• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Grumman XF11F-2 Super Tiger

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
75
Oh very nice Motocar!!

Thank you for sharing!!

Regards
Pioneer
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
13
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
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
27
Website
www.tommythomason.com
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.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
571
If they'd done that would that have made the Blackbird interceptor the YF-13A?
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,883
Reaction score
1,672
Amazing,thank you my dear Tailspin.
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
321
Reaction score
5
No. Two different designation systems at the time.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
27
Website
www.tommythomason.com
sferrin said:
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).
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
Lascaris said:
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?
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.
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
Lascaris said:
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.

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.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
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.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat ? I need to know more about this !!!
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
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.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat ? I need to know more about this !!!

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.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
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.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat ? I need to know more about this !!!

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
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
487
Reaction score
126
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.
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
839
Reaction score
163
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 23 Inlet. The MiG inlet cone could be adjusted fore-and-aft and also contained a radar antenna.
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.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
Dassault called them souris - mices - because they exited and moved back into the air intakes, like a mice getting its nose out of its hole.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
Lascaris said:
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?
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.
Wow. That's brilliant... and actually more clever than Vought variable incidence wing trick.
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
Lascaris said:
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?
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.
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...

GrummanF11F-1FSuperTigerComparison-1.jpg
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
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.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
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.
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
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.
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).
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
This is how we imagined the Jean Bart battleship turned into an aircraft carrier in the France Fights On scenario

Principales dimensions:

Longueur hors tout = 249,30 m (247,85 m initialement),
Largeur hors tout (ascenseur latéral déployé) = 45,50 m (35,43 m initialement),
Longueur à la flottaison (pp) = 241,50 m (inchangée),
Tirant d'eau = 9,22 m (inchangé).
Déplacement normal (estimé) = 40 000 t environ (46 500 t initialement).

Pont d'envol:
Longueur = 231,50 m,
Largeur = 26 m (AR), 30 m (milieu), 23 m (AV),

Hangar:
Longueur = 154 m,
Largeur (centrale) = 24 m environ.

Performances:
V max = 32,3 nds (32 nds initialement),
Dist franchissable = 10 000 nautiques @ 16 nds (3500 @ 30 nds) environ.

Capacité: une quarantaine d'appareils
(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).
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
This is how we imagined the Jean Bart battleship turned into an aircraft carrier in the France Fights On scenario

Principales dimensions:

Longueur hors tout = 249,30 m (247,85 m initialement),
Largeur hors tout (ascenseur latéral déployé) = 45,50 m (35,43 m initialement),
Longueur à la flottaison (pp) = 241,50 m (inchangée),
Tirant d'eau = 9,22 m (inchangé).
Déplacement normal (estimé) = 40 000 t environ (46 500 t initialement).

Pont d'envol:
Longueur = 231,50 m,
Largeur = 26 m (AR), 30 m (milieu), 23 m (AV),

Hangar:
Longueur = 154 m,
Largeur (centrale) = 24 m environ.

Performances:
V max = 32,3 nds (32 nds initialement),
Dist franchissable = 10 000 nautiques @ 16 nds (3500 @ 30 nds) environ.

Capacité: une quarantaine d'appareils
(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).

to bad they did not claim her as a war prize..
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
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.


F12STF412pix1inchFJ4Wing.png
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
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.
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
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.

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
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
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. :p
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
56
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
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
839
Reaction score
163
Could we please keep the hypotheticals and what-ifs out of the project threads. Makes it confusing for others to follow, especially people who might stumble on this page.
Agreed, especially when contributors putting up their own hypothetical design plans - real scope for confusion.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
377
It is only a matter to cut the thread from post -57 onwards and move the rest to the alternate history section...
 
Top