An alternate F-11 Tiger

[orlovsky]

Wing size of the demon is 519 sqft, with the 350 sqft enlarged wing for the lighter tiger it's not that far off. Of course, everything is a tradeoff.

As for angle: The standard F-4 was at 7°, the F-4K at 12°. The tiger however has a different tail, so the question is what the maximum angle would be.

From overscan https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/grumman-xf11f-2-super-tiger.455/#post-3397




vs F-4K

 

[bobtdwarf]

Wing size of the demon is 519 sqft, with the 350 sqft enlarged wing for the lighter tiger it's not that far off. Of course, everything is a tradeoff.

As for angle: The standard F-4 was at 7°, the F-4K at 12°. The tiger however has a different tail, so the question is what the maximum angle would be.

From overscan https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/grumman-xf11f-2-super-tiger.455/#post-3397

View attachment 687690


vs F-4K
View attachment 687691

That is the F4K as it is set to launch which would naturally compress the strut and acceleration would keep it compressed as it ran down the cat. The uncompressed strut would be taller.. probably gives a nice bit of cushion on landing, would absorb a bunch of the energy as that amount of mass slows. So I think you only need the 7 degrees to get the boost because that is all you are going to have at launch.

All the images I have seen of Tiger being launched have her maintaining that nose high attitude, so it looks like they were trying to use the same "cheat code".

Depending on weight you can start getting wing loading in the mid 60s starting around 300 sqft., I was looking at the F9F-8 and -6 and FJ-4 SAC sheets earlier this evening and I seem to recall around 21-22k being the sweet spot and all of those launched from H-8 ships

 

[orlovsky]

7° is the standard phantom? Will have to ckeck that.

Not sure what you mean regarding the strut. The bridle is attached back at the airframe, and the strut is not really compressed. You want the higher angle of attack at the end of the catapult run. (The F-18 or the Rafale have a jump strut for the nose wheel tow catapult, but that's a different method).
You can see the angle maintained in ark royal footage.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cALccuPShQc

eg @ 8:30

 

[orlovsky]

12 ° for the F-4k.

 

[bobtdwarf]

12 ° for the F-4k.

I was going to go to the same video

View: https://youtu.be/olD4iMIAovk?t=424
that looks a lot closer to the illustration of 7 degrees than 12 to me. Later in what looks like the same video we see the nose closer to flat after recovery.. will do some more research (I really hate when there are two different illustrations like this that can support both), but the image I posted IS an F4K you can tell by the tailpipe angle and the RWR on the top of the tail. And the video IMHO shows closer to that angle on the cat.. but it does show the much higher one at rest. Will see if I can find anything written explicitly detailing the angle.

The point of them appearing to be trying to use the same cheat code does hold up though, Grumman looks to have deliberately put her nose in the air a fair bit from other aircraft to goose her take off.

EDIT: For instance the source of the profile image I posted is this paper https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0954410019890233?journalCode=piga

And to be clear I appear to be wrong on the compression.

EDIT: https://www.phantomf4k.org/royal-navy-carrier-supersonic-fighter-jet. The illustration may have been a "before" in a before and after extension illustration in the paper. It appears from the bottom of the link that the extension was a two position affair as well. The pic I linked is only carrying an A2A load out so maybe it could get away without the full extension?

 

[orlovsky]

That 7° looks very high, indeed. And it is a long nose strut.
Taking a ruler, both are more 12°. Seems someone took that graph of the F-4K and added the standard angle. 7°:

 

[bobtdwarf]

so it is a typo.. and here I was thinking I was losing my ever loving mind!


Edit: Played around in Preview on my Mac and the nose angle between the Phantom and Tiger are significantly different, like by a few degrees..

 

[orlovsky]

Not exactly to scale, but for a rough idea:

With the tailpipe, there is not much room for a raised nose.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Not exactly to scale, but for a rough idea:
View attachment 687738
With the tailpipe, there is not much room for a raised nose.

yup several degrees of difference, don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze with what could be done without getting really radical and that would defeat the purpose of trying to do this as inexpensively as possible.

 

[H_K]

For the purposes of this thread, the F-4K is a distraction IMHO… just too different from the Super Tiger.

In post #136 I mentioned the Etendard IVB which feels like a better analog. It was optimized for the British light fleet carriers, with a 308 sq. ft. transonic wing, BLC, 60 degree droop on the flaps, full span leading edge slats etc. The results were similar/better launch & approach speeds to the F-4K and should be more directly applicable to the Super Tiger.

So maybe use the Etendard IVB performance numbers as a baseline for the improved Super Tiger, then adjust accordingly.

Here’s the Etendard IVB’s parameters:

Launch from 103ft BS4 catapult
122 knots minimum airspeed @ 23,000lbs
- 100 knots catapult end speed
= 22 knots minimum wind over deck

Adjustments:
+ 4 knots WOD for tropical conditions
+ 3 knots WOD for every 1,000 lbs aircraft weight
- 6 knots WOD if A/B thrust of 16,000lbs were available (based on F5D Skylancer SAC)
- 5 knots WOD for the longer 112ft BS4 on HMAS Melbourne (approx.)

So with all the adjustments factored in, in the best case scenario an Improved Super Tiger with the Etendard IVB wing would be maxing out at ~27,500lbs T-O weight using the longer 112ft BS4 catapult, in ISA conditions (15C) with 25 knots WOD. That would be reduced in tropical zero wind conditions to ~26,000lbs T-O weight.

Landing using MK 13 arrestor wires
128 knots approach speed @ 18,700lbs max landing weight
- 110 knots maximum engagement speed @ 18,700 lbs
+ 8 knots margin for pilot error
= 26 knots minimum wind over deck

Adjustments:
+ 5 knots WOD for tropical conditions
+ 3.5 knots WOD for every 1,000 lbs aircraft weight

So in tropical zero-wind conditions landing weights or pilot margins would have to be reduced.

Now the real problem is how much extra weight would need to be added to the baseline Super Tiger to fit it with this improved wing and additional avionics… considering that the “vanilla” F11F already weighed in at ~24,500lbs TO weight and ~16,500lbs landing in CAP configuration with only 2 AIM-9 missiles + 2 drop tanks. So barely ~2,000lbs weight allowance available to fit the Super Tiger improvements, a larger wing, BLC, improved avionics, structural strengthening, a strengthened landing gear etc. With barely any payload improvement possible on top of that.

 

[orlovsky]

But can you take the etendard wing to mach 2?

 

[bobtdwarf]

For the purposes of this thread, the F-4K is a distraction IMHO… just too different from the Super Tiger.

In post #136 I mentioned the Etendard IVB which feels like a better analog. It was optimized for the British light fleet carriers, with a 308 sq. ft. transonic wing, BLC, 60 degree droop on the flaps, full span leading edge slats etc. The results were similar/better launch & approach speeds to the F-4K and should be more directly applicable to the Super Tiger.

So maybe use the Etendard IVB performance numbers as a baseline for the improved Super Tiger, then adjust accordingly.

Here’s the Etendard IVB’s parameters:

Launch from 103ft BS4 catapult
122 knots minimum airspeed @ 23,000lbs
- 100 knots catapult end speed
= 22 knots minimum wind over deck

Adjustments:
+ 4 knots WOD for tropical conditions
+ 3 knots WOD for every 1,000 lbs aircraft weight
- 6 knots WOD if A/B thrust of 16,000lbs were available (based on F5D Skylancer SAC)
- 5 knots WOD for the longer 112ft BS4 on HMAS Melbourne (approx.)

So with all the adjustments factored in, in the best case scenario an Improved Super Tiger with the Etendard IVB wing would be maxing out at ~27,500lbs T-O weight using the longer 112ft BS4 catapult, in ISA conditions (15C) with 25 knots WOD. That would be reduced in tropical zero wind conditions to ~26,000lbs T-O weight.

Landing using MK 13 arrestor wires
128 knots approach speed @ 18,700lbs max landing weight
- 110 knots maximum engagement speed @ 18,700 lbs
+ 8 knots margin for pilot error
= 26 knots minimum wind over deck

Adjustments:
+ 5 knots WOD for tropical conditions
+ 3.5 knots WOD for every 1,000 lbs aircraft weight

So in tropical zero-wind conditions landing weights or pilot margins would have to be reduced.

Now the real problem is how much extra weight would need to be added to the baseline Super Tiger to fit it with this improved wing and additional avionics… considering that the “vanilla” F11F already weighed in at ~24,500lbs TO weight and ~16,500lbs landing in CAP configuration with only 2 AIM-9 missiles + 2 drop tanks. So barely ~2,000lbs weight allowance available to fit the Super Tiger improvements, a larger wing, BLC, improved avionics, structural strengthening, a strengthened landing gear etc. With barely any payload improvement possible on top of that.

excellent info. In terms of additional weight for avionics it should be a net zero: The long nose units were ballasted for carrying them already so swap the ballast out for the actual unit. Comparing the increase in weight for the Cougar when it went from the -6 to the bigger wing -8 that comes out as 200 pounds, add in another 200 for going from 250 to 300 sqft? Structural strengthening would only be needed if we want to increase the G load limit, and BLC is not a "must have" but doesn't look like it is going to add a huge amount of weight from this little gem I found: Though it alters the average I had read on another site for effects on WOD and approach speed to a more believable 5/10 knots.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc61811/m1/2/

Stock SuperTiger had an empty weight of 13,810 pounds a gross weight of 21,035 and a max TO of 26.086 with the 250 sqft of wing. Using the FJ4 SAC as a guide of what the bigger wing could alter that by, her max TO weight was 28,000 and with a lot less thrust.
I have to get my main laptop back up.. a system update took it down so I can pour over Corky's book to see if the SuperTigers max TO weight is based on the ordinance tests or not.


This is still doable.. will she be as good as an F-4? In some ways no, but not everyone has a deck capable of flying those.

 

[bobtdwarf]

But can you take the etendard wing to mach 2?

no. But his general point of using it as a comparison for eyeballing things is workable... the Etendard's wing is way to thick and she isn't area ruled anyway IIRC... plus he is using it as a baseline for operating off the RN light fleets like the Mod Majestics which would be the lowest possible margin shot for the ST

 

[bobtdwarf]

You can do some useful things with a ST at a 25,000 pound launch weight and IF I am interpreting the above data correctly it looks like you can do them with a reasonable degree of comfort from a Light Fleet. It will get dicier the closer you get to 27k+ and in some conditions.

 

[orlovsky]

But can you take the etendard wing to mach 2?

no. But his general point of using it as a comparison for eyeballing things is workable... the Etendard's wing is way to thick and she isn't area ruled anyway IIRC... plus he is using it as a baseline for operating off the RN light fleets like the Mod Majestics which would be the lowest possible margin shot for the ST

Well, if I understand that correctly, a thicker wing will provide more lift, so the need for a thinner wing would also be a factor for a mach 2 tiger.

Another starting point could be the F-8A. Just ~28k lbs with missiles and a 375 sqft wing and 16k lbs AB thrust. Scale down 10%?

 

[Archibald]

The Etendard wing is no mach 2, but the F1 wing is: 25 square meters (screw imperial units).

 

[H_K]

But can you take the etendard wing to mach 2?

no. But his general point of using it as a comparison for eyeballing things is workable... the Etendard's wing is way to thick and she isn't area ruled anyway IIRC

The Etendard was heavily optimized for transonic performance which means minimum drag*. It could reach M0.99-M1.01 on dry thrust at altitude and was certified to M1.3 in a dive. No reason to believe it couldn’t have gone a lot faster with an afterburner.

* Area rule, narrow fuselage, thin wing of 6%/5% thickness (inboard/outboard), with high sweep (45 degrees). By comparison the F11F’s wing was swept only 35 degrees, with the same 6% thickness inboard but slightly thinner outboard (4% instead of 5%)… all in all they are very similar designs.

 

[Archibald]

Don't forget folks, @H_K is an Etendard aficionado as much as @bobtdwarf is a Super Tiger groupie... (grabs popcorn and enjoys the thread).

 

[uk 75]

Despite my massive respect for the F4 I too am enjoying the attempts to get Supertiger into service.
Not least because I think this has been the most comprehensive what-if thread we have had recently.

 

[Archibald]

Since 2006 I've thought that a Mach 2 LWF naval fighter was badly missing in the late 1950's, 1960's, and up to the 1970's. Main target would have been
- SBC-125 Essex
- Hermes & Victorious
- Clemenceaus
Candidates I identified along the years are
- Breguet Br.1120 Sirocco (Mirages & Durandal are out, because delta wing)
- Saro SR.177 (never been a fan of the rocket fighter, but it seems to have been the one and only serious RN / FAA option before Sandystorm, P.1154, F-4K and, well, Sea Harrier)
- On the US side
a) Vought Crusader I & II
b) Douglas Skylancer
c) Grumman Super Tiger
d) Northrop N-156N

So, let's check the OTL historical record. Three navies: USN, MN, FAA.

- MN picked Crusaders and stuck with them waaaaaaaay too long. Breguet 1120 remain a paper project, as did naval Mirages (including a tempting F-1M with M53, it nearly happened in 1971-72).

- FAA went for the Phantom only to find in the end that only HMS Eagle was large and "fresh" enough to get the F-4K full potential.... but they picked cranky Ark Royal instead for the 1970's. Victorious and Hermes could not handle Phantoms properly.

- USN: SBC-125 Essex being on the brink of retirement, they just rebuild some hundred Crusaders

Ling-Temco-Vought F-8M Crusader

Vought F8U/F-8 Crusader

Clearly the record is mixed. The Crusader was a bit too old, the Phantom a touch too big. Then, had an aerospace company been smart enough to fill the gap...

 

[H_K]

Don't forget folks, @H_K is an Etendard aficionado

Well that’s because the Etendard is a what-ifer’s dream… with so many flavors (Etendard II, IV, VI, IVM, IVB, Super Etendard) that got past the drawing board into actual flight test and lots of public information so you can really dig into the technical details and understand the impact of such-and-such change as well as how things scaled up & down. Especially for a carrier and light fighter buff. ;-)

What was missing was a good afterburning engine and this is where the broadly similar Tiger comes in with the J79. Sadly not as much public info on the various derivative Grumman designs that never left the drawing board like the G98L…

 

[Archibald]

I'm personally fascinated by the Etendard IVB with RR Avon and BLC (no less !) that flew in 1960 and was proposed to India. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to find any valuable data on that rare breed of Etendard IV. Seems the BLC system kicked in too brutally and made the plane almost uncontrolable at low speed.

 

[kaiserd]

There wasn’t really a better “light weight” supersonic naval/ carrier fighter than the F-8 that was realistically on offer at approx. the same time; perhaps a J-79 F-8 variant would have been even better but the US Navy never bothered with that (though the later V-1000 competitor for the F-5E Tiger II based on the F-8 was to have that engine, and the early F-8 project had the engine that became the J-79 as a theoretical option).

The F-8 was arguably a better basis for evolution/ development than the F-11. The F-8 airframe was that bit bigger, heavier and less constrained than the F-11 airframe. For example F-11 airframe had to have additional fuel added after its trials began to give it remotely sufficient endurance for US Navy needs, necessitating packing in more fuel via innovations like a “wet” tail fin; in this context it was far more dependent on its external tanks which were seldom (ever?) seen on the F-8. Which aircraft was actually faster in practice if the F-11 was more fuel constrained/ really couldn’t afford to dump its tanks in practice?

Similarly the later “long noise” F-11 production aircraft had space for but didn’t carry visual assist radar only. Similar to what the F-8As had, not giving any real all-weather capability or any ability to fire/ guide radar guided missiles. And in service never carried them. So in terms of radar equipment every in service F-11 appears to have been inferior to every in service F-8. And there is was little scope/ space in the existing F-11 airframe for equipment giving anything like “mini-F-4” capabilities; the actual proposed bigger-wing F-11s were reasonably extensive amendments and redesigns and the bigger wing was required to try to combat the weight spiral in a what was fundamentally a very tightly packaged light weight day fighter that wasn’t an especially good basis for development. An don’t get me started on features like the upper fuselage mounted sidewinders and the like.

 

[bobtdwarf]

But can you take the etendard wing to mach 2?

no. But his general point of using it as a comparison for eyeballing things is workable... the Etendard's wing is way to thick and she isn't area ruled anyway IIRC

The Etendard was heavily optimized for transonic performance which means minimum drag*. It could reach M0.99-M1.01 on dry thrust at altitude and was certified to M1.3 in a dive. No reason to believe it couldn’t have gone a lot faster with an afterburner.

* Area rule, narrow fuselage, thin wing of 6%/5% thickness (inboard/outboard), with high sweep (45 degrees). By comparison the F11F’s wing was swept only 35 degrees, with the same 6% thickness inboard but slightly thinner outboard (4% instead of 5%)… all in all they are very similar designs.

you make a really good point... I did not even think about the lack of afterburner! OOOO. I think we have another candidate for a trip through the mad scientist lab

 

[bobtdwarf]

Despite my massive respect for the F4 I too am enjoying the attempts to get Supertiger into service.
Not least because I think this has been the most comprehensive what-if thread we have had recently.

it has been REALLY educational and teased out all kinds of neat details from all over the place.

Some aircraft nerd in 15 years is going to google into the mother load...

 

[orlovsky]

Don't forget folks, @H_K is an Etendard aficionado

Well that’s because the Etendard is a what-ifer’s dream… with so many flavors (Etendard II, IV, VI, IVM, IVB, Super Etendard) that got past the drawing board into actual flight test and lots of public information so you can really dig into the technical details and understand the impact of such-and-such change as well as how things scaled up & down. Especially for a carrier and light fighter buff. ;-)

What was missing was a good afterburning engine and this is where the broadly similar Tiger comes in with the J79. Sadly not as much public info on the various derivative Grumman designs that never left the drawing board like the G98L…

Which makes me wonder: Among all those projects, why not a single one with afterburner? The atar 9b with 6t thrust was ready by 1959.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Despite my massive respect for the F4 I too am enjoying the attempts to get Supertiger into service.
Not least because I think this has been the most comprehensive what-if thread we have had recently.

oh the F4 is a freaking BEAST that deserves every ounce of praise heaped upon her. But we still need something that works on our allies smaller ships that can give Ivan a bloody nose... enter the ST and possibly the E IVB after a trip through the lab.

 

[Archibald]

Don't forget folks, @H_K is an Etendard aficionado

Well that’s because the Etendard is a what-ifer’s dream… with so many flavors (Etendard II, IV, VI, IVM, IVB, Super Etendard) that got past the drawing board into actual flight test and lots of public information so you can really dig into the technical details and understand the impact of such-and-such change as well as how things scaled up & down. Especially for a carrier and light fighter buff. ;-)

What was missing was a good afterburning engine and this is where the broadly similar Tiger comes in with the J79. Sadly not as much public info on the various derivative Grumman designs that never left the drawing board like the G98L…

Which makes me wonder: Among all those projects, why not a single one with afterburner? The atar 9b with 6t thrust was ready by 1959.

And that's a truly excellent question, since the SMB-2 and Mirage III-01 were contemporary of the Etendard IV (1956, 1956 and 1956, all three of them - hell of a year, Tonton Marcel !).
With all three aircraft having the exact same engine, minus a big difference. SMB-2 & Mirage III-01 had the Atar 101G, which was a 101E with afterburner. The Etendard IV had the 101E, so same engine with no AB.
Later the Etendard IV Atar 8 was an AB-less Atar 9 Mirage III.
And even later, same for the S.E and Mirage F1, with 8k50 & 9k50. Even if the Aéronavale badly wanted a J52 inside the Super Etendard (and before that, they wanted A-4M Skyhwaks).

Snecma Atar — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

The explanation is that the Etendard IV was to be a low and medium height LWF for the AdA and also for NATO. Unlike the SMB-2 (last of the Mystères) and the Mirage III-01 (first of the full size, supersonic Mirages) which were high altitude, supersonic interceptors.

Before France very own Sandystorm military budget crunch of 1958 (Algeria plus NATO plus Force de frappe: something had to give....)
the AdA planned to procure
- a last batch of SMB-2s
- a last batch of all weather Vautours
- Etendard IV for low and medium air defense
- Mirage IIIC for medium and high
- Tridents and ramjet interceptors to reach above 70 000 ft
- SO-4060s and Mirage IV heavy multirole fighters (read: a small nuclear bomber).
All of this (or close) was brutally canned except for moar Mirage IIIs assuming all those roles: medium and low and high and ultra high interceptions, and all-weather with R-530, and clear wheather too.
Having lost both AdA and NATO, the Etendard was lucky to end at the Aéronavale.

 

[orlovsky]

For the purposes of this thread, the F-4K is a distraction IMHO… just too different from the Super Tiger.

In post #136 I mentioned the Etendard IVB which feels like a better analog. It was optimized for the British light fleet carriers, with a 308 sq. ft. transonic wing, BLC, 60 degree droop on the flaps, full span leading edge slats etc. The results were similar/better launch & approach speeds to the F-4K and should be more directly applicable to the Super Tiger.

So maybe use the Etendard IVB performance numbers as a baseline for the improved Super Tiger, then adjust accordingly.

Here’s the Etendard IVB’s parameters:

Launch from 103ft BS4 catapult
122 knots minimum airspeed @ 23,000lbs
- 100 knots catapult end speed
= 22 knots minimum wind over deck

Adjustments:
+ 4 knots WOD for tropical conditions
+ 3 knots WOD for every 1,000 lbs aircraft weight
- 6 knots WOD if A/B thrust of 16,000lbs were available (based on F5D Skylancer SAC)
- 5 knots WOD for the longer 112ft BS4 on HMAS Melbourne (approx.)

So with all the adjustments factored in, in the best case scenario an Improved Super Tiger with the Etendard IVB wing would be maxing out at ~27,500lbs T-O weight using the longer 112ft BS4 catapult, in ISA conditions (15C) with 25 knots WOD. That would be reduced in tropical zero wind conditions to ~26,000lbs T-O weight.

That's some excellent information. So what is the mls we are getting?
bs4 catapult without ship speed would be about 95 kts at that weight, say 100 for the 122ft version, so mls with 25 kts wod = 125 kts.
If our paper plane has 350 sqft wing area, even a bit less, despite a rather heavy loadout at that weight.

Coming from the other direction, a 10% scaled down F-8J. The 27.5k lbs for the tiger would be ~30.6k lbs F-8J. Combining the SAC with c-11 performance that's a bit above 135 kts. And that's light fighter trim.

The Etendard is nose-up, the F-8 has the variable incidence wing. Both versions use BLC. But the Etendiger performance would be comparable to vg fighters.

So I'm still a bit sceptical about the Etendiger making mach2 with a <125 kts mls.

 

[orlovsky]

The explanation is that the Etendard IV was to be a low and medium height LWF for the AdA and also for NATO. Unlike the SMB-2 (last of the Mystères) and the Mirage III-01 (first of the full size, supersonic Mirages) which were high altitude, supersonic interceptors.

And Dassault was delivering the Etendard IV to the MN when they discovered the need for a supersonic fighter/interceptor.
And he did not offer a supersonic version of the Etendard, their only carrier aircraft, for the job? When they had been talking about things like a tailed Mirage III?

 

[bobtdwarf]

Don't forget folks, @H_K is an Etendard aficionado

Well that’s because the Etendard is a what-ifer’s dream… with so many flavors (Etendard II, IV, VI, IVM, IVB, Super Etendard) that got past the drawing board into actual flight test and lots of public information so you can really dig into the technical details and understand the impact of such-and-such change as well as how things scaled up & down. Especially for a carrier and light fighter buff. ;-)

What was missing was a good afterburning engine and this is where the broadly similar Tiger comes in with the J79. Sadly not as much public info on the various derivative Grumman designs that never left the drawing board like the G98L…

Which makes me wonder: Among all those projects, why not a single one with afterburner? The atar 9b with 6t thrust was ready by 1959.

And that's a truly excellent question, since the SMB-2 and Mirage III-01 were contemporary of the Etendard IV (1956, 1956 and 1956, all three of them - hell of a year, Tonton Marcel !).
With all three aircraft having the exact same engine, minus a big difference. SMB-2 & Mirage III-01 had the Atar 101G, which was a 101E with afterburner. The Etendard IV had the 101E, so same engine with no AB.
Later the Etendard IV Atar 8 was an AB-less Atar 9 Mirage III.
And even later, same for the S.E and Mirage F1, with 8k50 & 9k50. Even if the Aéronavale badly wanted a J52 inside the Super Etendard (and before that, they wanted A-4M Skyhwaks).

Snecma Atar — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

The explanation is that the Etendard IV was to be a low and medium height LWF for the AdA and also for NATO. Unlike the SMB-2 (last of the Mystères) and the Mirage III-01 (first of the full size, supersonic Mirages) which were high altitude, supersonic interceptors.

Before France very own Sandystorm military budget crunch of 1958 (Algeria plus NATO plus Force de frappe: something had to give....)
the AdA planned to procure
- a last batch of SMB-2s
- a last batch of all weather Vautours
- Etendard IV for low and medium air defense
- Mirage IIIC for medium and high
- Tridents and ramjet interceptors to reach above 70 000 ft
- SO-4060s and Mirage IV heavy multirole fighters (read: a small nuclear bomber).
All of this (or close) was brutally canned except for moar Mirage IIIs assuming all those roles: medium and low and high and ultra high interceptions, and all-weather with R-530, and clear wheather too.
Having lost both AdA and NATO, the Etendard was lucky to end at the Aéronavale.

I am trying to remember the info on the Etendard with the spey and blown flaps...

 

[bobtdwarf]

For the purposes of this thread, the F-4K is a distraction IMHO… just too different from the Super Tiger.

In post #136 I mentioned the Etendard IVB which feels like a better analog. It was optimized for the British light fleet carriers, with a 308 sq. ft. transonic wing, BLC, 60 degree droop on the flaps, full span leading edge slats etc. The results were similar/better launch & approach speeds to the F-4K and should be more directly applicable to the Super Tiger.

So maybe use the Etendard IVB performance numbers as a baseline for the improved Super Tiger, then adjust accordingly.

Here’s the Etendard IVB’s parameters:

Launch from 103ft BS4 catapult
122 knots minimum airspeed @ 23,000lbs
- 100 knots catapult end speed
= 22 knots minimum wind over deck

Adjustments:
+ 4 knots WOD for tropical conditions
+ 3 knots WOD for every 1,000 lbs aircraft weight
- 6 knots WOD if A/B thrust of 16,000lbs were available (based on F5D Skylancer SAC)
- 5 knots WOD for the longer 112ft BS4 on HMAS Melbourne (approx.)

So with all the adjustments factored in, in the best case scenario an Improved Super Tiger with the Etendard IVB wing would be maxing out at ~27,500lbs T-O weight using the longer 112ft BS4 catapult, in ISA conditions (15C) with 25 knots WOD. That would be reduced in tropical zero wind conditions to ~26,000lbs T-O weight.

That's some excellent information. So what is the mls we are getting?
bs4 catapult without ship speed would be about 95 kts at that weight, say 100 for the 122ft version, so mls with 25 kts wod = 125 kts.
If our paper plane has 350 sqft wing area, even a bit less, despite a rather heavy loadout at that weight.

Coming from the other direction, a 10% scaled down F-8J. The 27.5k lbs for the tiger would be ~30.6k lbs F-8J. Combining the SAC with c-11 performance that's a bit above 135 kts. And that's light fighter trim.

The Etendard is nose-up, the F-8 has the variable incidence wing. Both versions use BLC. But the Etendiger performance would be comparable to vg fighters.

So I'm still a bit sceptical about the Etendiger making mach2 with a <125 kts mls.

fuselage sides are still a bit slab like..

 

[bobtdwarf]

Don't forget folks, @H_K is an Etendard aficionado

Well that’s because the Etendard is a what-ifer’s dream… with so many flavors (Etendard II, IV, VI, IVM, IVB, Super Etendard) that got past the drawing board into actual flight test and lots of public information so you can really dig into the technical details and understand the impact of such-and-such change as well as how things scaled up & down. Especially for a carrier and light fighter buff. ;-)

What was missing was a good afterburning engine and this is where the broadly similar Tiger comes in with the J79. Sadly not as much public info on the various derivative Grumman designs that never left the drawing board like the G98L…

one of the things teased out was some info on the 98-L.. only thing I could find on the "Mk4 30mm cannon" listed as part of her armament is for the Aden, so unless the US had something in the works with the same "mk" then I can only assume they were talking fitting Adens.

 

[bobtdwarf]

There wasn’t really a better “light weight” supersonic naval/ carrier fighter than the F-8 that was realistically on offer at approx. the same time; perhaps a J-79 F-8 variant would have been even better but the US Navy never bothered with that (though the later V-1000 competitor for the F-5E Tiger II based on the F-8 was to have that engine, and the early F-8 project had the engine that became the J-79 as a theoretical option).

The F-8 was arguably a better basis for evolution/ development than the F-11. The F-8 airframe was that bit bigger, heavier and less constrained than the F-11 airframe. For example F-11 airframe had to have additional fuel added after its trials began to give it remotely sufficient endurance for US Navy needs, necessitating packing in more fuel via innovations like a “wet” tail fin; in this context it was far more dependent on its external tanks which were seldom (ever?) seen on the F-8. Which aircraft was actually faster in practice if the F-11 was more fuel constrained/ really couldn’t afford to dump its tanks in practice?

Similarly the later “long noise” F-11 production aircraft had space for but didn’t carry visual assist radar only. Similar to what the F-8As had, not giving any real all-weather capability or any ability to fire/ guide radar guided missiles. And in service never carried them. So in terms of radar equipment every in service F-11 appears to have been inferior to every in service F-8. And there is was little scope/ space in the existing F-11 airframe for equipment giving anything like “mini-F-4” capabilities; the actual proposed bigger-wing F-11s were reasonably extensive amendments and redesigns and the bigger wing was required to try to combat the weight spiral in a what was fundamentally a very tightly packaged light weight day fighter that wasn’t an especially good basis for development. An don’t get me started on features like the upper fuselage mounted sidewinders and the like.

The weight and length are the problems.. and though they were not fitted with the radar they COULD and the F-8 could not. That is enough to qualify for the mini F-4 moniker: Having a BVR capability.

The J-65 is an utter pig.. when the J-79 has a 21% SFC than it.. you aren't quite as dependent on the tanks. With the larger wing from the start (no development costs for the smaller buyer that would have to be paid evolving the F-8), that improves endurance on its own and opens up possible decks that the F-8 has zero shot at because of its size.

As to weight spiral I posted the data on the 300 sqft. 98-L it is still lighter and not as long as the F-8... EDIT: The F-8 is still 6-7 feet longer with one seat than the proposed 2 seat SuperTiger and that makes the F-8 a foot to long to fit down the lifts on the RNs carriers. Fitting her with a second seat costs you 300 gallons of internal fuel so now you are rough parity at around 1000 gallons of internal fuel so rough parity range wise

 

[SSgtC]

Ya know, since we're talking about trying to short circuit the weight spiral, what about removing the guns? The 20mm Colt Mk12 weighed 101.4 pounds. And the Tiger had 4 of them. Per the SAC sheet, it also had 500 rounds of 20mm ammo. The only thing it doesn't state is whether it was 500 rounds per gun or total. Assuming it was 500 rounds total with each gun having 125 rounds each, you're saving a minimum of 527 pounds out of the airframe (not including the mounting hardware for the guns and ammunition stowage). That's a pretty significant savings. And once you include all the associated equipment, you're looking at close to a 550 pound savings. You can also subtract the weight of the AN/APG-30 (or AN/APS-67) from the aircraft. That will at least help offset some of the added weight from replacing the gun radar with something like the AN/APQ-83 or -84. Given you're trying to make this a light carrier capable aircraft, you don't need the AN/APQ-72 and Sparrows. You need a basic search radar and Sidewinders. That's much more doable than trying to finagle a "Phantom-Lite" into an airframe as maxed out as the Tiger's is

 

[bobtdwarf]

The brief starts with this: "Simple POD: Some bright engineer at Grumman notices that aircraft designed to fit two abreast in a 58 foot wide hangar won't fit 2 abreast in their allies 52 wide hangars."


Just a simple realization that if you call yourself the "arsenal of democracy" you have to be able to actually effectively ARM your friends in time of war.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Ya know, since we're talking about trying to short circuit the weight spiral, what about removing the guns? The 20mm Colt Mk12 weighed 101.4 pounds. And the Tiger had 4 of them. Per the SAC sheet, it also had 500 rounds of 20mm ammo. The only thing it doesn't state is whether it was 500 rounds per gun or total. Assuming it was 500 rounds total with each gun having 125 rounds each, you're saving a minimum of 527 pounds out of the airframe (not including the mounting hardware for the guns and ammunition stowage). That's a pretty significant savings. And once you include all the associated equipment, you're looking at close to a 550 pound savings. You can also subtract the weight of the AN/APG-30 (or AN/APS-67) from the aircraft. That will at least help offset some of the added weight from replacing the gun radar with something like the AN/APQ-83 or -84. Given you're trying to make this a light carrier capable aircraft, you don't need the AN/APQ-72 and Sparrows. You need a basic search radar and Sidewinders. That's much more doable than trying to finagle a "Phantom-Lite" into an airframe as maxed out as the Tiger's is

it is total.. 125 per gun.

That is the thing the airframe isn't really "maxed" out. That nose is carrying EDIT checked the SAC it is 244 pounds, of ballast.. replacing the dead weight with "live weight" so to speak. Replacing the 4 20s with 2 30s as in the 98-L will save you a few hundred pounds. All it takes to go "mini phantom" is putting that radar in the nose and it costs you exactly ZERO pounds since the long nose has been carrying dead weight there this whole time.

 

[H_K]

fuselage sides are still a bit slab like..

Wrong Etendard. That’s the earlier Etendard II, with twin Gabizo engines that was underpowered and had no area rule… not a success (just like the early Mirage I).

The Etendard thread has lots of info on the design evolution: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dassault-etendard-prototypes-and-projects.11138/

As for the question why the Etendard IV never got an afterburning engine, in addition to the program requirements mentioned by Archibald, I suspect another big reason was technical - the Atar 9B was a big honking engine that ate up internal fuel volume. Ideally the Etendard needed a shorter engine like the Gyron Junior DGJ.10 (10,000lbs dry thrust, 14,000lb with afterburning), which on paper was perfect for the job.

 

[bobtdwarf]

fuselage sides are still a bit slab like..

Wrong Etendard. That’s the earlier Etendard II, with twin Gabizo engines that was underpowered and had no area rule… not a success (just like the early Mirage I).

The Etendard thread has lots of info on the design evolution: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dassault-etendard-prototypes-and-projects.11138/

dang wiki, bad wiki!

Thanks a ton! That will be a fun thread

 

[uk 75]

Another light fighter possibility for the RN if it had relaxed its requirements and gone for numbers rather than capability can be found here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a4-skyhawk-in-royal-navy-service.37741/