Register here

Author Topic: Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger  (Read 36257 times)

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...