Register here

Author Topic: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger  (Read 36259 times)

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1572
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« on: July 03, 2006, 06:23:51 am »
Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger


I was reading about the Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) the other day.
One of the things I found interesting was the fact that when looking to modernise its fighter interceptor force in the late 1950,s / early 1960’s to replace its F-86 Sabre fighters. One of the designs it evaluated and came that close to putting into production was the Grumman F11F-2 (later changed to F11F-1F) Super Tiger light weight fighter.
The article stated that the Japanese had literally signed the licensed production contract with Grumman, when like many things military and business, at the eleventh hour the Japanese did a back flip and instead chose the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter in November1960.
I have not been able to find much on the Super Tiger design, apart from it being powered by a General Electric J79 turbojet engine and because of this being somewhat heavier in weight and supersonic.
Does anyone have any specification / technical data, pictures and a 3-view drawing of the F11F-2 / F11F-1F Super Tiger design?

P.S. I also believe that the Luftwaffe also evaluated the Super Tiger, but like Japan chose the F-104 Starfighter instead.
I wonder if the high accident and mortality rate of Luftwaffe F-104’s and their pilots would have been very different had they chosen the Super Tiger over the Starfighter??
The main reason that the Starfighter gained its infamous name ‘The Widow Maker’

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2006, 06:40:03 am »
Interesting thread! I heard about this story, but you give new details!

I also think that the Super Tiger would have not killed so much pilots. Its configuration was less radical than the Starfighter, I mean it had ordinary wings and more, no T-tail.
The T-tail was responsible of a big part of the Starfighter accidents... At high AoA, it was blanked by the wings, and the plane went into a spin (remember the right stuff ? this is a real accident, occured in 10th december 1963)
Aparently the F-104 also needed bribes to smashed the concurrence...
My personal opinion about the F-104 is that the fuselage was good, but the wing / tail combo was a disaster!
Later, Lockheed improved the Starfighter design into the CL-1200... with different wings and tail!!
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2006, 07:45:52 am »
I have a 3 view of this I can post tonight.

[Edit] I was thinking of XF12F-1. XF11F-1F was simply reengined with J-79.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2006, 10:34:08 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2006, 09:42:14 am »
Italy too evaluated the SuperTiger. The story is very well told in the Naval Fighters N.44 on the SuperTiger. Find it here http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF44.htm, but in a lot of other places too (Amazon, and B&N)

Online fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2074
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2006, 10:36:05 am »
Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger

.....I have not been able to find much on the Super Tiger design, apart from it being powered by a General Electric J79 turbojet engine and because of this being somewhat heavier in weight and supersonic.
Does anyone have any specification / technical data, pictures and a 3-view drawing of the F11F-2 / F11F-1F Super Tiger design?

....

Regards
Pioneer


Two threads at Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4272
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=54481&highlight=F11F-2
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2006, 12:53:21 pm »
Probably the most unusual using of F-11F Tiger was to place them in  submarine Boeing AN-1, proposed under secret Flying Carpet project. Submarine had two independent hangars, each with four planes. Aircrafts were modified with folding wings, tail surfaces and ZELL rocket booster. Concept was tested when two Tigers were carried in hangars in SSG-574 Grayback submarine.

I was working on this web update, but project for some reasons freezed, so probably I will publish something already finished here.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1227
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2006, 07:37:52 pm »
Ginter Books has a whole volume dedicated just to the Super Tiger, http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF44.htm, that covers the story quite thoroughly, especially considering that the author is intimately familiar with the subject.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2006, 12:14:27 am »
From Steve Ginter's book on the Super Tiger as detailed above. I recommend this book if you are interested in the Super Tiger!

« Last Edit: April 22, 2007, 09:35:49 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2006, 12:26:21 am »
two seat and photo-rec versions
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1572
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2006, 07:40:12 am »
Sorry gents

I failed to notice your effort in my request, regards to the Grumman Super Tiger, all the way back in July.

Great drawings!!!!!
I never new about the upper fuselage mounted Sidewinder AAM arrangement.
Interesting - almost Vought/LTV in a way
I like it

This could have been a very interesting and effective lightwight carrier-based and land-based fighter aircraft.
It could have been the answer to a credible fighter for the likes of Argentina, Australia, India, Brazil, France, Canada, and even the Dutch with thier lighter carriers

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2006, 02:36:13 pm »
The real stuff would have been as a land based fighter interceptor, to transition the European air forces to mach 2 aircraft having hopped the F-100 generation.. This the role for which it was evaluated by Germany, Japan, etc. They bought F-104 instead, IMHO a mistake: great point-interceptor but poor air superiority, dangerous striker (except as a nuclear hit and run light bomber, the role in which the Germans wanted it initially), I mean, dangerous to its pilot, and too steep a ramp tfor transitioning from the Sabre to mach 2. The more I study, the more I think the SuperTiger would have been perfect for a European role. And lot of growth potential, too, as a striker for example, and new engines, etc etc.

Offline Harrier

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 943
  • BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2007, 09:22:45 am »
One part of the Super Tiger lives on - it had a version of the diverterless inlet used on the F-35, as can be seen in some of the pics above, esp. '98J5' top view.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 09:25:00 am by harrier »
BAe P.1216 Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft: www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

100 Years  - Camel, Hurricane, Harrier: www.kingstonaviation.org

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1227
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2007, 09:29:57 am »
I'd have to look over the drawings more closely.  In any case, it doesn't have some of the aerodynamic aspects that make the diverter-less inlet work on the F-35.  There's some definite tailoring that has to be done to the inlet shape and it's not visible here.  Mind you, I'm not putting down the Super Tiger, a, IMHO, superb aircraft - save perhaps that it looks a bit low on fuel load, but I know the F-35 and its inlet well.

Offline Harrier

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 943
  • BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2007, 10:10:03 am »
I found this from a book by Ray Whitford, written in 1989, saying that the Super Tiger avoided the use of an intake splitter by using a fuselage bump to cause a pressure rise to divert the boundary layer away from the inlet. So it sounds like it did 'the necessary'. However, a decent photo of the Super Tiger would help to see what was built, but I can't find one online.

As the J-79 was a pure turbojet it could presumably tolerate greater distortion than a fan, so maybe less tailoring would be required.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 10:29:33 am by harrier »
BAe P.1216 Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft: www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

100 Years  - Camel, Hurricane, Harrier: www.kingstonaviation.org

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1227
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2007, 07:33:43 pm »
I found this from a book by Ray Whitford, written in 1989, saying that the Super Tiger avoided the use of an intake splitter by using a fuselage bump to cause a pressure rise to divert the boundary layer away from the inlet. So it sounds like it did 'the necessary'. However, a decent photo of the Super Tiger would help to see what was built, but I can't find one online.

As the J-79 was a pure turbojet it could presumably tolerate greater distortion than a fan, so maybe less tailoring would be required.

That could well be.  The J79 also had a fairly sophisticated compressor design which would help in dealing with distortion.  These days, the design tools available allow one to design fans to cope with large amounts of distortion with equanimity.  The fan on the F118 in the B-2 being a case in point, it's related to the fans on the F101, F110, and CFM56 but is tailored to deal with much higher distortion levels than any of those other engines, without using a variable compressor vane set-up like the J79 has.

From the comment you reported, it does sound like the F11F-2 did have the basic concept.  The other features of the f-35 inlet may well be signature-reduction measures that the Super Tiger wouldn't need.  I agree, though, that we need some better evidence.  Anyone care have a copy of the Ginter Super Tiger book and can provide appropriate low-res scans?

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2007, 08:11:18 pm »
Here's the images out of the Ginter book.  The caption that goes with this reads:

"two views of the final intake and boundary layer intake bump.  The bump was constructed of wood and its protective coating has worn away leaving the black area shown in the photos."  It also notes that this aircraft is on display at China Lake...

HTH!  Mark

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1227
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2007, 08:14:17 pm »
Thanks.  It looks like you've still got diverter channels as well as the layer being removed through the bump with those perforations.  An early approximation of what's used on the F-35, but not the whole by a long shot.

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2007, 04:50:35 am »
True, but we're talking 45+ years ago which is impressive all things considered.  I wonder if Grumman patented that and L-M needs to pay royalties?  ;)

Enjoy the Day!  Mark
« Last Edit: July 09, 2007, 08:39:02 am by Mark Nankivil »

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2007, 06:42:33 am »
Drawings of the Vought V-1100, LWF, and photos of Boeing ATF models show similar "bumps". Does anyone know if these are DSIs?

Offline Harrier

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 943
  • BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2007, 09:25:21 am »
Thanks for those pics of the bump Mark.

Looks to me like the perforations were part of the bump, but the splitter 'gap' looks like it may be a legacy from the original Tiger intake - the bump blocks most of it. Perhaps it was all a bit trial and error, which would make sense thanks to lack of CFD etc., and a wooden bump is eminently modifiable. Was the Super Tiger flown with a regular intake first?

Quote
These days, the design tools available allow one to design fans to cope with large amounts of distortion with equanimity

For conventional aircraft pretty much, but still STOVL ones with pressure AND temperature distortion can have issues - still a lot of trial and error involved getting it right.
BAe P.1216 Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft: www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

100 Years  - Camel, Hurricane, Harrier: www.kingstonaviation.org

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2007, 10:21:47 am »
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-e56l19.pdf

Performance of external-compression bump inlet at Mach numbers of 1.5 and 2.0

1957 NACA report
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 849
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2007, 02:14:09 pm »
Why did the USN say it was too heavy?

IS it really its approach speed?

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2007, 12:03:03 am »
Yeah, seem bizarre to me, too. If the Super Tiger was found too heavy for USN carriers ,  wouldn't  the Phantom be in trouble ?  ;)   ;D


Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1572
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2007, 04:07:10 am »
Why did the USN say it was too heavy?

IS it really its approach speed?



This is US Navy talk for 'we do not want this aircraft'!


Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 849
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2007, 04:51:06 am »
Is it?

After all other potential customers choose the F104 instead, sometimes at the last minute, we know Lockheed was playing dirty back then.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2007, 07:09:17 am »
Lockheed didn't have a competitor to the Super Tiger for the Navy. The dirty tricks and the marketing (see here...http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,714.msg5368.html#msg5368  were done in Europe, chiefly in Germany, and later in Japan. When Germany fell in place, all other Europeans followed suite. Japan was harder to crack and needed direct bribes. Lockheed distributed bribes later in Italy for the C-130, but were the politician to ask bribes to not stop the contract. The military had already chosen.

Offline Pyrrhic victory

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • This is going to hurt
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2008, 01:00:14 am »
Here's an in house ad from 1957.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2009, 12:18:21 pm »
Financially, what would have happened to Lockheed has the F11F tiger won the export fighter deal?

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2009, 02:16:37 pm »
Too hard to compute. Too many variables. Maybe they'd abandoned the idea of re-entering the civil market with the L-1011, and they'd be much better later...

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2009, 07:07:25 pm »
Pioneer,

Quote
This is US Navy talk for 'we do not want this aircraft'!

So whenever the Navy doesn't want a plane, they only have to claim it's too heavy or it's landing characteristics are unsatisfactory?

Awesome...

Online fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2074
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2010, 11:52:04 am »
Here the pictures at the SDASM Archives.
Link: http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=49487266%40N07&q=F-11F-1F+super+tiger&m=text
Notice the boundary layer intake bump.
Edit:
2 more pictures from that book,
From Steve Ginter's book on the Super Tiger as detailed above. I recommend this book if you are interested in the Super Tiger!
[Attached Images defunct due to copyright issues & forum rules!]
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline bercr

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 145
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2012, 03:07:22 am »

Online fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2074
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2013, 11:43:33 am »
From the book "F11F Tiger in Detail and Scale - D & S Vol. 17" by Bert Kinzey, Aero Publishers 1984

Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1157
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2013, 10:40:15 pm »
Grumman factory display models of the USN F-11F-1F (2-seat variant) and USAF G-38J-1 Super Tiger designs.

Offline Lascaris

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2014, 07:50:38 am »
How accurate was the claim that Super Tiger was unsuitable for carrier operation? And could it had been used from light carriers? Hermes for example or Foch and Clemanceau?

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2014, 02:36:36 pm »
Hi!

Offline Motocar

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2016, 06:54:04 am »
I have my Cutaway free interpretation of this fighter...!

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1572
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2016, 05:45:00 pm »
I have my Cutaway free interpretation of this fighter...!

Sorry Motocar but where am I able to find your
Quote
Cutaway free interpretation of this fighter
?

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2016, 04:24:08 am »
How accurate was the claim that Super Tiger was unsuitable for carrier operation? And could it had been used from light carriers? Hermes for example or Foch and Clemanceau?

The Crusader needed some rework to launch from Clemenceau class carriers. Long story: the J-57 was big and bulky resulting in along fuselage and then, even with the variable incidence wing the Crusader landed too fast - you couldn't raise the nose too much otherwise the rear fuselage would have scrapped the deck. So the French had blown air added to the flaps to reduce the landing speed.

Specifications (F11F-1F)

General characteristics

    Crew: one
    Length: 48 ft 9 in (14.85 m)
    Wingspan: 31 ft 8 in (9.65 m)
    Height: 14 ft 4 in [8] (4.36 m)
    Wing area: 250 ft² (23.25 m²)
    Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6,277 kg)
    Loaded weight: 21,035 lb (9,561 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 26,086 lb (11,833 kg)
    Powerplant: 1 × General Electric J79-GE-3A turbojet
        Dry thrust: 12,533 lbf (53.3 kN)
        Thrust with afterburner: 17,000 lbf (75.6 kN)

Performance

    Maximum speed: Mach 2.04 (1,400 mph, 2,253 km/h[8]) at 40,000 ft (12,192 m)
    Range: 1,536 mi[8] (1,336 nmi, 1,826 km)
    Service ceiling: 59,000 ft[8] (19,980 ft)


Specifications (F-8E)

General characteristics

    Crew: 1
    Payload: 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) of weapons
    Length: 54 ft 3 in (16.53 m)
    Wingspan: 35 ft 8 in (10.87 m)
    Height: 15 ft 9 in (4.80 m)
    Wing area: 375 ft² (34.8 m²)
    Airfoil: NACA 65A006 mod root, NACA 65A005 mod tip
    Aspect ratio: 3.4
    Empty weight: 17,541 lb (7,956 kg)
    Loaded weight: 29,000 lb (13,000 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 34,000 pounds (15,000 kg) ()
    Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney J57-P-20A afterburning turbojet
        Dry thrust: 10,700 lbf (47.6 kN)
        Thrust with afterburner: 18,000 lbf (80.1 kN)
    Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0133
    Drag area: 5.0 ft² (0.46 m²)
    Fuel capacity: 1,325 US gal (5,020 L)

Performance

    Maximum speed: Mach 1.86 (1,225 mph, 1,975 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
    Cruise speed: 570 mph (495 knots; 917 km/h)
    Combat radius: 450 mi (730 km)
    Ferry range: 1,735 mi () with external fuel
    Service ceiling: 58,000 ft (17,700 m)
    Rate of climb: 19,000 ft min [93] ()
    Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft² (377.6 kg/m²)
    Thrust/weight: 0.62
    Lift-to-drag ratio: 12.8

Overall the Super Tiger has a smaller footprint, which wouldn't be a bad thing for the Clemenceaus.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2016, 04:27:30 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 682
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2016, 08:11:25 am »
How accurate was the claim that Super Tiger was unsuitable for carrier operation? And could it had been used from light carriers? Hermes for example or Foch and Clemanceau?

Where was it claimed that the Super Tiger was unsuitable for carrier operation?

Offline Motocar

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2016, 03:44:17 pm »
Cutaway Grumman XF11F-2 author Mike Badrocke an modified by Motocar

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1572
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2016, 02:08:45 am »
Oh very nice Motocar!!

Thank you for sharing!!

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2019, 10:08:57 pm »
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

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 682
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2019, 10:33:44 am »
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.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 10:36:26 am by Tailspin Turtle »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2019, 10:50:11 am »
If they'd done that would that have made the Blackbird interceptor the YF-13A?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #45 on: February 09, 2019, 04:32:36 am »
Amazing,thank you my dear Tailspin.

Offline famvburg

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 313
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #46 on: February 09, 2019, 12:47:27 pm »
 No. Two different designation systems at the time.

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 682
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger
« Reply #47 on: February 09, 2019, 04:41:52 pm »
If they'd done that would that have made the Blackbird interceptor the YF-13A?

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).