An alternate F-11 Tiger

[orlovsky]

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.

With the AB, the Atar 9 was about 6.2m vs the 8 at 3.9m or so. I may be wrong here, but weren't the ABs of the time for comparable turbojets all about 2m in length?

Also, the IVB had an Avon and for the SuE, the J52 was seriously considered. But AFAIK, never an afterburning engine. My understanding, which may be wrong again, was that for an AB, you'd have to redesign the Etendard into a very different plane.

 

[orlovsky]

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/

A-4 data for short steam cats:

 

[H_K]

From the article above: « At full normal take-off weight (about 20,000 lb) […] the Bonaventure’s short-stroke steam catapult provides a launch speed of 104 knots »

The Etendard IVB documentation says 105 knots @ 20,000 lb from a 103ft BS4 catapult … amazing that the numbers from 2 completely different sources match so well, within +/- 1 knot!

 

[orlovsky]

For british steam catapults that's like a glitch in the matrix.
The H8 would be about 95-100 kts, but the essex cvs could compensate with higher ship speed.

 

[bobtdwarf]

For british steam catapults that's like a glitch in the matrix.
The H8 would be about 95-100 kts, but the essex cvs could compensate with higher ship speed.

I posted a chunk of an FJ4 pilots autobiography talking about launches from the H8 once... he always passed out briefly on any H8 launch; the onset of ZOOM was intense

 

[bobtdwarf]

The thread does require a questioning of assumptions and reexamining of data. For instance the "maxing out" of the airframe is based in large part not thinking the weight for the radar system was not already allocated and ballasted for so the aircraft was balanced. Using the seat back as a guide scale the Tiger has about the same 3x3x4 foot cube behind the seat for avionics that are on all USN aircraft before you start digging into space for the forward fuel cell. The alternative Tiger in the thread is carrying 200 gallons of fuel per wing not 96 as the historic Tiger.. the FJ carried 173 gallons per wing and I am taking up the space for the main gear with fuel so call it 200 without getting overly complicated.

That puts her internal fuel with guns at about 1154 in comparison to the 1300 of the F-8 IIRC. The Crusader still has an advantage because the J-57 has a better SFC than the J-65, but it is not as overwhelming a one as historic when the larger wings impact on endurance is factored in. When the J-79 enters the picture that just about goes away entirely and you now have some room to play with in fuel reduction IF you need to for more avionics without it totally cutting your throat: An APQ-50 sized radar consumes 50 gallons of fuel volume in size for the dustbin of electronics.

 

[Archibald]

And once you have the APQ-50 (Sidewinder or Sparrow I only), you can switch to Sparrow II (-64) or Sparrow III (-72) without major change to the basic Westinghouse set. So the same aircraft can have the full and entire enchillada of early AAMs.
Asking in passing: when did the M61 Vulcan became available ? Often think the Crusader should have swapped its four crappy Colts for a couple of M61s, if they ever fit within the same space (not sure at all !)

 

[orlovsky]

Playing around with the A-4E data:

16k lbs is empty+internal fuel
18k lbs, 106+22= 128 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~120 kts)
20k lbs, 104+22+10 = 136 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~129 kts)

For the F-11A

21k lbs is empty+internal fuel
22k lbs, stall 127 kts, so mls ~134 kts; maybe with AB, ~130 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 102 kts, requires 28 kts wod.
24k lbs, stall 133 kts, so mls ~140 kts; maybe with AB, ~135 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 100 kts, requires 35 kts wod.

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs. That's 45 kts wod for the higher weight, so even with blc and larger wing, it looks maxed out at low weights at best.

Edit: So let me correct this: The improved H-8 was 105 kts @20k lbs. This would suffice for a ~23k lbs tiger from a cvs in no wind condition:
23k lbs, stall 130 kts, so mls ~137 kts; maybe with AB, ~132-133 kts. H-8 ~102-103 kts, requires 30 kts wod = ship speed.

Early long bs4 versions on RN carriers probably 110-120 kts. Limited room for a heavier super tiger without modification.

The original 157 ft bs4 on the Clemenceau class would give 130 kts up to 25k lbs, so no problems there (as long as the airframe can stand it). A heavier super tiger would not need modification for launching (landing may be a different issue).

 

[bobtdwarf]

And once you have the APQ-50 (Sidewinder or Sparrow I only), you can switch to Sparrow II (-64) or Sparrow III (-72) without major change to the basic Westinghouse set. So the same aircraft can have the full and entire enchillada of early AAMs.
Asking in passing: when did the M61 Vulcan became available ? Often think the Crusader should have swapped its four crappy Colts for a couple of M61s, if they ever fit within the same space (not sure at all !)

late 50s the 104 had a Vulcan... just compare the F-8 and A-7 gun arrangement

 

[bobtdwarf]

Playing around with the A-4E data:

16k lbs is empty+internal fuel
18k lbs, 106+22= 128 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~120 kts)
20k lbs, 104+22+10 = 136 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~129 kts)

For the F-11A

21k lbs is empty+internal fuel
22k lbs, stall 127 kts, so mls ~134 kts; maybe with AB, ~130 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 102 kts, requires 28 kts wod.
24k lbs, stall 133 kts, so mls ~140 kts; maybe with AB, ~135 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 100 kts, requires 35 kts wod.

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs. That's 45 kts wod for the higher weight, so even with blc and larger wing, it looks maxed out at low weights at best.

Early long bs4 versions on RN carriers probably 110-120 kts. Limited room for a heavier super tiger without modification.

The original 157 ft bs4 on the Clemenceau class would give 130 kts up to 25k lbs, so no problems there (as long as the airframe can stand it). A heavier super tiger would not need modification for launching (landing may be a different issue).

yeah the F-11A with the 250 sqft. wing is no bueno on the H-8 or smaller steam cats.. you need a minimum of 300-ish sqft

 

[orlovsky]

Playing around with the A-4E data:

16k lbs is empty+internal fuel
18k lbs, 106+22= 128 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~120 kts)
20k lbs, 104+22+10 = 136 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~129 kts)

For the F-11A

21k lbs is empty+internal fuel
22k lbs, stall 127 kts, so mls ~134 kts; maybe with AB, ~130 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 102 kts, requires 28 kts wod.
24k lbs, stall 133 kts, so mls ~140 kts; maybe with AB, ~135 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 100 kts, requires 35 kts wod.

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs. That's 45 kts wod for the higher weight, so even with blc and larger wing, it looks maxed out at low weights at best.

Early long bs4 versions on RN carriers probably 110-120 kts. Limited room for a heavier super tiger without modification.

The original 157 ft bs4 on the Clemenceau class would give 130 kts up to 25k lbs, so no problems there (as long as the airframe can stand it). A heavier super tiger would not need modification for launching (landing may be a different issue).

yeah the F-11A with the 250 sqft. wing is no bueno on the H-8 or smaller steam cats.. you need a minimum of 300-ish sqft

I was wondering about a simpler scenario: just reengine the existing Tigers, put a new radar in and sell them as a bargain to US allies. But it won't work even from the short bs4 majestics.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Playing around with the A-4E data:

16k lbs is empty+internal fuel
18k lbs, 106+22= 128 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~120 kts)
20k lbs, 104+22+10 = 136 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~129 kts)

For the F-11A

21k lbs is empty+internal fuel
22k lbs, stall 127 kts, so mls ~134 kts; maybe with AB, ~130 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 102 kts, requires 28 kts wod.
24k lbs, stall 133 kts, so mls ~140 kts; maybe with AB, ~135 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 100 kts, requires 35 kts wod.

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs. That's 45 kts wod for the higher weight, so even with blc and larger wing, it looks maxed out at low weights at best.

Early long bs4 versions on RN carriers probably 110-120 kts. Limited room for a heavier super tiger without modification.

The original 157 ft bs4 on the Clemenceau class would give 130 kts up to 25k lbs, so no problems there (as long as the airframe can stand it). A heavier super tiger would not need modification for launching (landing may be a different issue).

yeah the F-11A with the 250 sqft. wing is no bueno on the H-8 or smaller steam cats.. you need a minimum of 300-ish sqft

I was wondering about a simpler scenario: just reengine the existing Tigers, put a new radar in and sell them as a bargain to US allies. But it won't work even from the short bs4 majestics.

they may be workable from a Centaur or above but I am reasonably sure they will require some tanker support because you are going to sacrifice internal fuel to get the launch weight down in some cases. You can partially offset this by replacing the wingtips with longer span ones to boost the wing area. The Banshee was pretty heavy but could launch from Bonnie because of her 294 sqft. wing. Edit her max launch weight was 25,000 pounds a wee over but round down to make the math easier

 

[H_K]

Playing around with the A-4E data:

16k lbs is empty+internal fuel
18k lbs, 106+22= 128 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~120 kts)
20k lbs, 104+22+10 = 136 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~129 kts)

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs.

So 41 knots wind-over-deck needed to launch a Skyhawk @ 20,000lbs from a CVS using an H-8 catapult? Hmmm… if true, how did those carriers operate Skyhawk fighter detachments in the 60s?

Something doesn’t compute… and I think I found the answer! Turns out that the H-8 catapult’s launch pressure was increased over time from 3,600psi to 4,000psi. At the higher setting, the H-8 could launch 20,250lbs @ 105 knots or 29,000lbs @ 100 knots.

Aviation Boatswain's Mate 1 & C

books.google.com

This enables Skyhawk launches @ 20,000lbs with only 18 knots WOD, and even A-6 launches at low weights (40,000lbs with 25 knots WOD)! Making the H-8 significantly more powerful than the 103ft BS-4 catapult aboard the British light fleet carriers.

Skyhawk SAC: https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/Douglas_Model_725_SAC_-_15_August_1957.pdf
A-6A launches: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA382399.pdf

So designing for the 103ft BS-4 catapult or its extended 112ft version on foreign carriers should also allow for operations on USN CVSs using H8 catapults.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Playing around with the A-4E data:

16k lbs is empty+internal fuel
18k lbs, 106+22= 128 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~120 kts)
20k lbs, 104+22+10 = 136 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~129 kts)

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs.

So 41 knots wind-over-deck needed to launch a Skyhawk @ 20,000lbs from a CVS using an H-8 catapult? Hmmm… if true, how did those carriers operate Skyhawk fighter detachments in the 60s?

Something doesn’t compute… and I think I found the answer! Turns out that the H-8 catapult’s launch pressure was increased over time from 3,600psi to 4,000psi. At the higher setting, the H-8 could launch 20,250lbs @ 105 knots or 29,000lbs @ 100 knots.

Aviation Boatswain's Mate 1 & C

books.google.com

This enables Skyhawk launches @ 20,000lbs with only 18 knots WOD, and even A-6 launches at low weights (40,000lbs with 25 knots WOD)! Making the H-8 significantly more powerful than the 103ft BS-4 catapult aboard the British light fleet carriers.

Skyhawk SAC: https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/Douglas_Model_725_SAC_-_15_August_1957.pdf
A-6A launches: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA382399.pdf

So designing for the 103ft BS-4 catapult or it’s extended 112ft version on foreign carriers should also allow for operations on USN CVSs using H8 catapults.

interesting that the A-4 has a slightly increased wing area: 272 sqft. vs the stock 260 of the A model.

All we have to do with the Alt-Tiger is beat the F-3, not the F-8

 

[GK Dundas]

Go team Tiger !

 

[orlovsky]

Playing around with the A-4E data:

16k lbs is empty+internal fuel
18k lbs, 106+22= 128 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~120 kts)
20k lbs, 104+22+10 = 136 kts mls (stall from A-4E SAC: ~129 kts)

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs.

So 41 knots wind-over-deck needed to launch a Skyhawk @ 20,000lbs from a CVS using an H-8 catapult? Hmmm… if true, how did those carriers operate Skyhawk fighter detachments in the 60s?

Something doesn’t compute… and I think I found the answer! Turns out that the H-8 catapult’s launch pressure was increased over time from 3,600psi to 4,000psi. At the higher setting, the H-8 could launch 20,250lbs @ 105 knots or 29,000lbs @ 100 knots.

Aviation Boatswain's Mate 1 & C

books.google.com

This enables Skyhawk launches @ 20,000lbs with only 18 knots WOD, and even A-6 launches at low weights (40,000lbs with 25 knots WOD)! Making the H-8 significantly more powerful than the 103ft BS-4 catapult aboard the British light fleet carriers.

Skyhawk SAC: https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/Douglas_Model_725_SAC_-_15_August_1957.pdf
A-6A launches: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA382399.pdf

So designing for the 103ft BS-4 catapult or it’s extended 112ft version on foreign carriers should also allow for operations on USN CVSs using H8 catapults.

Excellent find. I have not found a diagram for the h-8, just one to 16k lbs where endspeed starts falling at 15k lbs. That matches some sacs, but others not so well.

With the lower pressure, the a-4 would be limited to 18k lbs on the cvs. Sidewinders and a bit of external fuel.
20k lbs: 136 mls -105 H-8=31 wod. Pretty much ship speed.

 

[Archibald]

Just for the fun of it I checked the Skylancer wing area, and it had a whopping 557 sq ft.

Douglas F5D Skylancer - carrier-borne fighter

But it was a delta, so (to spoof Airplane !) "it is an entirely different kind of wing, altogether !"

Dimension and weight wise it was a tad bigger than a Mirage 2000, span wise it had 10 sq meters more wing area: 51 vs 41. And since the 2000 basic shape was a much optimized III...
Skylancer was closer from a SAAB Draken, actually (49 sq meters wing area).

I often wonder how did Skyray deltas performed on carriers, since non-FBW delta wing flaws seemed not very compatible with carrier ops...

 

[orlovsky]

Just for the fun of it I checked the Skylancer wing area, and it had a whopping 557 sq ft.

Douglas F5D Skylancer - carrier-borne fighter

But it was a delta, so (to spoof Airplane !) "it is an entirely different kind of wing, altogether !"

Dimension and weight wise it was a tad bigger than a Mirage 2000, span wise it had 10 sq meters more wing area: 51 vs 41. And since the 2000 basic shape was a much optimized III...
Skylancer was closer from a SAAB Draken, actually (49 sq meters wing area).

I often wonder how did Skyray deltas performed on carriers, since non-FBW delta wing flaws seemed not very compatible with carrier ops...

It's not so much the delta, but the tailless delta. Phantom and Skyhawk are essentially tailed deltas.

 

[Archibald]

Yes, tailess delta. That what I had in mind, indeed. A tail helps a lot, for sure. By the way, when Dassault proposed a naval, delta Mirage against the Breguet 1120 Sirocco (Mirage V, but not the familiar one) it had a high mounted small tail.

 

[uk 75]

Another distraction in the early 60s is the Missileer concept. The threat being from air and sea launched missiles and Soviet long range aircraft rather than fighters.
Sea Vixen could have been rearmed with a new radar and long range AAMs.

 

[zen]

Another distraction in the early 60s is the Missileer concept. The threat being from air and sea launched missiles and Soviet long range aircraft rather than fighters.
Sea Vixen could have been rearmed with a new radar and long range AAMs.

Arguably it just needed the costed upgrades to the AI.18 set and Red Top mkII and Radar Red Top.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Just for the fun of it I checked the Skylancer wing area, and it had a whopping 557 sq ft.

Douglas F5D Skylancer - carrier-borne fighter

But it was a delta, so (to spoof Airplane !) "it is an entirely different kind of wing, altogether !"

Dimension and weight wise it was a tad bigger than a Mirage 2000, span wise it had 10 sq meters more wing area: 51 vs 41. And since the 2000 basic shape was a much optimized III...
Skylancer was closer from a SAAB Draken, actually (49 sq meters wing area).

I often wonder how did Skyray deltas performed on carriers, since non-FBW delta wing flaws seemed not very compatible with carrier ops...

http://www.airvectors.net/avskyray.html. towards the bottom it covers how it did on carriers.

 

[orlovsky]

Something doesn’t compute… and I think I found the answer! Turns out that the H-8 catapult’s launch pressure was increased over time from 3,600psi to 4,000psi. At the higher setting, the H-8 could launch 20,250lbs @ 105 knots or 29,000lbs @ 100 knots.

Aviation Boatswain's Mate 1 & C

books.google.com

Trying to find additional datapoints:

From your A-6A report: "The A-6A airplane requires approximately 25 kt wind over the deck at 40,000 lb
for H-8 launches 10 kt above the minimum end airspeed."

The A-6A stall speed would be about 100 kts. +10-25 = 85 kts H-8 end speed @ 40k lbs.
That's a good fit with the S-3 SAC assuming 5kts safety margin over stall speed. Adding rough estimates from there:
~80 kts @ 45k lbs
~85 kts @ 40k lbs
~90-92 kts @ 35k lbs
100 kts @ 29k lbs (may I ask where that datapoint is from?)
105 kts @ 20k lbs

 

[H_K]

With the lower pressure, the a-4 would be limited to 18k lbs on the cvs. Sidewinders and a bit of external fuel.
20k lbs: 136 mls -105 H-8=31 wod. Pretty much ship speed.

The A-4’s minimum launch speed must somehow have been less than that, as the wind-over-deck requirements were quite low even at 3,600 psi:

A-4B, H8 cat @ 3,600psi
13 knots WOD @ 18k lbs
25 knots WOD @ 20k lbs

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/A4D-2_Skyhawk_(Tanker)_SAC_-_7_April_1958.pdf

Note that power-off stall speed is 125 knots @ 20k lbs, so with the H8 delivering <105 kts end speed @ 3,600 psi that means the launch must be very close to stall speed (!).

100 kts @ 29k lbs (may I ask where that datapoint is from?)

The A-6 end speeds are from pages 8-9 of the same DTIC report.

 

[orlovsky]

For the F-11A

21k lbs is empty+internal fuel
22k lbs, stall 127 kts, so mls ~134 kts; maybe with AB, ~130 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 102 kts, requires 28 kts wod.
24k lbs, stall 133 kts, so mls ~140 kts; maybe with AB, ~135 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 100 kts, requires 35 kts wod.

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs. That's 45 kts wod for the higher weight, so even with blc and larger wing, it looks maxed out at low weights at best.

So let me correct this: The improved H-8 was 105 kts @20k lbs. This would suffice for a ~23k lbs tiger from a cvs in no wind condition:
23k lbs, stall 130 kts, so mls ~137 kts; maybe with AB, ~132-133 kts. H-8 ~102-103 kts, requires 30 kts wod = ship speed.

So if you can keep the additional weight from the j79 and a better radar to ~1000 lbs, the modified tiger would work from a cvs (internal fuel+missiles), marginally but still...

 

[bobtdwarf]

For the F-11A

21k lbs is empty+internal fuel
22k lbs, stall 127 kts, so mls ~134 kts; maybe with AB, ~130 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 102 kts, requires 28 kts wod.
24k lbs, stall 133 kts, so mls ~140 kts; maybe with AB, ~135 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 100 kts, requires 35 kts wod.

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs. That's 45 kts wod for the higher weight, so even with blc and larger wing, it looks maxed out at low weights at best.

So let me correct this: The improved H-8 was 105 kts @20k lbs. This would suffice for a ~23k lbs tiger from a cvs in no wind condition:
23k lbs, stall 130 kts, so mls ~137 kts; maybe with AB, ~132-133 kts. H-8 ~102-103 kts, requires 30 kts wod = ship speed.

So if you can keep the additional weight from the j79 and a better radar to ~1000 lbs, the modified tiger would work from a cvs (internal fuel+missiles), marginally but still...

The J-79 weighs 250 pounds less than the J-65, between existing radar and ballast being replaced by new unit the weight should be a push...nice to have about a thousand pounds of wiggle room!

 

[orlovsky]

With the lower pressure, the a-4 would be limited to 18k lbs on the cvs. Sidewinders and a bit of external fuel.
20k lbs: 136 mls -105 H-8=31 wod. Pretty much ship speed.

The A-4’s minimum launch speed must somehow have been less than that, as the wind-over-deck requirements were quite low even at 3,600 psi:

A-4B, H8 cat @ 3,600psi
13 knots WOD @ 18k lbs
25 knots WOD @ 20k lbs

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/A4D-2_Skyhawk_(Tanker)_SAC_-_7_April_1958.pdf

Note that power-off stall speed is 125 knots @ 20k lbs, so with the H8 delivering <105 kts end speed @ 3,600 psi that means the launch must be very close to stall speed (!).

The safety margins vary a lot. For some F-4 versions they are close to zero for AB launches, for the Hornet it has been 15 kts. I assume the numbers for the A-4E with about 5 kts safety are closer to actual carrier conditions.

100 kts @ 29k lbs (may I ask where that datapoint is from?)

The A-6 end speeds are from pages 8-9 of the same DTIC report.

Now that's interesting. It also has C-11 480 psi 116 kts @ 54500 lbs. On this graph it would be more ~106 kts.
Now this is a standard performance, but that individual shots would vary that much?

 

[orlovsky]

For the F-11A

21k lbs is empty+internal fuel
22k lbs, stall 127 kts, so mls ~134 kts; maybe with AB, ~130 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 102 kts, requires 28 kts wod.
24k lbs, stall 133 kts, so mls ~140 kts; maybe with AB, ~135 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 100 kts, requires 35 kts wod.

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs. That's 45 kts wod for the higher weight, so even with blc and larger wing, it looks maxed out at low weights at best.

So let me correct this: The improved H-8 was 105 kts @20k lbs. This would suffice for a ~23k lbs tiger from a cvs in no wind condition:
23k lbs, stall 130 kts, so mls ~137 kts; maybe with AB, ~132-133 kts. H-8 ~102-103 kts, requires 30 kts wod = ship speed.

So if you can keep the additional weight from the j79 and a better radar to ~1000 lbs, the modified tiger would work from a cvs (internal fuel+missiles), marginally but still...

The J-79 weighs 250 pounds less than the J-65, between existing radar and ballast being replaced by new unit the weight should be a push...nice to have about a thousand pounds of wiggle room!

Do we know the weight of the two reengined tigers? Wiki quotes Buttler with 13800 empty for the J79 version, the F-11 SAC has 13300 for the J65 version. But that may be different weights.

 

[bobtdwarf]

For the F-11A

21k lbs is empty+internal fuel
22k lbs, stall 127 kts, so mls ~134 kts; maybe with AB, ~130 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 102 kts, requires 28 kts wod.
24k lbs, stall 133 kts, so mls ~140 kts; maybe with AB, ~135 kts. Short BS4 (103 ft) 100 kts, requires 35 kts wod.

The H8 should be about 95 kts @20k lbs, maybe 90 kts @ 24k lbs. That's 45 kts wod for the higher weight, so even with blc and larger wing, it looks maxed out at low weights at best.

So let me correct this: The improved H-8 was 105 kts @20k lbs. This would suffice for a ~23k lbs tiger from a cvs in no wind condition:
23k lbs, stall 130 kts, so mls ~137 kts; maybe with AB, ~132-133 kts. H-8 ~102-103 kts, requires 30 kts wod = ship speed.

So if you can keep the additional weight from the j79 and a better radar to ~1000 lbs, the modified tiger would work from a cvs (internal fuel+missiles), marginally but still...

The J-79 weighs 250 pounds less than the J-65, between existing radar and ballast being replaced by new unit the weight should be a push...nice to have about a thousand pounds of wiggle room!

Do we know the weight of the two reengined tigers? Wiki quotes Buttler with 13800 empty for the J79 version, the F-11 SAC has 13300 for the J65 version. But that may be different weights.

yes we do they are listed in Corky's book... which I do not have access to at the moment

 

[bobtdwarf]

a fun one I found not related to the thread https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/Grumman_Design_118_SAC_-_12_December_1955_(Tommy).pdf

 

[Archibald]

Wait wait... are you telling me an A-6A Intruder could use the oldest Essex, the ones with H-8 catapults ? Impressive. I know, early variant, light weight, little fuel, the Intruder was a slow subsonic beast... but still.

 

[orlovsky]

Wait wait... are you telling me an A-6A Intruder could use the oldest Essex, the ones with H-8 catapults ? Impressive. I know, early variant, light weight, little fuel, the Intruder was a slow subsonic beast... but still.

Then try a happy little Viking.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/S-3A_Viking_SAC_-_January_1973.pdf

 

[Archibald]

My mind is blown. A pity, really, they scrapped the two crippled from 1945 - you know, Franklin and Bunker Hill. They were repaired, zeroed, and then sat in reserve for 25 years waiting for a post SBC-125 rebuild that never came - before the breakers got them.

My mind is considering a rebuild of these two as strike carriers with A-6 / A-7 and ASW with Vikings. Plus Harriers for air cover, or A-4M Skyhawks.

I'm sure Reagan would have sold his grandmother to get that as part as his 600-navy plan. Heck, they did try to bring back the very last Essex, can't remember which one. But it was too late.

 

[orlovsky]

Oriskany.

 

[bobtdwarf]

A quick note about endurance while the figures are semi fresh.. the stock F-11 is 4000 pounds lighter and carries 73 gallons more fuel than the FJ-4B with the same shaped wing and has 2 hours less endurance in the same general purpose fighter config using different marks of the J-65

EDIT: I also for the heck of it used the weight difference between the -6 and -8 Cougars as a guide on the increase in wing size. Dividing the existing wing sqft. by 37 and multiplying the resulting number by 200 (the weight and wing area difference between the two), and then compared... 500 pounds more for the big wing. 200 additional gallons of fuel should be about 1200 pounds at 6 pounds per gallon.. so loaded/gross weight should be 1700 pounds more.

So with full internal fuel she would be within 15 gallons of the FJ4 with tanks in the general purpose fighter config and should have approximately equal range and endurance.

 

[H_K]

Do we know the weight of the two reengined tigers? Wiki quotes Buttler with 13800 empty for the J79 version, the F-11 SAC has 13300 for the J65 version. But that may be different weights.

yes we do they are listed in Corky's book... which I do not have access to at the moment

Here’s what I found in Corky Meyer’s book… looks like the Super Tiger proposals gained quite a lot of weight over time, about 2,000lbs (!). Not really surprising as other designs like the F-8A-> F-8E also saw weight growth. But not good for flying from light carriers.

Gross TO weight - Fuel - Useful load = Empty weight

F11F (late production models):
21,280lbs - 6,650 -1,100 = 13,530 lb empty
98J-1 (original Super Tiger proposal):
22,730 lbs - 8,150 - 610 = 13,970 lbs (+ 450lbs)
98J-5 (as flown):
23,250 lbs - 7,840 - 610 = 14,800 lbs (+830lbs)
98J-2 (all weather fighter):
27,800 lbs - 10,110 - 2,120 = 15,570 lbs (+830lbs)
98J-7 (2-seat all weather fighter)
23,350lbs - 7,300 - 500 = 15,530 lbs (-40 lbs)

For the above I had to estimate useful load, as follows:

300 lbs for pilot + gear + oil + trapped fuel (500lbs for two seater 98J-7)

800lbs for 4x 20mm guns + ammo (F11F)
or 300lbs for 2x Sidewinders (98J-1, -2 and -5)

98J-2 only: 1,040lbs for 2x Sparrows + launchers and 470lbs for 2x 150-gal tanks

Note that none of the 98J designs had cannon as standard. Instead this space was used for an optional (removable?) belly tank for approx ~180 gallons of fuel (1,200lbs). The gun pack was optional.

 

[orlovsky]

The 98J versions were all with 250 sqft wing and the J79?

 

[H_K]

The 98J versions were all with 250 sqft wing and the J79?

Yes.

 

[orlovsky]

So the all weather fighter with sparrows light launch weight:
from 27,800 lbs
-2000 drop tank fuel weight
-500 drop tanks
=25300 (8000 lbs fuel, fraction ~32 %)
Extrapolating stall speed ~ 137 kts
Minimum safety with an AB launch maybe 3 = 140kts
Deduct about 100 kts from the H-8
= 40 kts wod

With 23k lbs maximum launch weight in zero natural wind, the Tiger would need a tanker around. Not unusual*, just a bit cumbersome.

* I've seen contradicting information, some say that USN practice is/was to top off launching aircraft from a tanker anyway.

 

[Archibald]

If Etendards and Skyhawks could carry buddy-buddy refueling packs, no problem for a S.T.