Talk:Grumman F-11 Tiger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Specifications

Initial rate of climb appears wrong, although I do not have a reference. Compare it to its subsonic peers with lower thrust/weight (e.g., F-86 / FJ Fury models). With a thrust to weight of almost .5 to 1, and transsonic capability from MSL to its service ceiling, it should climb in excess of 10,000 fpm. Joe Baugher and Global Security cite the same figure. Anybody have another data source? Or is the climb figure based on max T/O weight instead of the usual air-to-air loadout plus 60% fuel? --RandallC 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The initial RoC figure is not exactly wrong as it is the rate of climb of the fully loaded aircraft at military power. The rate of climb at 1/2 fuel and clean (i.e. the ones quoted for every other aircraft is 16,400ft/min. I have no idea why the other number is used, but it goes clear back to early issues of Jane's. I have corrected it and a few minor errors based on Navy documents from http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/SAC/. 66.134.226.23 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Steve Duncan 11:48, 27 May 2009

Bias?

Check the bit on the F-11F. Written by a Grumman employee? It reads like a bitter "We've been screwed" piece in a newspaper --76.65.182.136 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's one sentence, and all it says is that the results were "skewed" by bribery. How is that "biased"? Lockheed influenced a lot of orders using such tactics in the 60s and 70s - that's verifiable. The scandals brought down several governments as well, particularly in Japan. I think the one sentence is fine as it is. - BillCJ (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, and what about this bit "Unfortunately, the U.S. Navy did not order it (the Super Tiger) into production." Unfortunate for whom? Should it not say, merely, "however, the Navy etc" Matt Whyndham (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Next? - BillCJ (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Survivors

Anyone know where (or if) there are any F-11s that still exist somewhere? It would be helpful to have a section for that if there are any.

See: Museum of Naval Aviation for an example; a photo of the aircraft is found in the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

Merger Proposal

Proposal to merge Grumman F11F Super Tiger into Grumman F-11 Tiger discussion area:

I suggest that Grumman F11F Super Tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be merged into Grumman F-11 Tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because the F-11B is essentially just an engine variant, re-engined version of the F-11A, and it was cancelled with just two prototypes built. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The F11F-1F is different enough to warrant separate, epecially considering the controversial competions against the F-104 in which Lockheed bribed its way to winning. This would overwhelm the regular F-11 article. - BilCat (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The F11F-1F was a case of a the number plate being lifted up and a new aircraft being slid underneath it, same as with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet vis-a-vis the F/A-18 Hornet, or the FJ Fury vs. the FJ-2/3 Fury vs. the FJ-4 Fury. There are sufficent differences, both technically and in circumstances, to make the seperate articles necessary. (As an aside, shouldn't the main article be at Grumman F11F Tiger instead of F-11, seeing as the Tiger was out of operational service before the redesignation?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, the prototype F11F-1Fs were minimum-change models, as they were pulled off the F11F-1 production line for modifications related to the new engine. The production version would have been more different, but probably not even as much as the differences between the FJ-3 and the FJ-4. But it might have been designated F11F-2/F-11B rather than F12F. It is too bad the Super Tiger didn't see production somewhere, as it was quite a neat airplane. - BilCat (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - To be honest, my opinion is that the differences between the two aircraft don't necessarily dicatate the need for a second article - we've had great design changes in aircraft such as the Comet, Vulcan, and AH-64 Apache all of which were condensed down to a single article; I'd dare say that the difference between the Vulcan variants B1 and B2 could be substancially greater. Considering the amount of content being dealt with, a single article makes sense from my perspective. Kyteto (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - the Junkers Ju 88 article handles three specification sections. Would it really be a bad article if these two were merged? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - Only two prototypes were produced, and as BilCat says, they were a minimum change model. There's not much at Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger, so I think it can comfortably be merged into this article. Can be later split if sufficient information is added. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Mild Oppose/Mild Merge It appears that both articles are developed and have sufficient unique information so that they can co-exist, yet... I tend to agree with the supposition that a marketing exercise was taking place where the "Super" was being trumpeted as enough of a new variant to seek customers afield, yet it is essentially a re-engined rather than re-engineered project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC).

First?

This article states: "The Grumman F11F/F-11 Tiger was the first supersonic, single-seat carrier-based United States Navy fighter aircraft in operation during the 1950s and 1960s." while the Wiki article on the F4D states: "Although it was in service for a relatively short time and never entered combat, it was notable for being the first carrier-launched aircraft to hold the world's absolute speed record, at 752.943 mph,[1] and was the first United States Navy and United States Marine Corps fighter that could exceed Mach 1 in level flight." It would appear that both were the first supersonic carrier-based aircraft in the USN. Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Grumman F-11 Tiger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is fairly complete, given the fact that the Tiger was a fairly obscure airplane with a very short operational career. M Van Houten 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 16:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional aircraft on display

There is also one aircraft of this type on display at the USS Intrepid museum in NYC. I saw it when I visited a few days ago. It is one of the aircraft flown by the Blue Angels. I would add it myself, but I don't know the aircraft number. Could someone with the ability to find this information add it to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madscientistjaidev (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Same Aircraft in Photos, 44 years apart

In the background of RuthAS' photo from 1971, there is Blue Angel's #5, which is now restored and on display at the Pima Air and Space Museum, also photographed in 2015, in the section of Display Models. Nice!