Grumman Design 110 Study

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
In February and March, 1955, Grumman accomplished a design study of options for a carrier-based Navy fighter airplane using the full range of engines expected to be available. The aircraft were all Design 110s, with dash numbers assigned to differentiate the different configurations. The specification and assumptions were Grumman developed: single-seat all-weather; semi-submerged store capability (Mk 7 shape); basic armament of two semi-submerged Sparrows and two 30mm cannon; search and fire control radar with a 24" dish; first flight in late 1958 with production deliveries in 1960; minimum 60,000-foot ceiling at combat weight; broad supersonic speed/altitude envelope with a maximum speed goal of Mach 2.0; cycle time of at least 2.5 hours; combat radius of at least 500 nm; good low-speed, high angle of attack control; maximum surface temperature of 300 degrees F; and 6.5 g structural strength at combat weight.

The schedule limited engine alternatives to those expected to pass the 150-hour production qualification test in 1958 or 1959. These included the J67, J75, J79, and J85.

The 1957 design baseline was the Grumman Design 98L, one of many paper variations on the F9F-9/F11F Tiger. Powered by a single J79, if fell short of the Mach 2.0 goal and did not have the semi-submerged store capability.
 

Attachments

  • 98L Top View.jpg
    98L Top View.jpg
    711.2 KB · Views: 409
  • 98L Side View.JPG
    98L Side View.JPG
    659.1 KB · Views: 360
  • 98L Data.jpg
    98L Data.jpg
    622.4 KB · Views: 312
  • 98L Front View.jpg
    98L Front View.jpg
    639.2 KB · Views: 301

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
110-1: Single J75; 34,500 lbs gross weight; wing, horizontal tail, and canard for lower supersonic trim drag and better supersonic maneuverability.
 

Attachments

  • 110-1 low rez.jpg
    110-1 low rez.jpg
    629.6 KB · Views: 367

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
KJ_Lesnick said:
How much thrust was the J-67 predicted to produce?

KJ Lesnick
According to the Grumman report, the Wright J67 had 24,000 lbs of thrust at sea level. The J75 was expected to be rated at 25,000 lbs. However, Grumman was not enthusiastic about it. For one thing, the total weight of the J67 and the fuel required for a 2.5 hour mission was 18,700 lbs compared to the J75's 19,600 lbs. The J67 also produced more thrust at 55,000 feet and Mach 0.9. However, two growth J79s were even more attractive in terms of total thrust and thrust to engine plus fuel weight, which resulted in the Design 118.
 

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
overscan said:
Some interesting designs, Tommy. The 110-1 especially is quite unusual.
I'll try to get the rest of the set of drawings. In summary, the 110-3 was powered by one J79 and two J85s, the latter apparently in power pods. It was also a canard.

The 110-5, -6, and -8 were powered by two J79s. The -5 had the engines mounted on the wings, a bomb bay, and a high tail. The -6 had the engines mounted inboard and a "split tail" to avoid the jet blast. The -8 also had the engines mounted inboard and the "jet blast utilized for partial control."

The 110-7 was a VTOL "cartoon" powered by eight J85s.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,586
Reaction score
425
the 110-3 was powered by one J79 and two J85s, the latter apparently in power pods. It was also a canard.

I'd love to see that particular iteration, I've heard about it as one of F8U rival designs but it was hard to imagine how it looked.

Thank you very much for your posts


Antonio :)
 

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
pometablava said:
the 110-3 was powered by one J79 and two J85s, the latter apparently in power pods. It was also a canard.

I'd love to see that particular iteration, I've heard about it as one of F8U rival designs but it was hard to imagine how it looked.

Thank you very much for your posts


Antonio :)

The Grumman predesign group was having trouble balancing an airplane with the big new engines so they resorted to canards for a few of the 110 designs. McDonnell reportedly had the same problem at first with the predecessors of the F3H-G/H.
 

Attachments

  • 110-3 low rez.jpg
    110-3 low rez.jpg
    474.7 KB · Views: 176

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
The 110-5 was powered by two J79s. In this case the cg problem was solved by mounting the engines in nacelles. However, its hard to believe that the airplane would have a practical OEI VMC with the engines located that far out along the wing given the size of the tail and rudder. In this case, the airplane has a bomb bay that could accommodate the Mk 7
 

Attachments

  • 110-5 low rez.jpg
    110-5 low rez.jpg
    484.1 KB · Views: 158

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
The 110-6 was powered by two J79s like the 110-5 and projected to have a ceiling of 60,000 feet between Mach 1 and 2, the best speed/altitude performance of all the designs. Note that it has twice the vertical tail volume of the 110-5, which seems to be backwards. The split tail was adopted "to avoid jet blast".
 

Attachments

  • 110-6 low rez.jpg
    110-6 low rez.jpg
    398.5 KB · Views: 147

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
The 110-7 was a VTOL design powered by eight J85s. The "M" wing was something that Grumman had considered for at least the A-6. In this case it was "to provide wing structure at C.G. for engine pivot". Note the tail wheel landing gear for a ground attitude that minimized the engine tilt required. Eight J85s provided a thrust loading of 1.25 thrust to weight, which allowed for an engine failure while in vertical flight.
 

Attachments

  • 110-7 low rez.jpg
    110-7 low rez.jpg
    414 KB · Views: 146

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
The 110-8 seems to be the most sensible of the designs. In appearance, it is a scale up of the Super Tiger powered by two J79s. Its performance was the same as the 110-6. The notes state "Jet blast utilized for partial control," apparently by the addition of a control surface at the bottom of the engine exhaust troughs...
 

Attachments

  • 110-8 low rez.jpg
    110-8 low rez.jpg
    481.1 KB · Views: 176

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,197
Reaction score
6,370
Wow, thats an interesting set of designs. I've seen the M wing A-6 design, it was also used in the UK in a design for a Mach 1.2 airliner, but it seems to have been a very short lived idea.
 

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
The Design 110 Study included an educated guess at the configuration of the McDonnell F4H with two J79s and the Republic F-105 with a single J75. The F4H, Competition "A", was basically an F-101. Note that it is single-seat. Its performance matched that of the 110-6 and -8. No performance data was provided for the F-105, Competition "B", and in any event it wasn't a carrier-compatible design. The Grumman predesign group clearly didn't think much of a J75-powered solution and went on to develop and propose its Design 118, which was powered by two J79s with a rocket for performance augmentation. "Taken on face value, the J79 (advanced) appears to be in a class by itself, while the P&W J75 appears to be so poor that it would be difficult to sell an aircraft (of the fighter type) using it." Obviously Vought thought differently and was very nearly successfully in doing so with the F8U-3.
 

Attachments

  • 110 Competition A low rez.jpg
    110 Competition A low rez.jpg
    486.3 KB · Views: 336
  • 110 Competition B low rez.jpg
    110 Competition B low rez.jpg
    426.8 KB · Views: 311

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,048
Reaction score
541
Tailspin Turtle said:
The Design 110 Study included an educated guess at the configuration of the McDonnell F4H with two J79s and the Republic F-105 with a single J75. The F4H, Competition "A", was basically an F-101. Note that it is single-seat. Its performance matched that of the 110-6 and -8. No performance data was provided for the F-105, Competition "B", and in any event it wasn't a carrier-compatible design. The Grumman predesign group clearly didn't think much of a J75-powered solution and went on to develop and propose its Design 118, which was powered by two J79s with a rocket for performance augmentation. "Taken on face value, the J79 (advanced) appears to be in a class by itself, while the P&W J75 appears to be so poor that it would be difficult to sell an aircraft (of the fighter type) using it." Obviously Vought thought differently and was very nearly successfully in doing so with the F8U-3.

Now the thought of the likes of the giant F-105 Thunderchief taking an arrestor hook on a carrier sends a worrying shiver down my spin!
Did Grumman really envisage Republic proposing a carrier-based version of the Thud?

Regards
Pioneer
 

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
701
Reaction score
135
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Pioneer said:
Tailspin Turtle said:
The Design 110 Study included an educated guess at the configuration of the McDonnell F4H with two J79s and the Republic F-105 with a single J75. The F4H, Competition "A", was basically an F-101. Note that it is single-seat. Its performance matched that of the 110-6 and -8. No performance data was provided for the F-105, Competition "B", and in any event it wasn't a carrier-compatible design. The Grumman predesign group clearly didn't think much of a J75-powered solution and went on to develop and propose its Design 118, which was powered by two J79s with a rocket for performance augmentation. "Taken on face value, the J79 (advanced) appears to be in a class by itself, while the P&W J75 appears to be so poor that it would be difficult to sell an aircraft (of the fighter type) using it." Obviously Vought thought differently and was very nearly successfully in doing so with the F8U-3.

Now the thought of the likes of the giant F-105 Thunderchief taking an arrestor hook on a carrier sends a worrying shiver down my spin!
Did Grumman really envisage Republic proposing a carrier-based version of the Thud?

Regards
Pioneer

My guess was that it was to calibrate their own configuration definition of a J75-powered, single-engine aircraft. (Predesign was having trouble with weight and balance as noted above.) Not too much detail and no performance projection was provided. It was noted that it was "Light structure", presumably a reference to the fact that it wasn't built to land on a carrier.
 

Similar threads

Top