Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
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
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
1
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!!
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,013
Reaction score
2
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.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
0
Pioneer said:
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
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
0
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
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.
 

Attachments

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
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
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,288
Reaction score
0
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.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
965
Reaction score
0
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.
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
0
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.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
965
Reaction score
0
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.
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
0
harrier said:
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?
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
0
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
 

Attachments

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
0
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.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
0
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
 

elider

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Drawings of the Vought V-1100, LWF, and photos of Boeing ATF models show similar "bumps". Does anyone know if these are DSIs?
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
965
Reaction score
0
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?

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.
 
Top