Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
- Thread starter Pioneer
- Start date
KJ_Lesnick
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 February 2008
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 104
Does anybody have any idea how much of a difference the wing-area of the F11F-2 was? It would have almost had to have been bigger than the F11F-1 as it had a different inboard leading-edge, wing-tip, and trailing-edges.
The commonly listed 250 square foot listing is right off the F11F-1
The commonly listed 250 square foot listing is right off the F11F-1
As far as I know, the Navy planned to buy the F11F with the J79 engine as the F12F (see the characteristics summary), although F11F-2 would have been the usual designation change to denote a different engine in basically the same airframe. For my ongoing attempts to correct the world with respect to the F12F designation being applied to the Grumman D118, see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-this-grummman-f12f.html
Grumman created several variations of the D98 powered by the J79 and at least one other engine that would have merited an F12F designation or if it suited the Navy, F11F-2. One was the 98D, which the Navy informally compared to McDonnell's unsolicited proposal that resulted in the AH program. It had a wing area of 350 square feet like the F12F-1 characteristics summary.
Grumman created several variations of the D98 powered by the J79 and at least one other engine that would have merited an F12F designation or if it suited the Navy, F11F-2. One was the 98D, which the Navy informally compared to McDonnell's unsolicited proposal that resulted in the AH program. It had a wing area of 350 square feet like the F12F-1 characteristics summary.
Attachments
sferrin said:
An interesting hypothetical, particularly if you believe that the designation decision-makers were trying to avoid -13. Given that the Air Force fighters had dibs on retaining their existing designations (the F-12 was on order before the designation consolidation) and in view of its similarity to the F11F, I suspect that it would have been redesignated F-11B. That would make as much—if not more—sense than the redesignation of the F2Y (F-7) and the F3D (F-10).
I think people take the USN saying it was "to heavy" as meaning it was unsuitable for it.. but it doesn't mean that. The totality of the "to heavy" judgement comes from it being to heavy to launch from H8 catapult equipped carriers, at its max load... and it sort of is to heavy for that with the wing area she has. Easy fix though, the Grumman 98L design had folding wing tips about 18 inches longer than the stock F11, which you could retrofit to any existing aircraft and increase the wing area from 250 to 275 square feet. That would bring the wing loading at near max weight the same as the A4E: 94 and change. On paper that would give both aircraft roughly the same launch/recover envelope at the same weights.
There is an error in the F11 engine figures.. Per Naval fighters number 44 and the test pilot of the super tiger .. the fully rated version of the J79 they were going to use was 15,000 wet. The engines they used in testing were early derated test versions! Grumman used two prototypes, the first was a bog standard F11 with a highly derated test engine slotted into it with NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS... that engines output was 13,500 wet and it did mach 1.61. The second prototype had modifications made to the intakes and all the other mods and it did mach 2.04 with that same engine.. they got the second test engine later and it was rated at 14,250.
Of course Lockheed had the fully rated 15,000 engine for F104!
France test flew the super tiger, and wrecked the first prototype on landing due to pilot error.. and since the pilot was in charge of procurement and had a back injury that was that.
Source is Naval fighters 44.. on 23 June 1958 Major Jean Franchi chief test pilot of the French Air Force test flew the first prototype, the first flight went fine but the second of the day he pulled the flaps at 140 knots, 25 knots below minimum flight retraction speed and slammed the aircraft into the ground so hard he broke his back.
Thank you very much. Very interesting tidbit. A quick Google search shows that the incident did not stopped his career afterwards... http://museedelta.free.fr/concorde/jfranchi.htm
- Joined
- 11 March 2012
- Messages
- 3,124
- Reaction score
- 2,966
For comparison, Grumman was not the only company developing Inlet “bumps.”
Lockheed installed fixed cones in CF-104, while MiG installed a moveable cone in MiG 21 Inlet. The MiG inlet cone could be adjusted fore-and-aft and also contained a radar antenna.
Lockheed installed fixed cones in CF-104, while MiG installed a moveable cone in MiG 21 Inlet. The MiG inlet cone could be adjusted fore-and-aft and also contained a radar antenna.
Last edited:
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,703
Presumably you mean MIG-21, not MIG-23?
ALOT of companies and countries had experience with movable “cone” (“full”, half and quarter version) inlets.
For example Dassault in France great exponents in the Mirage series.
Wow. That's brilliant... and actually more clever than Vought variable incidence wing trick.
thanks! I thought it was clever.. and CHEAP, all it takes is snipping some tin and flipping a hinge from fold down to fold up. Though I may have underestimated the tip size.. I think that 98L was going to be the basis for the "F-12" and that was supposed to have a wing span of 36 feet and a total wing area of 350 sqft. So that would make the tips 26.25 inches longer and would give the retrofitted Tigers a wing area of about 313 sq. ft. That would make her wing loading at 21,035 pounds 67.2 and 83 at 26,000 pounds.. H8 sounds like it is possible.
Sadly I don't think it would make a difference on keeping her in the inventory.. they had already committed to the F-8 for the steam cat Essex' and using them for the guard aircraft on the H8 CVS ones instead of the A-4 would be a lot of logistical overhead for a small number of aircraft.
posting an image to show you what I am talking about.. if the 98L IS the basis for the "F-12" SAC sheet, that black area at the back of the wing would take it up to 350 sq. ft.
It honestly makes me wonder if you slotted a TF-41 in would it super cruise...
Excellent. Shame the French Aeronavale couldn't get their hands on this lovely aircraft. Of course had the Jean Bart battleship been turned into a carrier by 1944 or 1946 things might have been different.
Instead by Suez France was stuck with
- Lafayette: fast enough for jets at 30 kt, but at 195 m long, too short for them.
- Arromanches was the exact opposite: long enough at 220 m, but too slow at 24 kt !
Only the Clems from 1960 were good enough.
The Jean Bart even compromised by its battleship narrow hull would have been both long enough and fast enough, not too far from a Clemenceau in overall capability.
Now you are saying that 98L would been as lightly loaded as a Skyhawk. An aircraft that flew out of old and small and cramped carriers such as 25 de Mayo, HMAS Sidney and Melbourne, and some others. Maybe - maybe - it would have been feasible to land that bird on Lafayette or Arromanches.
Instead by Suez France was stuck with
- Lafayette: fast enough for jets at 30 kt, but at 195 m long, too short for them.
- Arromanches was the exact opposite: long enough at 220 m, but too slow at 24 kt !
Only the Clems from 1960 were good enough.
The Jean Bart even compromised by its battleship narrow hull would have been both long enough and fast enough, not too far from a Clemenceau in overall capability.
Now you are saying that 98L would been as lightly loaded as a Skyhawk. An aircraft that flew out of old and small and cramped carriers such as 25 de Mayo, HMAS Sidney and Melbourne, and some others. Maybe - maybe - it would have been feasible to land that bird on Lafayette or Arromanches.
As for the TF-41, have SNECMA getting a Medway / Spey licence in 1959 in place of J75 for the French B-58 also known as Mirage IVA on steroids - the 60 tons Mirage IVB that never was. The SNECMA licence and partnership remained, however. OTL it was with Pratt, and they traded the J75 for the TF10-TF30-TF306 in 1963.
ITTL it would be Medway > Spey > TF41. Then throw the A-7 into the mix in 1972, also with a TF41.
ITTL it would be Medway > Spey > TF41. Then throw the A-7 into the mix in 1972, also with a TF41.
Pretty much, with not a lot of tweaking Tiger could probably work on the Majestic derivatives, probably with an A2A load out.. I have read that the A4 had some issues launching from Melbourne and 25 de Mayo at some weights and wind conditions and nothing I have come up with will overcome that same problem. I wish that someone had thought about the allies were buying British light fleet carriers when they were designing.. the USN specification of a folded span of 27.5' is based on going two abreast in the 58 foot wide hangar of the Saipan class.. that don't work with a 52 foot wide hangar very well.
Thought of an AH where Grumman did, could get the Tiger down to about 70 square meters fully folded (different wing).
This is how we imagined the Jean Bart battleship turned into an aircraft carrier in the France Fights On scenario
(France Fights On POD is in June 1940. PM Paul Reynaud lose his shrew mistress and defeatist advisor in a car accident. This greatly help De Gaulle influencing him positively.
Basically Reynaud don't throw the towel on June 16, 1940 and Pétain is screwed up.
He blow an aneurysm, dies in september, Vichy France mostly aborts - and the bulk of France armies, bureaucracy, finances, and the kitchen sink - moves to Algiers and carry on fighting until 1945).
(France Fights On POD is in June 1940. PM Paul Reynaud lose his shrew mistress and defeatist advisor in a car accident. This greatly help De Gaulle influencing him positively.
Basically Reynaud don't throw the towel on June 16, 1940 and Pétain is screwed up.
He blow an aneurysm, dies in september, Vichy France mostly aborts - and the bulk of France armies, bureaucracy, finances, and the kitchen sink - moves to Algiers and carry on fighting until 1945).
RN Impero battleship to aircraft carrier conversion study, 1/200 model
This was classified for a long time as a study for the RN Aquila. Recent studies have shown a striking similarity to a Roma battleship class hull. With any probability it is a study to convert the …
stefsap.wordpress.com
to bad they did not claim her as a war prize..
Took me a bit to find it, but a few years back I thought about an alternate involving the Tiger and came up with this as one of the solutions. Essentially this is the F-11 with the wings from the FJ-4 Fury and her intakes cut back to handle the airflow of the TF-41. I would doll it up a bit more but the version of GIMP I am using is being a PITA and cut and paste are not working. The alterations I would have made to the drawing is show a wing fold at the break between the flaps and ailerons.. would make her folded width 13.5 feet, with the tips folded it would also be quite "short.. I check the measurements and the tips would not bump each would come to the outboard line of the central spine just forward of the tail fin. With the deletion of the FJ's wing landing gear the space between the aircraft and the new fold would hold just about the same amount of fuel as old wing on the Tiger, so no loss. With the fold at this point and measuring from the mid point of the tail fin( you could push up about that far with another aircraft when parked), and an F4K style folding nose gets you about 38.5 feet long by 13.5 folded so it could fit in the same hangar space as a Seahawk. Thought of that based on conversations on here.
Sell it in two versions: One with the normal fold point and expanded fuel in the wing( 200 gallons or a bit more), and one with the new fold point. Standard Tiger carries 1023 gallons of fuel as would the 13.5 foot fold version here.. normal fold would be..1231. The TF-41 is about 30% better on range compared to the J-65.. so she would have good leg for the era. I think Grumman could have sold the ever loving hell out this and pretty sure North American would have had nearly zero issue being a wing subcontractor.
Sell it in two versions: One with the normal fold point and expanded fuel in the wing( 200 gallons or a bit more), and one with the new fold point. Standard Tiger carries 1023 gallons of fuel as would the 13.5 foot fold version here.. normal fold would be..1231. The TF-41 is about 30% better on range compared to the J-65.. so she would have good leg for the era. I think Grumman could have sold the ever loving hell out this and pretty sure North American would have had nearly zero issue being a wing subcontractor.
I like the way you hybrid the FJ4 and the Super Tiger.
Last year I did hybrids, too - of the Mirage and Etendard and Mystere families. Basically circa 1956 the Etendard IV-01, SMB-2 and Mirage III-01 essentially had the same Atar 101E/G engine in an identical rear fuselage. They really differed only by their wing shapes and air intakes - frontal vs side-mounted and swept vs delta. Otherwise, same main body.
Last year I did hybrids, too - of the Mirage and Etendard and Mystere families. Basically circa 1956 the Etendard IV-01, SMB-2 and Mirage III-01 essentially had the same Atar 101E/G engine in an identical rear fuselage. They really differed only by their wing shapes and air intakes - frontal vs side-mounted and swept vs delta. Otherwise, same main body.
I measured my scale drawings.. the folding tips from the normal Tiger will fit on the tips of the FJ wing.. so a short wing and a long wing version is also possible.. I can't imagine Australia NOT buying this if it was pitched to them, even with the J-79 (I just included the TF-41 ducts to save time), this gives far more value for money than the Mirage since they can use it on the Melbourne as well as land based
I will be fair play (I'm french) and say, screw the Mirage in Australia if that country getting the Super Tiger can convince the French aeronavale to buy it.
And there come of my pet lost projects: the Breguet 1120 Sirocco. Basically Breguet inventing the Mirage F1 in 1958 rather than 1967, and for the French Aeronavale. Unfortunately, 42 Crusaders plus 71 Etendard IV is only 113 aircraft and that was not enough to ensure Breguet viability, too expensive. But the Breguet, the Mirage F1 and your hybrid should be outrageously similar in size and weight.
I dug out this lovely project from Jean Cuny aviation books in 2006 (14 years ago ??!!) I fell in love with it and, as a result, at least 80% of a Google search results on this obscure aircraft are related to my little self, one way or another.
And there come of my pet lost projects: the Breguet 1120 Sirocco. Basically Breguet inventing the Mirage F1 in 1958 rather than 1967, and for the French Aeronavale. Unfortunately, 42 Crusaders plus 71 Etendard IV is only 113 aircraft and that was not enough to ensure Breguet viability, too expensive. But the Breguet, the Mirage F1 and your hybrid should be outrageously similar in size and weight.
I dug out this lovely project from Jean Cuny aviation books in 2006 (14 years ago ??!!) I fell in love with it and, as a result, at least 80% of a Google search results on this obscure aircraft are related to my little self, one way or another.
Essentially this is not much different than the F-12 proposal, that had a 350 square foot wing of 36 foot span; this has 39 or so feet and 340. I know as a thought experiment it doesn't matter how the wing attaches, nor would it for a new built part, but I wish I could find a good cutaway of the FJ-4 to get a sense of how the wing was attached to the frame and the spacing of parts to see if it is possible. There are guys bolting LS3 Chevy V8s into Porsche 944s and mating them to the Porsche transmissions with a simple adaptor plate.. so might get lucky in this situation as well.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,703
Agreed, especially when contributors putting up their own hypothetical design plans - real scope for confusion.
- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,843
- Reaction score
- 1,528
Any truth to the entry on wiki that Grumman proposed fitting an Avon engine to interest the Germans? The statement cites an article from Flight, dating 31 January 1958, but the link is defunct.
If true, you could probably end up with a lighter Super Tiger, as the Avon was lighter than the J79 for the same thrust...especially if in conjunction you cut the 4x 20mm cannon down to either 2x20mm, or 2x 30mm.
Interesting thought for smaller carriers.
If true, you could probably end up with a lighter Super Tiger, as the Avon was lighter than the J79 for the same thrust...especially if in conjunction you cut the 4x 20mm cannon down to either 2x20mm, or 2x 30mm.
Interesting thought for smaller carriers.
yup they did offer a 200 series Avon with reheat.
- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,843
- Reaction score
- 1,528
The more I read up on this, the more you have to conclude the Super Tiger was such a missed opportunity.
There is a YouTube video of two Tigers being used in a test programme, of which part was a forward thrust for combat manoeuvre type test. The gist was that these jets were relatively easy to reactivate after being inactive for 4 years, due to the designs relative simplicity and robustness.
One can only imagine the usefulness of the Super Tiger on the smaller carriers used for 20-30 years after its first flight.
A faster, Mach 2 Super Etendard type two decades earlier, more suitable than the larger F8, and more capable than the Skyhawk in the fighter role...all of which were used in the end.
Faster than all 3, with more space up front for a larger radar.
There is a YouTube video of two Tigers being used in a test programme, of which part was a forward thrust for combat manoeuvre type test. The gist was that these jets were relatively easy to reactivate after being inactive for 4 years, due to the designs relative simplicity and robustness.
One can only imagine the usefulness of the Super Tiger on the smaller carriers used for 20-30 years after its first flight.
A faster, Mach 2 Super Etendard type two decades earlier, more suitable than the larger F8, and more capable than the Skyhawk in the fighter role...all of which were used in the end.
Faster than all 3, with more space up front for a larger radar.
IIRC that was the Rohr industries thrust reverser. They put about 177 of the 199 they made into storage, 6 were used in submarine carrier test program and the rest were lost to accidents; which is amazing given how long it was used in training command
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,215
- Reaction score
- 2,794
Depends. With the right changes to the TL, it is possible that the Navy decides the cost is worth it and orders a few squadrons worth for the CVS fleet. And that could lead to further orders from countries like Canada, the Netherlands and Australia. Argentina would likely be interested, but at most would be offered F11F-1s (the US really didn't like selling high performance fighters to South America).
They almost pulled it off as it was.. Grumman made one last push to the USN with a presentation. They were told ahead of time that they would be denied and they were seeing the presentation as a courtesy and give them some pointers on selling her overseas; the whole presentation was to take about 15 minutes... 2 hours later. the assembled thought enough of it that they took to the CNO. That got shot down, the aircraft was labeled to heavy for carrier service and that was that.
It was good enough to take a hard no and turn it into a "let me run this past the boss" and some behind the scenes sales support. All it really takes is the CNO deciding to hedge his bets to give them some flexibility and/or the French test pilot not pooching the landing with the number prototype destroying it and breaking his back; for the matter a couple of the German test flights could have gone a bit better(no aching tooth in one case). The French would have gobbled her up.
isayyo2
Lurker alert
- Joined
- 24 November 2011
- Messages
- 1,088
- Reaction score
- 2,157
Similar threads
-
-
-
Skylancers for the Marine Corps; Super Tigers for... the CIA (U-2 cover)
- Started by Archibald
- Replies: 23
-
Grumman / Shin Meiwa PX-2 Flying boat.
- Started by Pioneer
- Replies: 5
-
What If? game - the F11F-2 and F8U-3 replace the F-104 and F-4 in history.
- Started by apparition13
- Replies: 54