Wingtip tanks went out of fashion for a reason.
The fury had 29 gallon tanks outside the wingfold.
Anyone else?

 

[bobtdwarf]

Which leads to another question: which carrier aircraft had a wing tank outside the wingfold? With a short look, I just found the A-6. Any ideas?
View attachment 687666

F9F, FJ-3, speaking of the FJ-3 that is a full on mid wing fold. and if you really want to amaze yourself the way they modified actual F-11's to work for the AN-1 submarine project

Wingtip tanks went out of fashion for a reason.
The fury had 29 gallon tanks outside the wingfold.
Anyone else?

The cougar as well that was about 108 gallons outside, probably a few others. Should note the aircraft in post one does not carry any fuel in the outer panel on the short fold. I didn't even consider it until it was brought up to me that it was done.

 

[orlovsky]

So, the interesting question is: do we have a mach 1.5-2 plane with an outside wing tank? If not, why not?

And for something completely different: I had not known the Demon could launch from hydraulic catapults... just 110-115 kts stall speed. Good for a CVS tiger.

 

[bobtdwarf]

So, the interesting question is: do we have a mach 1.5-2 plane with an outside wing tank? If not, why not?

And for something completely different: I had not known the Demon could launch from hydraulic catapults... just 110-115 kts stall speed. Good for a CVS tiger.
View attachment 687678

I don't know, my guess is probably. I do know that the light land based only version of the FA-18 has a much higher G limit because it doesn't have a wing fold

 

[bobtdwarf]

So, the interesting question is: do we have a mach 1.5-2 plane with an outside wing tank? If not, why not?

And for something completely different: I had not known the Demon could launch from hydraulic catapults... just 110-115 kts stall speed. Good for a CVS tiger.
View attachment 687678

it is her wings. https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-3B_SAC_-_1_July_1967.pdf. they are the size of a house! drops the wing loading down to the 64-75 range.

 

[bobtdwarf]

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F11F-1_Tiger_SAC_-_30_June_1957.pdf Orlovsky towards the bottom is the spot info broken down between deck and hangar.

I wish I had more information on what they in the AN-1 project to this aircraft.. the way they folded her up was like origami!

 

[bobtdwarf]

https://journals.sagepub.com/cms/10.1177/0954410019890233/asset/images/large/10.1177_0954410019890233-fig2.jpeg

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-4B_Phantom_II_SAC_-_1_July_1967.pdf

I had a thought... Check the ground line on the drawings and then compare the angle of the nose to the Tiger.. I think I know why it squats the way it does. If I am correct that is a 7 degree angle and that should be good for what 17 knots?

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/grumman_tiger.gif