The F-11A ne F11F-1 was last aircraft I flew in the training command prior to getting my Navy wings. To this day, I consider it the nicest flying plane I haver ever flown. Its only fault was that it was underpowered. It would almost fly itself in parade formation and was stable as a rock in the landing pattern. It would have been eye watering with the J-79 motor.
I realize this is asking much of you, but how did the F-11 fly in the training command? Did it have a good turn rate? Good visibility? How do you think it compared to the later planes like the F-4B ?
@@Silversmok3 It was my last plane in my training as well and was my favorite aircraft of all that I flew in the service. It had a control stick that was actually two sticks in one because the left/right turns were the top half and for/aft was the bottom half. In formation, if you had the altitude steady, the only motion needed to maintain position was slight left/right wrist movements. It is no wonder the Blues loved it. One issue that it had was no fuel capacity and they ended up adding small fuel tanks all over the plane. It was a good 20mm gun platform and had good visibility. I later flew the F-8 and the F-4 B and it had better visibility than both of them. I would have loved to fly the Super Tiger although I reached Mach 2.2 in the F-4 which was the same speed but with two engines. People don't realize how small it was and that caused the fuel problem. Interesting how things turn out!
@@rudyyarbrough5122 If you were the lead designer, how would you go about increasing the fuel volume, and thus range.? I would personally extend the airframe first, as this would cause the smallest amount of performance issues, then look at tweaking the in-wing fuel loads, what are your thoughts (asked by an enthusiast).?
@@ADB-zf5zr If they had put the J 79 in it, it would have had to have a lot more fuel. Lengthening the fuselage would have been an option although the CG and stability would have had to be reevaluated. Conformal tanks would be the cheapest way but they had already used up almost every empty space in the existing airframe so finding more space would not have been an option. I flew the F4 and the J79 was one hellofan engine. Most jet engines suffered from throttle lag until the rpm reached a speed where the response was normal. But on the J79 the stator vanes were all controlled by the fuel control and would streamline to allow a rapid rpm increase from idle. It was almost like a car engine and in a dog fight, it would respond from idle to full power in seconds.
Camm knew this only too well; his employer, Hawker, had to fight hard for every contract, whereas Supermarine was indulged with a string of failures after its one big hit...
@@TheGrant65 Yep. It's hard to imagine that the 1950s wouldn't have gone better if the consolidation of the UK aircraft industry into a smaller number of bigger companies hadn't started earlier and proceeded in a more 'organic' way. In that scenario, it's equally hard to imagine Supermarine not being an early victim, since just about everything they produced after 1945 was forgettable, and they could easily have been just rolled up into their Vickers parent company to everyone's benefit.
@@Packless1 The Hunter was very nice to fly but it was behind the technology curve within a few years of entering service and didn't really achieve it's full potential until the Mk.4. TSR2 was an impressive flying machine, but it's avionics were on the bleeding edge of the possible and the requirement it was designed to meet was incoherent, being generated as much by politics and inter-service rivalry as by military neccessity. All of this resulted in it being too expensive to put into production, and the only reason it was started was that the costs were grossly underestimated at the start.
I flew the F-11 in advanced flight training as a Marine pilot. It was the easiest plane that I ever flew. It was like putting on a Superman suit and felt like it was part of me. I can see why the Blue Angels loved it. The control stick was two pieces joined halfway up the stick. The top half was for left and right inputs and the bottom half was up and down. It made formation flying very easy. The biggest issue was no fuel storage. It just did not have any room for tanks and they put small tanks everywhere even in the vertical tail. The J-79 would have been awesome but with limited fuel, it would have been of limited use. I flew the F-4 later and it was like being in a truck compared to the F-11. The J-79 did not have turbine wind up like most jet engines and would go from 50% rpm to max rpm in seconds where others would have to wind up and could take much longer. In the F-11, it would have made it an extremely good dogfighter. It was also a beautiful plane to look at!
Probably because the 104 was sexier looking. I remember as a kid watching a movie dedicated to the 104 … promoting it as the best of the best … oh well
So many F-104s were lost because so many inexperienced men were asked to fly it in conditions and mission profiles it was never designed to be flown in.
@@socaljarhead7670 the F-104 also ultimately didn't hold up that well. Even in battle against contemporary MIGs (in the indo-Pakistan war Pakistani flown F-104s were knocked out of the Sky by Indian MIG21s)
That looks like it would've been the ultimate Mig killing turn fighting interceptor right up to the '80s. I always thought that F11 airframe had the potential that surpassed it's powerplant and needed something newer. I just didn't realize a J79 would fit. Looks like Genda would've sold his 343rd Kokutai of surviving IJN Aces out with a "dull blade" for a little pocket / party money and whatever other perks he got if they needed something to keep surviving in 15 years later.
The bottom line is that Lockheed Martin knew which pockets they needed to line in order to get their designs sold. They are very, very underhanded businessmen.
Man, imagine how different things would have ended up if this had been adopted over the F104? IIRC it was only the sales of the F104 overseas that kept Lockheed afloat around that time. If they hadn't got those sales and went under god only knows what aerospace would look like today.
Eh, not that different. The engineers, the real talent, would have found jobs at other companies and there would have been little disruption. Programs in progress, like the U-2 and possibly the SR-71, would have continued.
The 1971 senate vote to provide Lockheed with bailout money and avoid bankruptcy passed by a _single, tie-breaking vote_ from Vice President Agnew. If he'd voted the other way, Lockheed would have gone under (or at least have broken up into smaller companies ripe for buyout from competitors) with the C-5 as their last aircraft. That's no Have Blue or F-117, no F-22 or -35, and General Dynamics might still be independent.
When I was a kid I got to ask a Blue Angel the best part of being a Blue Angel and he said for him it was the chance to fly the F11 again. He said it was the sweetest thing he had ever flown and had passed through it earlier in his career and missed it ever since. Then he said the Navy answer was more along the chance to do PR for the Navy, but (with a wink and a thumb-up) really F11. So of course my next model purchase was a F11 in BA colors.
Great aircraft with a huge potential. Imagine this with a new radar, conformal tank instead of top-mounted Sidewinders, modified wing, enlarged strakes and even possibly a new engine. It could have a very long service life, just like the F-5. Especially with its strong airframe, typical for "Grumman Iron works".
Especially the Luftwaffe, which lost Erich Hartmann after he dared to criticize the F-104A as a fundamentally flawed aircraft. Officially he resigned early in 1970, but he was more or less forced into resigne, because the Brass didn't like his opinion on this. Some older compatriots like Rall claimed he didn't have the experience to judge it, but the man is the bloody Ace of Aces, he knows what to do in air combat and what not. If a Pilot like that tells you an aircraft is fundamentally flawed you listen! He was validated in all of his charges against the 104 later, when 282 crashed and 115 pilots died. Could you imagine a Luftwaffe with an aircraft actually capable of air combat, as it was possible with 1960's technology, good handling characteristics and Instructors/leaders like Hartmann teaching the nuggets air combat? It would be a far, far superior air force, and yes I'm not joking the 1960's Luftwaffe lacked a modern fighter capable of doing the fighter mission in the 1960s!. Hell, Hartmann would've probably loved the Tomcat and if he was in the leadership we'd probably would've seen the Luftwaffenkater happen. Instead of the F-4F buy in, or at least half the Force as F-4F Jabos (Figher Bombers) and the tomcat as air Superiority fighter/Interceptor. It would be interesting to see what changes a stronger Grumman would've wrought on the us aviation industry....maybe the TFX wouldn't have happend or happened differently? I think Lockheed would still exist in a smaller capacity, due to their proven track record for highly classified programs in cutting edge technology. But we might've never seen the Tri-Star, or maybe the C-5. Another long term question is wether Ben Rich would've been adopted as a permament member of the Skunk Works, as his work on the F-104 got him in the door. And he was Kelly Johnson's replacement as the leader of the Skunk Works. And it's largely to his work in the late 1970's and 1980s that Lockheed became so powerful. And his decision to go for stealth.
I was at a Blue Angels performance at Point Mugu NAS back in 1968, last year they flew the F11. When the solo guys (#5 and 6) took off they did a "dirty" roll with gear still down. As #6 was inverted he lost power and got the aircraft back to wheels down configuration just in time to hit the tarmac hard enough to deploy the tail hook. He then regained power and took off again. We were all wondering if that was supposed to happen when a nearby MP turned around and stated "you almost saw someone buy the farm right there..." #5 and #6 flew around for a few minutes to check things out, make sure there were no fluids leaking then completed the entire show (with tail hook hanging down) like nothing happened. Needless to say there was a prolonged standing ovation when they returned to the flight line. That stuff they say about Naval aviators is no joke.
Honestly, Genda probably could have just said something along the lines of "I spent 45 months getting f!cked in the Pacific by Grumman, it's my turn now."
Amazing. Lockheed worked hard to get to Mach 2 by building a plane with large design and overall performance compromises, and Grumman got to Mach 2 almost accidentally, and, apparently, with a pretty well rounded and safer airplane. As others have noted, military aviation history would have been a lot different if this plane had beat out the 104.
There is a lot of aircraft that should have been pursued throughout history. Starting from an upgraded Skyhawk>Super Tiger>Tigershark>Super Tomcat>YF23>X32. All would have proven to be better choices than what they went with.
@@grndzro777 I can't say for sure that the Tigershark would for sure have been better than the F-16, since it's a highly successful fighter in its own right. That said, I see no reason they couldn't have coexisted. The Gripen proves that there's a place in the market for a smaller, lighter, and less expensive to fly multirole fighter. The Tigershark would've been the Gripen of the 80s had Northrop just been allowed to sell them.
@@grndzro777What need would there have been for an upgraded Skyhawk? The LTV A7 Corsair was an excellent ground attack aircraft that saw extensive service with many countries, and was a vast improvement in strike capability over the Skyhawk. Also the most recent upgrade package for Skyhawks was done by Lockheed for Argentina. The Tigershark was never developed for the USAF, and was not a superior design to the F-16. It was cheaper and was meant to be an export fighter, and came close to the F-16s capability but was not a match. The Tomcat left service for a very good reason, because the F/A Super Hornet could do the fleet defense job for cheaper and fulfill a multi role capability as well. A Super Tomcat would’ve been expensive to operate, and extremely niche in its role because Grummans strike packages for the Tomcat only marginally improved its effectiveness in the role as it was designed as a fleet defense interceptor only. YF-23 was marginally faster and stealthier than the F-22, but the F-22 is still fast and far stealthier than any other fighter in service, and is also extremely maneuverable, some the YF-23 was not due to its stealth oriented tail design. And finally X-32 failed because Lockheed had a more finished prototype that already exceeded the air force’s requirements and the capability of X-32. Spending more money refining the X-32 design would’ve created even more overruns than the F-35 did because the X-32 demonstrator was very far from Boeing envisioned the finally product to be, whereas the X-35 was very close to the production F-35s.
I saw the f11f Blue Angels as a kid in the '60s. It inspired me to get into Coast Guard Aviation - HH52a helo aircrew deployed to the far Arctic aboard icebreakers. I wasn't merely a Cold Warrior - I was a Froze My Butt Warrior 🥶
I yield to no one in my love for the F-104, the "missile with a man in it," but I also know it had limited range, had many coffin corners to learn about, and ultimately a poor all-weather aircraft. The German Air Force, at least, had a terrible safety record with the Starfighter. Both the 104 and the 100 were comparatively dangerous machines to learn how to fly. The Super Tiger was safer, more reliable, and just as fast. Again, I love Lockheed, but bribery seems to have played a very large role.
An English Electric Lightning far less likely to kill you than an F104 Starfighter. But that Grumman F11 would have been far better than a F104 for sure.
The F-104 looks the role, and futuristic. But you are correct: Lockheed pay outs got it adopted by countries that were not ready for it and would use the F-104 in roles it was not really designed for. The Church commission hearings were eye opening.
To be fair to the starfighter, in German service it was being used in a frankly absurd manner given its design. Anyone who thought using a high altitude, high speed interceptor in a ground attack role was a good idea should have been forced to fly it themselves. The F104G Witwenmacher (Widowmaker) was an absolutely insane model of the starfighter which should never have been used.
@@alexsis1778 "Frankly absurd manner"? What do you think the USAF was doing with their "C" models? People come up with the dumbest excuses for abysmal program management.
I never knew the Super Tiger was basically sidelined by Lockheed's antics. Though I have fond memories of the Starfighter and its signature howl, I cannot help but wonder what it would have been like had the Super Tiger been selected as the KLu's main jet.
Meyer has said that, in a discussion with Grumman's CEO at the time, that he was told that Grumman decided not to fight these decisions. It would have tied up their production capacity, and made it so they could not be in contention for two new projects coming down the pike, which they did get - the A-6 Intruder and the E-2 Hawkeye, which turned out to be much more beneficial for Grumman and kept them in business until the F-14 contract.
In the ‘70s every day I drove to work at China Lake, I passed an F11-F1F. It looked really cool with it’s coke bottle fuselage & big burner. I wondered why it wasn’t more prevalent in the navy’s inventory. Thanks for the history.
Despite everything, the Starfighter served admirably in the RCAF for several years. My dad was aircrew and worked on it as well as the CF-100 "Canuck" and the F-86 Sabre. I just recently had the pleasure of seeing a "Canadair" F-104 on display as well as the cockpit simulator used in training pilots at the Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canada in Winnipeg. Beautiful aircraft.
Hi Ed, I have always considered the USN and Grumman as joined at the hip; certainly till the F-14. The J-79 was one of the finest jack of all trades engines around, I think, and a perfect fit. So many seemingly ideal aircraft systems only succeed in failing, often for obscure reasons.
The F-5 & F-20 are 1 of my favorites in the looks of a classic fighter plan that most kids envision. You know our board classroom drawings come to life.
I hadn't realized how good the Super Tiger was. I have always remembered the Lockheed F-104 bribery scandal, and I believe there were a few people bringing it up again when the YF-23 lost to the YF-22. Funny thing about reputations, how they linger like that.
Sounds like Australia would also have been a potential market for this (unknown--for me at least) aircraft , given we were looking to replace our CAC Sabres and ended up buying Mirage IIIs. Seems like the similar speed, but better multi-role and greater range aspects would have worked out well for us. Definitely a 'what-if' and lost opportunity across the board. Great video (as always).
The thing I found most puzzling about the Australian Mirage III is that even though Dassault specifically tested one with an Avon 67 engine, the RAAF ended up sticking with the Atar 9C for their Mirages. Despite the Avon being not only an engine already being license-built (in non-afterburning form) in by CAC, but also just a better engine than the Atar in all respects. Marcel Dassault had simply assumed that this would be necessary to obtain the contract (hence going to the trouble of building an Avon powered prototype before even securing the deal), and was surprised when the Aussies opted for the regular Atar powered Mirage III.
Wow, never knew about the Super Tiger. Just think this could have been a better export fighter and in fact might have saved many pilots; note the exceedingly poor safety record of the 104 in the Luftwaffe
You could have given the early Luftwaffe any early supersonic plane and they would have crashed it. F-104 was a hard plane, but other countries had no problem with it.
As Mr. Ed said, F-104 was mostly used as a low level fighter-bomber with the Bundesluftwaffe, a role for which the thing was never intended. The purchase of F-104 for the Luftwaffe was simple bribery of German minister of defense and the higher echelons of Luftwaffe Generals, this was the "political" reason. Many experienced pilots like Erich Hartmann openly objected the Starfighter, for which he was sacked in the end.
I do love the F-104 but, had the F-11 super tiger had a real chance, I could see that plane still in service with some airforces, much like the Phantom has.
I had a toy based upon this fighter when I was five sometime in late 60's to early 70's. It even had NAVY written on the wings. At first I thought it was a phantom but it had only one duct in the back. Mystery solved.
Another great video of a doomed (by bribary) plane. How different would the USAF (and German/ Japanese) be today if it had been adopted instead of the 104 I wonder.
I think people forget that most of that era's jet aircraft had high accident rates. the 104, admittedly, was one of the worst, but many of those losses were in the Luftwaffe, which, for lack of alternatives, put A/G demands on the 104 that it was really never designed for as it was supposed to be a "pure" interceptor. The Luftwaffe specifications were known to "overload" the aircraft as well as overburden the single crewmember, thus, supposedly, contributing to many accidents. It can be argued both ways. Either the 104 really WAS a widowmaker or the Luftwaffe was putting the planes in a role they really weren't suited for. My guess is that things are somewhere in the middle.
@@MrArgus11111 yes things fall to the middle in your argument. The Luftwaffe should join the me too movement as it was certainly sexually assaulted by Lockheed. The 104 was a very demanding aircraft to fly if you let it get away from you. The Germans may have pushed the envelope but Kelly had already proven the aircraft to be capable of doing almost everything. Downward ejection, German fuel deficiencies, inadequate training and extreme operating environment led to the bad operational record. I know they fixed the ejection problem but those aircraft already produced ended up in Germany. No other air force utilized the 104 as the Luftwaffe did so they never suffered things like engine failure while landing a bomb laden aircraft on a short stretch of highway with blown flaps that had no bleed air, a stall speed of over 200 mph and downward ejection all because of contaminated fuel that destroyed the hot section of the engine due to severe overheating of the burner cans and drive turbine. So yes, Lockheed oversold the 104 but in all fairness once Germany fixed their problems with supply, training and operations the 104 matched up well with other countries operational experiences and the 104 saw a long and productive service life. If nothing else, Chuck Yeager absolutely adored it.
@@MrArgus11111 Even taking into account that 1960s jets pretty much all had high accident rates, the F-104 had the highest of any of the Century Series by a wide margin. And these were USAF pilots, who weren't brand new to supersonic jets like the Luftwaffe pilots. The F-104 was a challenging plane, and shoehorning it into roles it wasn't designed for definitely didn't help.
just imagine if the super tiger with the j-79s made it into production in the 60s , then in the late 70s-early 80s got another batch of upgrades like electronic FBW, improved radar and a pw f1120 turbofan which would have boosted dry power and gave a big bump in useful range and saved about 1000lbs of weight.. and it would have been economical to operate to boot. a lot of time the choice in a weapons system comes down to who gets the money.
Excellent job. Always liked the f-11, but didn't know the story of the super tiger. I think from the info you shared this is definitely one those aircraft that would have been a great success. Keep these videos coming.👍
It doesn't matter how good an plane is, it's all about money and bribes! It's very obvious that this was a magnificent machine and yet most customers refused it for other lesser planes! And it is still the same nowadays...
As a die-hard Starfighter fan, I do recognise, that Germany should have either only purchased a smaller number of F-104s or none at all. Several German AF officers had complained that the majority of pilots would need many flying hours to familiarise a M2.0 interceptor with almost no wings. A plane closer to the Me163 than for instance to the Me262. Unfortunately the politicians had been bribed and also wanted to cheap out on the formation of the new air force and settled on a single fighter design to be purchased. Thus sealing the fate of many young men.
Saw the F11 at an air show in 1967. My dad a Grumman employe took me. The Blue Angels were flying them. It is a pretty aircraft. I had a wind tunnel model of it.
Wonder if Hartmann flew the F11F when the Germans evaluated new fighters. Anyone knows? He strongly opposed the 104, predicting correctly it would create problems.
I was stationed in Germany during the “reign” of the F-104 with the Luftwaffe. It was a consensus opinion that if you wanted to own one the only thing you needed was about an acre of land.
The original F-11 was the first aircraft designed with ''area rule'' or ''coke bottle'' fuselage design; and, oddly enough, it had a fuel tank in the vertical tail.
The Luftwaffe and 2 MARINE (naval airwings) recieved the F-104G but some in Luftwaffe Staff prefered the Supertiger, on the Navys wishlist was neither the 104 nor the Supertiger , the Marineflieger`s (naval aviation) wish was the Blackburn Buccaneer because 2 engines are safer over Sea another plus was the Bucaneer`s Payload and Range and germanys Navalaviation was mainly british trained (first crews trained in Lossiemouth ?) and equippet in the early years with Hawker Seahawk Mk100/101 and Fairey Gannet.
My understanding is the Germans wanted a plane that can intercept and do strikes, which is why they ended up with the F-104, while not the best strike plane it can intercept which the Buccaneer couldn't.
@@doc7000 but the F-104G was only a short time in service in the two ( pure) Fighter Wings/Jagdgeschwader (JG) , replaced in early 70s by F-4F Phantoms, same for the two Reconwings/Aufklärungsgeschwader (AG) equippet with RF-104G they recieved the RF-4E Phantom in early 70s . Fighterbomberwings/Jagdbombergeschwader (JaboG) and Naval aviation/Marineflieger (MFG) flew with the F-104G up to the 80s .
@@Sturminfantrist Look at how many countries right now after Russia started a full on war with Ukraine have changed choices and allocated more funds to certain areas. So yes plans change I was only pointing out what they were looking for at the time. During the 1950s and 1960s a lot of different jets were short lived on the front line replaced just a few years after they entered service.
@@doc7000 NP i agree with your first post, i only pointed out that in interception and recon role the 104 was only a short timespan in service, yes Germany needed a multirole aircraft, one Typ for all Missions , Interception, fighterbomber/nuclear strike role, recon and maritime strike. You right the reason why the Navy didnt get the Buccaneer was germany couldnt pay for two maintyps in service (different training logistic ect)
@@doc7000 i forgot, another plus of Lockheeds product was the offer of License Production in Germany and Europe, it was a big win for the german aviation industry to catch up with all advances in aircraft tech after more then 10 Year pause. sry for my bad engl.
Why would Grumman believe that dropping in a J-79 would result in only the most modest of performance gain? That just doesn’t make sense, unless the first iterations of the engine were extremely derated or something. Oh, and great topic, Mr. Nash, as always. Nice work.
Yeah, that's pretty odd that they expected so little out of the J79, seeing as its dry thrust was significantly higher than the J65's afterburning thrust. (A fact which leaves me wondering if the Super Tiger could supercruise.)
Probably because their corporate and engineering morale were at a low point due to the failures that were the XF10F Jaguar and the F11F Tiger that they, more-or-less, set their expectations pretty low as a result.
The part that killed me in the book is the Navy made Grumman promise to NOT fulfill the German order when placed. The other part is the Tiger being modified to fit in Regulus launch tubes; 7 were modified for it. This means she could fold up to be 10 feet across... huge potential for carrier usage.
Great video and story on this lesser-known variant of the Grumman Tiger. Thanks for sharing! The F11F is an airplane that just look right from all angles. I got to see it perform, as a kid, in the summer of 1967 when the U.S. Navy's "Blue Angles" performed for the crowd at Glenview Naval Air Station at Glenview, IL.
@@benwilson6145 I truly doubt that even the largest of brown envelopes would have been sufficient for that job. Brown briefcases would have been more likely
11:34 Canada operated an aircraft carrier at the time, Bonaventure, and I could see the Super Tiger operate off the carrier. They instead flew McDonnell F2H Banshee instead, which was a large aircraft for the old carrier.
Had the F11F-1F gone into production, I think France would've also revisited the Super Tiger in a few years. The French Air Force wasn't going to buy American, but the French *Navy* is another story. It would've been a better option than the F-8 Crusader for their carrier-based fighter.
The SuperTiger in the form flown would have been to "heavy" for Bonnie; the F2H had 294 sqft. of wing so a lower wing loading than the 250 sqft. and same general weight Tiger... now the 98-L version of the Tiger Grumman wanted to build had 300-350 sqft of wing (one was 34 feet in span the other 36), and could have operated from Bonnie with at least an A2A load out as it would have roughly the same performance envelope as the A-4 at the same wing loading.
Omg, I didn’t know anything about this aircraft and now you had me completely convinced it was the best aircraft that never entered production. It could easily have been the F-16 or F-86 of its day
...I remember as a boy of around 8 year old or so going to the Bergen Mall in Paramus to see an F11 on display by the Blue Angels - it hsd ther engine bay open (covered with Plexiglass and the engine open to shoe the compressor section - that was ca 1958and I STILL have great memories of dad & mom putting up with my interest in military jet aircraft...
Also, how does that front missile work? In the pictures showing the canopy slid back, the front half of the missile is on the canopy while the rear half is still on the spine.
Look, it's either the worst thing anyone ever did, or the most badass fighter jet any five-year-old ever drew. Push the little red button and find out.
@@davidcarr4991 Presumably you load the missile after the pilot is strapped in and closes the canopy. Meaning you'd have to fire off that missile before you land.
A navalized F-15 would have done pretty much everything that the F-14 could do for vastly less maintenance cost, and they wouldn't have needed the Hornets
@@toomanyuserids F14 would land on at about 125kts, F15 landing speed is 150kts and that's before you add the structure so it can do carrier landings, the extra 2 feet to fit the AIM54s compared to the AIM7s, or the bigger nose to fit the AWG-9. There was a reason they went for the F14 and the swing wing........
I think maybe it looked too much like a MIG-19 to be seriously considered. Just a thought. It does have great lines and that J79 engine is a go getter but a fuel guzzler. We had them in our F-4Bs. They did outstanding performance but what a fuel burn it had. I do hope that some of these are still airworthy. Thanks for posting. Very good stuff.
I think the basic problem with the F-11F was a short range. If you have to put a fuel tank in the fin, that’s an admission you haven’t got enough fuel, and no room for any more, like the British English Electric Lightning which had fuel tanks in the flaps. The J-79 was a great engine, but with no greater amount of fuel available the Super Tiger remained short-legged, not great for a naval aircraft. The basic F-11F-1 cycle time meant it was the last type to launch and the first needing to recover. The handling was apparently wonderful, demonstrated by their long retention by the Blue Angels. As a replacement for the F-104 for NATO use? The F-104 was used primarily as a low-level strike aircraft, where it’s high wing loading meant it wasn’t particularly troubled by gusts or turbulence at low altitude going fast. The F-11F Super Tiger’s manoeuvrability would had been more of a minus than a plus in such roles. The comparison with the Folland Gnat makes more sense, the Indian Air Force demonstrated the utility of such aircraft in combat.
Lockheed employed a dedicated sales team who understood better the reality of the market, with pre prepared bulging brown envelopes... fixed that for you Ed.
I've heard that as well, the F-22 won because it had better marketing. Seems to be a theme with Lockheed. I've also geard the F-22 is currently screwed because it doesn't have the capacity or space to be upgraded anymore. And that's part of the reason everyone went all in one the F-35. Don't know how true that is though.
@@pyro1047 The F-22 can be upgraded. One example was the upgrade to carry Small Diameter Bombs internally. Also, the F-35 isn't connected to the Raptor at all. It was never intended to replace it. The best comparison of the F-22 & F-35 is that they're like the F-15C & Strike Eagle respectively. The F-22 & F-15C are optimised for air superiority, while the F-35 & Strike Eagle are multirole, with an emphasis on ground attack.
@@anzaca1 The original intent of the F-22 & F-35 was to provide a high / low mix of aircraft, and would be more comparable to the F-15 & F-16 with the F-15 optimized for air superiority work, while the F-16 whose prototype was intended for a light daytime fighter, was eventually developed into a all weather strike aircraft. The F-22 could have been upgraded when it first came out, (and dam Congress for blocking export sales) but its main electronic system built around a custom military CPU is now too old, and cannot be modified to be compatible with the modern integrated intelligence networks that all the modern US fighters can use
I do wish Ed that when you mention a US engine such as the J65 you point out it was a licence built Armstrong Siddeley Saphire. This engine was a success in all the other US planes it was used in B57 Canberra, Douglas A4 Hawk and NA Thunderstreak.
The Super Tiger would & should have been an absolute winner. But…..ah, the F-104G. Robert Calvert, in his satirical 1974 LP ‘Captain Lockheed & The Starfighters’ had the Lockheed salesman telling the German Defence Minister Franz Josef Strauss “Ah, that’s F104G… G for Germany” to seal the deal. In the spoken track titled ‘Bier Garten’, one tipsy German says, ‘D’ya wanna buy a Starfighter? Then buy an acre of ground. And wait.’, followed by a thunderous belch. Which, considering that out of 916 Starfighters they lost 262 to accidents, rather sums it up. The F104 was a beautiful fair weather fighter aircraft sold to the Germans as an all-weather ground attack & reconnaissance interceptor ~ the wrong aircraft for a totally wrong mission ~ by corrupt businessmen to corrupt politicians (Strauss & his Party allegedly took a bung of at least $10 million USD) that cost a lot of innocent young German lives.
The F-104 is a perfect example of how you can't just strap bombs on a single-role fighter and call it multi-role. Some fighters turn out by accident to be easily adaptable to the ground attack role ("not a pound for air-to-ground" was the motto in designing the F-15A/B, yet the F-15E is an excellent strike aircraft), but some just aren't.
Considering the service record of the F104, It would have had a longer service life, and a better combat record. Lockheed was desperate during that time period and knew what pockets had to be lined for ensure contracts. Sad, who knows the potential of the Super Tiger where it could have gone.
It's easy to imagine that if the Super Tiger had a successful export run, Grumman might've offered a "Super Super Tiger" in the same vein of how Northrop created the F-20 Tigershark out of the F-5: give it a new radar and an F404 turbofan. And then just like Northrop, they'd get screwed over by the Pentagon and Congress seeking to maximize F-16 export sales and thus reduce its unit cost to the USAF. Though perhaps Grumman's long history with the US Navy would've allowed them to snag that aggressor contract.
The F-104 was known as the Whistling Windowmaker. Every pilot that flew that Death Trap should have been awarded hazard pay. Because 292 104's crashed in flight, killing 116 pilots.
I have a photo of an F11 taking off from a carrier. They saw limited use , but were used nonetheless. Corkey Myers did work for companies other than Grumman? Didn't know that.
Erich Hartmann, greatest fighter pilot in history ( 352 kills in WW II), flew the F-104 and highly recommended against purchasing the aircraft. The USAF was having a horrible accident rate and Hartmann knew his pilots were far less experienced than the U.S. pilots. He commanded JG-71, the first jet fighter wing in the Bundeswaffe
Amazing how this bulkier airframe had similar performance to the F-104 given the same powerplant. But I guess the RR Merlin 60 (Packard etc) made the p-51 go alot quicker than in the Fiat G. 59 even though the P-51 was heavier.
Another great video. More stuff I never knew. Being a Long Islander (pronounce "lawnguylander") it would've been great had Grumman gotten the contract. It's all about me.
Something is strange with the photo at 5:11 onwards, there seem to be two missiles mounted along the spine of the fuselage - the front ones tip seems to be attached to the canopy top - not the rest of the missile?
The F8 with a relatively high take-off and landing speed turned out to have quite a few carrier incidents. One can only imagine how a J79 upgraded maneuverable F11f-1F would have fared with either the Mig 17 or the Mig 21 which, unlike the F8, it seemed to match in top speed. I suspect it would've also been a winner for the USAF or National Guard as more useful than the F100 which was quickly relegated to ground support duty. Not being on an even playing field with Lockheed's sales team after having developed a fine airframe initially ahead of turbojet development was Grumman's call to miss when it finally had the fitting powerplant.
Great feature Ed! Yes Super Tiger was such a “ might have been” seems to me if nothing else it would have been a total smash in international sales as a far more versatile and practical aircraft than both the F104 & and mirage III, given Australia is such a big place, always requires either long (very empty)overland or water overflights always seemed a bit nuts that Australia didn’t go for it over the mirage,( even though it’s actually my sentimental favourite Cold War fighter..)
@@stephengloor8451 no to me was it's unbelievably small range..I read an RAAF pilot one being quoted (hopefully tongue in cheek) it's best role was as air defence of their bases (...cause didn't have range to do anything else😟)
I would also add the super crusader. The military was all excited by the phantom, but Vietnam improved that the phantom was not a fighter, Instead , it was an interceptor who was struggling against MIG fighters.
Your absolutly right even I haven't hnown about this aircraft up to now but now I know that it will be 100% beather for the airforces to buy F11 than any other aircraft at the period. Everybody whoo bought Widow maker has been stupid. I don't understand this and the similar thing with how you mentioned F20 and (Y)F 23.
Heck, build 250 new planes, install the GE F414 engine, full upgraded avionics, etc. You could train pilots From commercial Pilot to 1,500 flight hours, (1,250 combat training hours, weapons, air combat, etc) For alot less. One engine versus two is cheaper.
When I was a kid the Grumman F11 and the Lockheed F-90 were popular as models or comic book art (The Blackhawks flew F-90s). Both designs looked modern and very clean. I wasn't aware of the F11F, though it appears to have been a potential winner. That's a pity.
The F-11A ne F11F-1 was last aircraft I flew in the training command prior to getting my Navy wings. To this day, I consider it the nicest flying plane I haver ever flown. Its only fault was that it was underpowered. It would almost fly itself in parade formation and was stable as a rock in the landing pattern. It would have been eye watering with the J-79 motor.
I realize this is asking much of you, but how did the F-11 fly in the training command? Did it have a good turn rate? Good visibility? How do you think it compared to the later planes like the F-4B ?
@@Silversmok3 It was my last plane in my training as well and was my favorite aircraft of all that I flew in the service. It had a control stick that was actually two sticks in one because the left/right turns were the top half and for/aft was the bottom half. In formation, if you had the altitude steady, the only motion needed to maintain position was slight left/right wrist movements. It is no wonder the Blues loved it. One issue that it had was no fuel capacity and they ended up adding small fuel tanks all over the plane. It was a good 20mm gun platform and had good visibility. I later flew the F-8 and the F-4 B and it had better visibility than both of them. I would have loved to fly the Super Tiger although I reached Mach 2.2 in the F-4 which was the same speed but with two engines. People don't realize how small it was and that caused the fuel problem. Interesting how things turn out!
@@rudyyarbrough5122 If you were the lead designer, how would you go about increasing the fuel volume, and thus range.? I would personally extend the airframe first, as this would cause the smallest amount of performance issues, then look at tweaking the in-wing fuel loads, what are your thoughts (asked by an enthusiast).?
@@ADB-zf5zr If they had put the J 79 in it, it would have had to have a lot more fuel. Lengthening the fuselage would have been an option although the CG and stability would have had to be reevaluated. Conformal tanks would be the cheapest way but they had already used up almost every empty space in the existing airframe so finding more space would not have been an option. I flew the F4 and the J79 was one hellofan engine. Most jet engines suffered from throttle lag until the rpm reached a speed where the response was normal. But on the J79 the stator vanes were all controlled by the fuel control and would streamline to allow a rapid rpm increase from idle. It was almost like a car engine and in a dog fight, it would respond from idle to full power in seconds.
@@ADB-zf5zr Almost sounds as if you happen to have a tiger and a J79 stashed away in your garage
"Every aeroplane has four critical dimensions: Length, Width, Height and Politics..." - Sir Sydney Camm 🙄
The TSR2 got the first three right...
Camm knew this only too well; his employer, Hawker, had to fight hard for every contract, whereas Supermarine was indulged with a string of failures after its one big hit...
@@TheGrant65 Yep. It's hard to imagine that the 1950s wouldn't have gone better if the consolidation of the UK aircraft industry into a smaller number of bigger companies hadn't started earlier and proceeded in a more 'organic' way. In that scenario, it's equally hard to imagine Supermarine not being an early victim, since just about everything they produced after 1945 was forgettable, and they could easily have been just rolled up into their Vickers parent company to everyone's benefit.
@@MrHws5mp ...the Hawker Hunter was a great and succesful plane, the TSR2 was a great plane...!
@@Packless1 The Hunter was very nice to fly but it was behind the technology curve within a few years of entering service and didn't really achieve it's full potential until the Mk.4. TSR2 was an impressive flying machine, but it's avionics were on the bleeding edge of the possible and the requirement it was designed to meet was incoherent, being generated as much by politics and inter-service rivalry as by military neccessity. All of this resulted in it being too expensive to put into production, and the only reason it was started was that the costs were grossly underestimated at the start.
I flew the F-11 in advanced flight training as a Marine pilot. It was the easiest plane that I ever flew. It was like putting on a Superman suit and felt like it was part of me. I can see why the Blue Angels loved it. The control stick was two pieces joined halfway up the stick. The top half was for left and right inputs and the bottom half was up and down. It made formation flying very easy. The biggest issue was no fuel storage. It just did not have any room for tanks and they put small tanks everywhere even in the vertical tail. The J-79 would have been awesome but with limited fuel, it would have been of limited use. I flew the F-4 later and it was like being in a truck compared to the F-11. The J-79 did not have turbine wind up like most jet engines and would go from 50% rpm to max rpm in seconds where others would have to wind up and could take much longer. In the F-11, it would have made it an extremely good dogfighter. It was also a beautiful plane to look at!
People like to ignore the fuel limitations. I doubt that it's weapons load was anything special, either.
Thanks for sharing on this. Such valuable historical information here right from the source.
Always liked this plane, it just looks right. Very clean shape, big wings and a small size, kinda like a supersonic, bigger Folland Gnat
That's right!
Brazil's AMX fighter closely resembles the F11F-1 Tiger.
It is the most generic looking jet fighter (with the Mirage F.1)
When I was 14 I built a plastic model of the base Tiger. Sixty-nine now but I still remember how this one model just felt right in my hands.
@@chrismartin3197There’s no way you just said that when the F-15 exists.
Wondering how many tears was saved if the Super-Tiger had been chosen instead of the F-104 WidowMaker... Too many dirty deals and dead pilots...
Always the same unfortunately.
Probably because the 104 was sexier looking. I remember as a kid watching a movie dedicated to the 104 … promoting it as the best of the best … oh well
So many F-104s were lost because so many inexperienced men were asked to fly it in conditions and mission profiles it was never designed to be flown in.
Ask the crusader III
@@socaljarhead7670 the F-104 also ultimately didn't hold up that well. Even in battle against contemporary MIGs (in the indo-Pakistan war Pakistani flown F-104s were knocked out of the Sky by Indian MIG21s)
That looks like it would've been the ultimate Mig killing turn fighting interceptor right up to the '80s. I always thought that F11 airframe had the potential that surpassed it's powerplant and needed something newer. I just didn't realize a J79 would fit.
Looks like Genda would've sold his 343rd Kokutai of surviving IJN Aces out with a "dull blade" for a little pocket / party money and whatever other perks he got if they needed something to keep surviving in 15 years later.
The bottom line is that Lockheed Martin knew which pockets they needed to line in order to get their designs sold. They are very, very underhanded businessmen.
This is typical for big business. Who would have dreamed they would manage to control our government through lobbyists (bag men with money)?
Our minister of defense - F.-J. Strauss - had big pockets. And it was the second time he filled them.
It was just Lockheed at the time.
Agreed about the greed. Weren't the French doing the same thing?
@@tomtest891 They are still doing it, with ships and submarines
Man, imagine how different things would have ended up if this had been adopted over the F104? IIRC it was only the sales of the F104 overseas that kept Lockheed afloat around that time. If they hadn't got those sales and went under god only knows what aerospace would look like today.
And many pilots would be alive
Eh, not that different. The engineers, the real talent, would have found jobs at other companies and there would have been little disruption. Programs in progress, like the U-2 and possibly the SR-71, would have continued.
Corruption keeps shit products in service
Wonder how/if we'd have an F117
The 1971 senate vote to provide Lockheed with bailout money and avoid bankruptcy passed by a _single, tie-breaking vote_ from Vice President Agnew. If he'd voted the other way, Lockheed would have gone under (or at least have broken up into smaller companies ripe for buyout from competitors) with the C-5 as their last aircraft.
That's no Have Blue or F-117, no F-22 or -35, and General Dynamics might still be independent.
When I was a kid I got to ask a Blue Angel the best part of being a Blue Angel and he said for him it was the chance to fly the F11 again. He said it was the sweetest thing he had ever flown and had passed through it earlier in his career and missed it ever since. Then he said the Navy answer was more along the chance to do PR for the Navy, but (with a wink and a thumb-up) really F11. So of course my next model purchase was a F11 in BA colors.
I had dammed near the Same experience, conversation & model 😊
Great aircraft with a huge potential. Imagine this with a new radar, conformal tank instead of top-mounted Sidewinders, modified wing, enlarged strakes and even possibly a new engine. It could have a very long service life, just like the F-5. Especially with its strong airframe, typical for "Grumman Iron works".
Especially the Luftwaffe, which lost Erich Hartmann after he dared to criticize the F-104A as a fundamentally flawed aircraft.
Officially he resigned early in 1970, but he was more or less forced into resigne, because the Brass didn't like his opinion on this.
Some older compatriots like Rall claimed he didn't have the experience to judge it, but the man is the bloody Ace of Aces, he knows what to do in air combat and what not.
If a Pilot like that tells you an aircraft is fundamentally flawed you listen!
He was validated in all of his charges against the 104 later, when 282 crashed and 115 pilots died.
Could you imagine a Luftwaffe with an aircraft actually capable of air combat, as it was possible with 1960's technology, good handling characteristics and Instructors/leaders like Hartmann teaching the nuggets air combat? It would be a far, far superior air force, and yes I'm not joking the 1960's Luftwaffe lacked a modern fighter capable of doing the fighter mission in the 1960s!. Hell, Hartmann would've probably loved the Tomcat and if he was in the leadership we'd probably would've seen the Luftwaffenkater happen. Instead of the F-4F buy in, or at least half the Force as F-4F Jabos (Figher Bombers) and the tomcat as air Superiority fighter/Interceptor.
It would be interesting to see what changes a stronger Grumman would've wrought on the us aviation industry....maybe the TFX wouldn't have happend or happened differently?
I think Lockheed would still exist in a smaller capacity, due to their proven track record for highly classified programs in cutting edge technology.
But we might've never seen the Tri-Star, or maybe the C-5.
Another long term question is wether Ben Rich would've been adopted as a permament member of the Skunk Works, as his work on the F-104 got him in the door. And he was Kelly Johnson's replacement as the leader of the Skunk Works. And it's largely to his work in the late 1970's and 1980s that Lockheed became so powerful. And his decision to go for stealth.
From what I've read the wings from the FJ-4 Fury would have been perfect for it.
Imagine a whole new plane eh?
J-79 or an Orenda Iroquois engine. Iroquois put out 19,300 lbs dry and 25,000 wet. Either engine would be the cherry on top of this fine aircraft.
You just described an F16
I was at a Blue Angels performance at Point Mugu NAS back in 1968, last year they flew the F11. When the solo guys (#5 and 6) took off they did a "dirty" roll with gear still down. As #6 was inverted he lost power and got the aircraft back to wheels down configuration just in time to hit the tarmac hard enough to deploy the tail hook. He then regained power and took off again. We were all wondering if that was supposed to happen when a nearby MP turned around and stated "you almost saw someone buy the farm right there..." #5 and #6 flew around for a few minutes to check things out, make sure there were no fluids leaking then completed the entire show (with tail hook hanging down) like nothing happened. Needless to say there was a prolonged standing ovation when they returned to the flight line. That stuff they say about Naval aviators is no joke.
Honestly, Genda probably could have just said something along the lines of "I spent 45 months getting f!cked in the Pacific by Grumman, it's my turn now."
U know, the very same thought popped into my head.
@@ronjon7942 Same
F-11 was a beautiful aircraft, particularly in Blue Angel paint.
Amazing. Lockheed worked hard to get to Mach 2 by building a plane with large design and overall performance compromises, and Grumman got to Mach 2 almost accidentally, and, apparently, with a pretty well rounded and safer airplane.
As others have noted, military aviation history would have been a lot different if this plane had beat out the 104.
There is a lot of aircraft that should have been pursued throughout history. Starting from an upgraded Skyhawk>Super Tiger>Tigershark>Super Tomcat>YF23>X32. All would have proven to be better choices than what they went with.
@@grndzro777 I can't say for sure that the Tigershark would for sure have been better than the F-16, since it's a highly successful fighter in its own right. That said, I see no reason they couldn't have coexisted. The Gripen proves that there's a place in the market for a smaller, lighter, and less expensive to fly multirole fighter. The Tigershark would've been the Gripen of the 80s had Northrop just been allowed to sell them.
Lockheed also worked hard to get the F-104 adopted by bribing everyone in sight to overlook its massive faults…
@@grndzro777What need would there have been for an upgraded Skyhawk? The LTV A7 Corsair was an excellent ground attack aircraft that saw extensive service with many countries, and was a vast improvement in strike capability over the Skyhawk. Also the most recent upgrade package for Skyhawks was done by Lockheed for Argentina. The Tigershark was never developed for the USAF, and was not a superior design to the F-16. It was cheaper and was meant to be an export fighter, and came close to the F-16s capability but was not a match. The Tomcat left service for a very good reason, because the F/A Super Hornet could do the fleet defense job for cheaper and fulfill a multi role capability as well. A Super Tomcat would’ve been expensive to operate, and extremely niche in its role because Grummans strike packages for the Tomcat only marginally improved its effectiveness in the role as it was designed as a fleet defense interceptor only. YF-23 was marginally faster and stealthier than the F-22, but the F-22 is still fast and far stealthier than any other fighter in service, and is also extremely maneuverable, some the YF-23 was not due to its stealth oriented tail design. And finally X-32 failed because Lockheed had a more finished prototype that already exceeded the air force’s requirements and the capability of X-32. Spending more money refining the X-32 design would’ve created even more overruns than the F-35 did because the X-32 demonstrator was very far from Boeing envisioned the finally product to be, whereas the X-35 was very close to the production F-35s.
I saw the f11f Blue Angels as a kid in the '60s. It inspired me to get into Coast Guard Aviation - HH52a helo aircrew deployed to the far Arctic aboard icebreakers. I wasn't merely a Cold Warrior - I was a Froze My Butt Warrior 🥶
I yield to no one in my love for the F-104, the "missile with a man in it," but I also know it had limited range, had many coffin corners to learn about, and ultimately a poor all-weather aircraft. The German Air Force, at least, had a terrible safety record with the Starfighter. Both the 104 and the 100 were comparatively dangerous machines to learn how to fly.
The Super Tiger was safer, more reliable, and just as fast. Again, I love Lockheed, but bribery seems to have played a very large role.
An English Electric Lightning far less likely to kill you than an F104 Starfighter. But that Grumman F11 would have been far better than a F104 for sure.
The F-104 looks the role, and futuristic. But you are correct: Lockheed pay outs got it adopted by countries that were not ready for it and would use the F-104 in roles it was not really designed for. The Church commission hearings were eye opening.
Wonder how many lives would have been saved if this was chosen instead of the F104
To be fair to the starfighter, in German service it was being used in a frankly absurd manner given its design. Anyone who thought using a high altitude, high speed interceptor in a ground attack role was a good idea should have been forced to fly it themselves. The F104G Witwenmacher (Widowmaker) was an absolutely insane model of the starfighter which should never have been used.
@@alexsis1778 "Frankly absurd manner"? What do you think the USAF was doing with their "C" models? People come up with the dumbest excuses for abysmal program management.
I never knew the Super Tiger was basically sidelined by Lockheed's antics. Though I have fond memories of the Starfighter and its signature howl, I cannot help but wonder what it would have been like had the Super Tiger been selected as the KLu's main jet.
Meyer has said that, in a discussion with Grumman's CEO at the time, that he was told that Grumman decided not to fight these decisions. It would have tied up their production capacity, and made it so they could not be in contention for two new projects coming down the pike, which they did get - the A-6 Intruder and the E-2 Hawkeye, which turned out to be much more beneficial for Grumman and kept them in business until the F-14 contract.
So they were even more stupid - they could use Canadian factories for export market!
In the ‘70s every day I drove to work at China Lake, I passed an F11-F1F. It looked really cool with it’s coke bottle fuselage & big burner. I wondered why it wasn’t more prevalent in the navy’s inventory. Thanks for the history.
Despite everything, the Starfighter served admirably in the RCAF for several years. My dad was aircrew and worked on it as well as the CF-100 "Canuck" and the F-86 Sabre. I just recently had the pleasure of seeing a "Canadair" F-104 on display as well as the cockpit simulator used in training pilots at the Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canada in Winnipeg. Beautiful aircraft.
The Wright J65 was the Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire built under license.
Hi Ed, I have always considered the USN and Grumman as joined at the hip; certainly till the F-14. The J-79 was one of the finest jack of all trades engines around, I think, and a perfect fit. So many seemingly ideal aircraft systems only succeed in failing, often for obscure reasons.
SH: The J-79 lives on today in a fleet of auxiliary electrical generators for power plants and industries.
The F-5 & F-20 are 1 of my favorites in the looks of a classic fighter plan that most kids envision. You know our board classroom drawings come to life.
I hadn't realized how good the Super Tiger was. I have always remembered the Lockheed F-104 bribery scandal, and I believe there were a few people bringing it up again when the YF-23 lost to the YF-22. Funny thing about reputations, how they linger like that.
Lockheed-Martin is the filthiest company in modern history, with their hand so far up the asses of the top brass in the pentagon.
Sounds like Australia would also have been a potential market for this (unknown--for me at least) aircraft , given we were looking to replace our CAC Sabres and ended up buying Mirage IIIs. Seems like the similar speed, but better multi-role and greater range aspects would have worked out well for us. Definitely a 'what-if' and lost opportunity across the board. Great video (as always).
The thing I found most puzzling about the Australian Mirage III is that even though Dassault specifically tested one with an Avon 67 engine, the RAAF ended up sticking with the Atar 9C for their Mirages. Despite the Avon being not only an engine already being license-built (in non-afterburning form) in by CAC, but also just a better engine than the Atar in all respects.
Marcel Dassault had simply assumed that this would be necessary to obtain the contract (hence going to the trouble of building an Avon powered prototype before even securing the deal), and was surprised when the Aussies opted for the regular Atar powered Mirage III.
@@RedXlV it's probably just typical Aussie slack
can't be bothered going to all that effort
I saw the Blue Angels perform in 1962. They were flying F-11s. I had an excellent time.
Wow, never knew about the Super Tiger. Just think this could have been a better export fighter and in fact might have saved many pilots; note the exceedingly poor safety record of the 104 in the Luftwaffe
You could have given the early Luftwaffe any early supersonic plane and they would have crashed it. F-104 was a hard plane, but other countries had no problem with it.
@@samgeorge4798 The only sensible comment here, thanks.
As Mr. Ed said, F-104 was mostly used as a low level fighter-bomber with the Bundesluftwaffe, a role for which the thing was never intended.
The purchase of F-104 for the Luftwaffe was simple bribery of German minister of defense and the higher echelons of Luftwaffe Generals, this was the "political" reason.
Many experienced pilots like Erich Hartmann openly objected the Starfighter, for which he was sacked in the end.
Let's not forget the F-8, if I'm not mistaken practically every single one was involved in some sort of accident.
A high altitude interceptor tasked with low level bombing. What could possibly go wrong?
Those spine-mounted Sidewinders are pretty wild. Loading them would have been a pain though.
I do love the F-104 but, had the F-11 super tiger had a real chance, I could see that plane still in service with some airforces, much like the Phantom has.
I had a toy based upon this fighter when I was five sometime in late 60's to early 70's. It even had NAVY written on the wings. At first I thought it was a phantom but it had only one duct in the back. Mystery solved.
Another great video of a doomed (by bribary) plane.
How different would the USAF (and German/ Japanese) be today if it had been adopted instead of the 104 I wonder.
I think people forget that most of that era's jet aircraft had high accident rates. the 104, admittedly, was one of the worst, but many of those losses were in the Luftwaffe, which, for lack of alternatives, put A/G demands on the 104 that it was really never designed for as it was supposed to be a "pure" interceptor. The Luftwaffe specifications were known to "overload" the aircraft as well as overburden the single crewmember, thus, supposedly, contributing to many accidents. It can be argued both ways. Either the 104 really WAS a widowmaker or the Luftwaffe was putting the planes in a role they really weren't suited for. My guess is that things are somewhere in the middle.
@@MrArgus11111 yes things fall to the middle in your argument. The Luftwaffe should join the me too movement as it was certainly sexually assaulted by Lockheed. The 104 was a very demanding aircraft to fly if you let it get away from you. The Germans may have pushed the envelope but Kelly had already proven the aircraft to be capable of doing almost everything. Downward ejection, German fuel deficiencies, inadequate training and extreme operating environment led to the bad operational record. I know they fixed the ejection problem but those aircraft already produced ended up in Germany. No other air force utilized the 104 as the Luftwaffe did so they never suffered things like engine failure while landing a bomb laden aircraft on a short stretch of highway with blown flaps that had no bleed air, a stall speed of over 200 mph and downward ejection all because of contaminated fuel that destroyed the hot section of the engine due to severe overheating of the burner cans and drive turbine. So yes, Lockheed oversold the 104 but in all fairness once Germany fixed their problems with supply, training and operations the 104 matched up well with other countries operational experiences and the 104 saw a long and productive service life. If nothing else, Chuck Yeager absolutely adored it.
@@MrArgus11111 Even taking into account that 1960s jets pretty much all had high accident rates, the F-104 had the highest of any of the Century Series by a wide margin. And these were USAF pilots, who weren't brand new to supersonic jets like the Luftwaffe pilots. The F-104 was a challenging plane, and shoehorning it into roles it wasn't designed for definitely didn't help.
just imagine if the super tiger with the j-79s made it into production in the 60s , then in the late 70s-early 80s got another batch of upgrades like electronic FBW, improved radar and a pw f1120 turbofan which would have boosted dry power and gave a big bump in useful range and saved about 1000lbs of weight.. and it would have been economical to operate to boot. a lot of time the choice in a weapons system comes down to who gets the money.
Another great presentation, Mr Nash. I don't think I've failed to learn something significant from any of your videos. Cheers!
Excellent job. Always liked the f-11, but didn't know the story of the super tiger. I think from the info you shared this is definitely one those aircraft that would have been a great success. Keep these videos coming.👍
You've done it again, Ed.
I plane I had never even heard of.
And a GREAT story.
Thank you.
0:40 - What a beauty!
☮
Gotta love that shot at 5:25 showing the spine mounted Sidewinders!
It doesn't matter how good an plane is, it's all about money and bribes! It's very obvious that this was a magnificent machine and yet most customers refused it for other lesser planes! And it is still the same nowadays...
I think several Lockheed people should have been charged with murder as well as bribery.
As a die-hard Starfighter fan, I do recognise, that Germany should have either only purchased a smaller number of F-104s or none at all.
Several German AF officers had complained that the majority of pilots would need many flying hours to familiarise a M2.0 interceptor with almost no wings. A plane closer to the Me163 than for instance to the Me262.
Unfortunately the politicians had been bribed and also wanted to cheap out on the formation of the new air force and settled on a single fighter design to be purchased. Thus sealing the fate of many young men.
Saw the F11 at an air show in 1967. My dad a Grumman employe took me. The Blue Angels were flying them. It is a pretty aircraft. I had a wind tunnel model of it.
Lockheed-Martin's discretionary & hospitality budget is the greatest SAM system ever devised - it shoots down aircraft BEFORE they fly!
Wonder if Hartmann flew the F11F when the Germans evaluated new fighters. Anyone knows? He strongly opposed the 104, predicting correctly it would create problems.
I watched the Blue Angels fly the Tiger in 1967 at Dallas NAS
Hensley Field. I have the autograph of Pilot Red Hubbard.
I was stationed in Germany during the “reign” of the F-104 with the Luftwaffe. It was a consensus opinion that if you wanted to own one the only thing you needed was about an acre of land.
The F11 Tiger was my favorite Grumman plane. Saw the Blue Angels fly them at an airshow at Grummans Calverton plant.
The original F-11 was the first aircraft designed with ''area rule'' or ''coke bottle'' fuselage design; and, oddly enough, it had a fuel tank in the vertical tail.
The Luftwaffe and 2 MARINE (naval airwings) recieved the F-104G but some in Luftwaffe Staff prefered the Supertiger, on the Navys wishlist was neither the 104 nor the Supertiger , the Marineflieger`s (naval aviation) wish was the Blackburn Buccaneer because 2 engines are safer over Sea another plus was the Bucaneer`s Payload and Range and germanys Navalaviation was mainly british trained (first crews trained in Lossiemouth ?) and equippet in the early years with Hawker Seahawk Mk100/101 and Fairey Gannet.
My understanding is the Germans wanted a plane that can intercept and do strikes, which is why they ended up with the F-104, while not the best strike plane it can intercept which the Buccaneer couldn't.
@@doc7000 but the F-104G was only a short time in service in the two ( pure) Fighter Wings/Jagdgeschwader (JG) , replaced in early 70s by F-4F Phantoms, same for the two Reconwings/Aufklärungsgeschwader (AG) equippet with RF-104G they recieved the RF-4E Phantom in early 70s . Fighterbomberwings/Jagdbombergeschwader (JaboG) and Naval aviation/Marineflieger (MFG) flew with the F-104G up to the 80s .
@@Sturminfantrist Look at how many countries right now after Russia started a full on war with Ukraine have changed choices and allocated more funds to certain areas. So yes plans change I was only pointing out what they were looking for at the time.
During the 1950s and 1960s a lot of different jets were short lived on the front line replaced just a few years after they entered service.
@@doc7000 NP i agree with your first post, i only pointed out that in interception and recon role the 104 was only a short timespan in service, yes Germany needed a multirole aircraft, one Typ for all Missions , Interception, fighterbomber/nuclear strike role, recon and maritime strike.
You right the reason why the Navy didnt get the Buccaneer was germany couldnt pay for two maintyps in service (different training logistic ect)
@@doc7000 i forgot, another plus of Lockheeds product was the offer of License Production in Germany and Europe, it was a big win for the german aviation industry to catch up with all advances in aircraft tech after more then 10 Year pause.
sry for my bad engl.
Why would Grumman believe that dropping in a J-79 would result in only the most modest of performance gain? That just doesn’t make sense, unless the first iterations of the engine were extremely derated or something. Oh, and great topic, Mr. Nash, as always. Nice work.
Yeah, that's pretty odd that they expected so little out of the J79, seeing as its dry thrust was significantly higher than the J65's afterburning thrust. (A fact which leaves me wondering if the Super Tiger could supercruise.)
Probably because their corporate and engineering morale were at a low point due to the failures that were the XF10F Jaguar and the F11F Tiger that they, more-or-less, set their expectations pretty low as a result.
The part that killed me in the book is the Navy made Grumman promise to NOT fulfill the German order when placed. The other part is the Tiger being modified to fit in Regulus launch tubes; 7 were modified for it. This means she could fold up to be 10 feet across... huge potential for carrier usage.
Great video and story on this lesser-known variant of the Grumman Tiger. Thanks for sharing! The F11F is an airplane that just look right from all angles. I got to see it perform, as a kid, in the summer of 1967 when the U.S. Navy's "Blue Angles" performed for the crowd at Glenview Naval Air Station at Glenview, IL.
Lockheed knew all the dark arts of international geopolitical sales. Damn them!
Large brown envelopes
@@benwilson6145 I truly doubt that even the largest of brown envelopes would have been sufficient for that job. Brown briefcases would have been more likely
Damn them all!
There was a lot in this one, but it was very interesting, as always. Thanks dude.
As with so many things Lobbying/Bribery is how decisions were made. The Starfighter had one of the deadliest records as it was so hard to fly.
11:34 Canada operated an aircraft carrier at the time, Bonaventure, and I could see the Super Tiger operate off the carrier. They instead flew McDonnell F2H Banshee instead, which was a large aircraft for the old carrier.
Had the F11F-1F gone into production, I think France would've also revisited the Super Tiger in a few years. The French Air Force wasn't going to buy American, but the French *Navy* is another story. It would've been a better option than the F-8 Crusader for their carrier-based fighter.
The SuperTiger in the form flown would have been to "heavy" for Bonnie; the F2H had 294 sqft. of wing so a lower wing loading than the 250 sqft. and same general weight Tiger... now the 98-L version of the Tiger Grumman wanted to build had 300-350 sqft of wing (one was 34 feet in span the other 36), and could have operated from Bonnie with at least an A2A load out as it would have roughly the same performance envelope as the A-4 at the same wing loading.
one of the neatest looking jets ever built !
Omg, I didn’t know anything about this aircraft and now you had me completely convinced it was the best aircraft that never entered production. It could easily have been the F-16 or F-86 of its day
An interesting speculation, with upgrades would the F11 have eaten into the F16 sales by still being a capable and very affordable aircraft?.
...I remember as a boy of around 8 year old or so going to the Bergen Mall in Paramus to see an F11 on display by the Blue Angels - it hsd ther engine bay open (covered with Plexiglass and the engine open to shoe the compressor section - that was ca 1958and I STILL have great memories of dad & mom putting up with my interest in military jet aircraft...
I think I'd have some issues with launching early model Sidewinders inches over my head.
Also, how does that front missile work? In the pictures showing the canopy slid back, the front half of the missile is on the canopy while the rear half is still on the spine.
Look, it's either the worst thing anyone ever did, or the most badass fighter jet any five-year-old ever drew. Push the little red button and find out.
I suspect those were mock up missiles.
@@davidcarr4991 Presumably you load the missile after the pilot is strapped in and closes the canopy. Meaning you'd have to fire off that missile before you land.
Interesting video, I always thought the Super Crusader was the best fighter the USN never built but this also seems a decent candidate.
A navalized F-15 would have done pretty much everything that the F-14 could do for vastly less maintenance cost, and they wouldn't have needed the Hornets
@@toomanyuserids F14 would land on at about 125kts, F15 landing speed is 150kts and that's before you add the structure so it can do carrier landings, the extra 2 feet to fit the AIM54s compared to the AIM7s, or the bigger nose to fit the AWG-9. There was a reason they went for the F14 and the swing wing........
My favorite plane, clean and sexy!The nose section bears a strong resemblance to the tomcat.
I think maybe it looked too much like a MIG-19 to be seriously considered. Just a thought. It does have great lines and that J79 engine is a go getter but a fuel guzzler. We had them in our F-4Bs. They did outstanding performance but what a fuel burn it had. I do hope that some of these are still airworthy. Thanks for posting. Very good stuff.
I think the basic problem with the F-11F was a short range. If you have to put a fuel tank in the fin, that’s an admission you haven’t got enough fuel, and no room for any more, like the British English Electric Lightning which had fuel tanks in the flaps. The J-79 was a great engine, but with no greater amount of fuel available the Super Tiger remained short-legged, not great for a naval aircraft. The basic F-11F-1 cycle time meant it was the last type to launch and the first needing to recover. The handling was apparently wonderful, demonstrated by their long retention by the Blue Angels.
As a replacement for the F-104 for NATO use? The F-104 was used primarily as a low-level strike aircraft, where it’s high wing loading meant it wasn’t particularly troubled by gusts or turbulence at low altitude going fast. The F-11F Super Tiger’s manoeuvrability would had been more of a minus than a plus in such roles. The comparison with the Folland Gnat makes more sense, the Indian Air Force demonstrated the utility of such aircraft in combat.
Lockheed employed a dedicated sales team who understood better the reality of the market, with pre prepared bulging brown envelopes... fixed that for you Ed.
Ah YF-23... some said that it lost because "Northrop was rule by engineers and Lockheed Martin by sale specialists".
I've heard that as well, the F-22 won because it had better marketing. Seems to be a theme with Lockheed.
I've also geard the F-22 is currently screwed because it doesn't have the capacity or space to be upgraded anymore. And that's part of the reason everyone went all in one the F-35. Don't know how true that is though.
@@pyro1047 The F-22 can be upgraded. One example was the upgrade to carry Small Diameter Bombs internally.
Also, the F-35 isn't connected to the Raptor at all. It was never intended to replace it.
The best comparison of the F-22 & F-35 is that they're like the F-15C & Strike Eagle respectively. The F-22 & F-15C are optimised for air superiority, while the F-35 & Strike Eagle are multirole, with an emphasis on ground attack.
@@anzaca1 The original intent of the F-22 & F-35 was to provide a high / low mix of aircraft, and would be more comparable to the F-15 & F-16 with the F-15 optimized for air superiority work, while the F-16 whose prototype was intended for a light daytime fighter, was eventually developed into a all weather strike aircraft.
The F-22 could have been upgraded when it first came out, (and dam Congress for blocking export sales) but its main electronic system built around a custom military CPU is now too old, and cannot be modified to be compatible with the modern integrated intelligence networks that all the modern US fighters can use
I do wish Ed that when you mention a US engine such as the J65 you point out it was a licence built Armstrong Siddeley Saphire. This engine was a success in all the other US planes it was used in B57 Canberra, Douglas A4 Hawk and NA Thunderstreak.
Why?
@@guaporeturns9472
Because in all of it’s other uses, it was not equipped with the faulty afterburner system that plagued the original Tiger.
And also in original UK form, in early versions of the Hawker Hunter and Handley Page Victor, and all Gloster Javelins. Wiki nicked info btw.
And the Sapphire was based on an enlarged Metro-Vic F2, Britain's WW2 axial-flow turbojet.
@@justat1149 so..? Why?
Another Great Video, Man! I Knew About The F-11 Shooting Itself Down But None Of This. You Are A Research Master! Thank You.
The more I read and hear of the F-104, the worse the plane and the program seems. Is it the most detrimental fighter program ever?
The Super Tiger would & should have been an absolute winner.
But…..ah, the F-104G. Robert Calvert, in his satirical 1974 LP ‘Captain Lockheed & The Starfighters’ had the Lockheed salesman telling the German Defence Minister Franz Josef Strauss “Ah, that’s F104G… G for Germany” to seal the deal.
In the spoken track titled ‘Bier Garten’, one tipsy German says, ‘D’ya wanna buy a Starfighter? Then buy an acre of ground. And wait.’, followed by a thunderous belch. Which, considering that out of 916 Starfighters they lost 262 to accidents, rather sums it up.
The F104 was a beautiful fair weather fighter aircraft sold to the Germans as an all-weather ground attack & reconnaissance interceptor ~ the wrong aircraft for a totally wrong mission ~ by corrupt businessmen to corrupt politicians (Strauss & his Party allegedly took a bung of at least $10 million USD) that cost a lot of innocent young German lives.
The F-104 is a perfect example of how you can't just strap bombs on a single-role fighter and call it multi-role.
Some fighters turn out by accident to be easily adaptable to the ground attack role ("not a pound for air-to-ground" was the motto in designing the F-15A/B, yet the F-15E is an excellent strike aircraft), but some just aren't.
@@davidpope3943it is also worth remembering the value of ten million then, to put things into perspective.
Considering the service record of the F104, It would have had a longer service life, and a better combat record. Lockheed was desperate during that time period and knew what pockets had to be lined for ensure contracts. Sad, who knows the potential of the Super Tiger where it could have gone.
It's easy to imagine that if the Super Tiger had a successful export run, Grumman might've offered a "Super Super Tiger" in the same vein of how Northrop created the F-20 Tigershark out of the F-5: give it a new radar and an F404 turbofan.
And then just like Northrop, they'd get screwed over by the Pentagon and Congress seeking to maximize F-16 export sales and thus reduce its unit cost to the USAF. Though perhaps Grumman's long history with the US Navy would've allowed them to snag that aggressor contract.
Imagine the F11F-1F with leading edge extensions to the intake like on the F20. It would be in service with some countries until now...
Imagine it reengined again, this time with an F404.
The F11 already looks better than its competition at that time, small wonder that it was better...
The F-104 was known as the Whistling Windowmaker. Every pilot that flew that Death Trap should have been awarded hazard pay. Because 292 104's crashed in flight, killing 116 pilots.
Canadian nicknames: Lawn Dart. Aluminium Death Tube.
German nicknames: Erdnagel (tent peg). Fliegender Sarg (flying coffin). Witwenmacher (widowmaker).
Pakistani nickname: Badmash (hooligan).
10:50 …interesting sidewinder missile configuration…never seen before.
I have a photo of an F11 taking off from a carrier. They saw limited use , but were used nonetheless.
Corkey Myers did work for companies other than Grumman? Didn't know that.
Always follow the money!
Wow, that was truly interesting. Seldom addressed subject. Well done!
Erich Hartmann, greatest fighter pilot in history ( 352 kills in WW II), flew the F-104 and highly recommended against purchasing the aircraft. The USAF was having a horrible accident rate and Hartmann knew his pilots were far less experienced than the U.S. pilots. He commanded JG-71, the first jet fighter wing in the Bundeswaffe
The F-104 had by a wide margin the worst accident rate of any any USAF jet fighter.
@@RedXlV Had an even worse rate in the German Air Force.
The F-100 was no slouch on the crash-and-burn index either.
Amazing how this bulkier airframe had similar performance to the F-104 given the same powerplant. But I guess the RR Merlin 60 (Packard etc) made the p-51 go alot quicker than in the Fiat G. 59 even though the P-51 was heavier.
The F11F-1F is effing great!
Another great video. More stuff I never knew. Being a Long Islander (pronounce "lawnguylander") it would've been great had Grumman gotten the contract. It's all about me.
Thank you for the video, I've been wanting to see what you would do with the topic.... and a job well done. I love the "what if" side of things
Another top notch video as always Ed
Lockheed did exactly the same to the SR177 it looked likely to be adopted by Germany 🇩🇪 but the F104 was selected instead
Something is strange with the photo at 5:11 onwards, there seem to be two missiles mounted along the spine of the fuselage - the front ones tip seems to be attached to the canopy top - not the rest of the missile?
The F8 with a relatively high take-off and landing speed turned out to have quite a few carrier incidents. One can only imagine how a J79 upgraded maneuverable F11f-1F would have fared with either the Mig 17 or the Mig 21 which, unlike the F8, it seemed to match in top speed. I suspect it would've also been a winner for the USAF or National Guard as more useful than the F100 which was quickly relegated to ground support duty. Not being on an even playing field with Lockheed's sales team after having developed a fine airframe initially ahead of turbojet development was Grumman's call to miss when it finally had the fitting powerplant.
Great feature Ed! Yes Super Tiger was such a “ might have been” seems to me if nothing else it would have been a total smash in international sales as a far more versatile and practical aircraft than both the F104 & and mirage III, given Australia is such a big place, always requires either long (very empty)overland or water overflights always seemed a bit nuts that Australia didn’t go for it over the mirage,( even though it’s actually my sentimental favourite Cold War fighter..)
What was the Australian joke? “How to own your own Mirage - just buy a block of land and wait”
@@stephengloor8451 no to me was it's unbelievably small range..I read an RAAF pilot one being quoted (hopefully tongue in cheek) it's best role was as air defence of their bases (...cause didn't have range to do anything else😟)
@@stephengloor8451 That was the German joke about the F-104.
Great article Ian. Again we see a similar debacle with this F-35 program. I need'nt try delving into details,the costs/crashes bare all the Facts.
Maybe they should have named the F-35 the "Starfighter II"?
@@All2Meme ooooooo, OUCH. Good1.
Not as good as the F11F-1F-F11
Grumman love their fs and 1s, apparently.
It's nickname was the habadamalawabah.
Excellent episode. Keep up the good work.
Really interesting and informative video, thank you !
Joke in 1960s West Germany:
"How can i get a Starfighter?"
"Buy real estate and wait."
Very well done video
I would also add the super crusader. The military was all excited by the phantom, but Vietnam improved that the phantom was not a fighter, Instead , it was an interceptor who was struggling against MIG fighters.
Covered that one as well 😁
ua-cam.com/video/GOuQFpUhgKk/v-deo.htmlsi=AKZAZ7GLvmlcgD39
Your absolutly right even I haven't hnown about this aircraft up to now but now I know that it will be 100% beather for the airforces to buy F11 than any other aircraft at the period. Everybody whoo bought Widow maker has been stupid. I don't understand this and the similar thing with how you mentioned F20 and (Y)F 23.
Definitely one of the greatest in history
Very well done.
Beautiful aircraft.
Heck, build 250 new planes, install the GE F414 engine, full upgraded avionics, etc. You could train pilots From commercial Pilot to 1,500 flight hours, (1,250 combat training hours, weapons, air combat, etc) For alot less. One engine versus two is cheaper.
When I was a kid the Grumman F11 and the Lockheed F-90 were popular as models or comic book art (The Blackhawks flew F-90s). Both designs looked modern and very clean. I wasn't aware of the F11F, though it appears to have been a potential winner. That's a pity.
I built that F11 model as a boy. Just the feel of it told me it was good. That was over 50 years ago and I still remember.
Lockheed built some amazing aircraft over the years.That said,their marketing team were some underhanded SOB's.
A J79 in a relatively light airframec such as the F-11 should have resulted in a pretty hot ride.