This was one of the last illustrations cut from Strike from the Sea to make the limit. Provided by the Grumman Historical Center, it depicts a single-seat A-6 providing close air support to the Marines. The proposal was in response to a 1962 Navy requirement to replace the single-seat Douglas A-1 (AD) Skyraider. (The two-seat A-6 had replaced the A-1G (AD-5N) night attack variant.) Also see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/08/single-seat-6.htmlUnfortunately, the Navy had in mind not only a variant of an existing aircraft, but one powered by a single TF30 turbofan engine, which not coincidentally at the time was also the basic powerplant for the nascent Grumman/General Dynamics F-111B. Grumman management was forced to choose between full compliance, a TF30-powered F-11 (F11F) Tiger—don't scoff, the winner of the competition was Vought's proposal, which closely resembled the Vought F-8 (F8U) Crusader)—and a proposal that they hoped the Navy would realize was a better deal than an all-but-new design powered by a new engine. They were wrong, although their Attack Tiger would probably have lost to Vought's excellent proposal anyway, as did Douglas' proposal of an A-4 (A4D) Skyhawk on steroids. For more, see chapter nine in my book on U.S. Navy attack aircraft, Strike from the Sea.
Hi. I found this to be very interesting and was wondering if the F-11 proposal was using the same size airframe or if it was enlarged like the Douglas proposal?
ReplyDeleteReason being I remember the reason the navy gave for rejecting the super tiger was it was "to heavy"(probably indicating to heavy to launch from an H-8 cat indicating they were looking at using her as CVS cap), and am noodling around with a "what if"; essentially an F-11ST with the FJ-4B wing. I would think the increased lift from the larger surface area would get it under the H-8 limit and probably make it viable for the smaller British carriers with their hydraulic cats as well.
Like the proposals from Douglas and North American, Grumman's based on its F-11 Tiger had to be scaled up in size and therefore weight to fulfill the mission requirement and substitute the TF-30 engine.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. Dang it! I was worried about how big they could make the inlets to accommodate the increased mass flow.. was hoping if they could do the 233 for the low end TF-30 on the smaller frame since it would make the 210 for a spey a breeze.
ReplyDeleteWould you happen to have an idea on the viability of using Grumman's "STO-Wing" folding on a wing as thin as the FJ-4? If it is in theory possible I will go to the bother of scaling an S2 tracker drawing to see if my "what if" could fit under the wing.