F-11 (F11F) Tiger

[thundereagle1997]

F-11B/ F11F-1F Super Tiger with wingtip rails a bubble canopy 2 M39a2 cannons & 2 J-85-GE-21s please.

[thundereagle1997]

We should've gotten the F-11B super tiger with twin J-85-GE-21A engines and a bubble canopy

[JasonW]

Brides? 

I guess brides can also be bribes, no?

[thundereagle1997]

Sorry JasonW I meant to say to bribes not brides. Please excuse my spelling mistake I honestly & personally apologize for causing such a ridiculous mistake & terrible misunderstanding.

[thundereagle1997]

F-11C/D/E/F Super Tiger with f-18 style vertical tails & 2 turbofans based on the J-85-GE-21A turbojets please.

[jcf]

From the March 2026 Le'Fana.

You cannot view this attachment.

[PR19_Kit]

Not sure about the 'winders on top of the fuselage, over wing might be better and still be Whiffish, but the Tiger looks great in that scheme. 

[Dizzyfugu]

1:72 Folland Fo-145 "Wasp" F.Mk.1; aircraft "XD293/B" of No. 20 Squadron Royal Air Force Germany (RAFG); Oldenburg Air Base, 1959 (What-if/Hasegawa kit) by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

However, I have been thinking about a Tiger in early Marineflieger markings and colors (RAL 7012 and 7035), as a Seahawk replacement before the Starfighters.

[jcf]

Not sure about the 'winders on top of the fuselage, over wing might be better and still be Whiffish, but the Tiger looks great in that scheme. 

It was an actual Grumman concept.

[Captain Canada]

That's pretty wild. Missiles look like they are lost lol

[Mossie]

Not sure about the 'winders on top of the fuselage, over wing might be better and still be Whiffish, but the Tiger looks great in that scheme. 

Not sure about the 'winders on top of the fuselage, over wing might be better and still be Whiffish, but the Tiger looks great in that scheme. 

It was an actual Grumman concept.

And dummy versions flew on one of the prototypes.

On the last photo, you can see why it was not test fired. Drawings of the production version show the canopy would have been modified.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/grumman-f11f-super-tiger.455/page-4

You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment.

[Charlie_c67]

That looks like an early version of AI slop 

[Gondor]

Interesting idea. Totally impractical as the rear of the two missiles would be useless.

Say you have a target, select the first missile and it fires it's engine and heads off towards the target. Meanwhile, the second missiles IR seeker has bean toasted by the first missile as it started its engine and flew away. You can't drop the missile off to flay away as you have to fight against gravity to eject the missile out of the aircraft's flightpath and it's fin. It would have been far better to mount them away from the spine and separately rather than in tandem.

[Old Wombat]

In tandem like that, absolutely useless! But, on pylons out to the sides of the spine, that could be quite workable.

[Mossie]

They popped upwards. This image shows the arrangement (but not the mechanism), the rear missile would be slightly higher so the seeker could 'see'. It also shows the change to the canopy.

Evan (Elmayerle) has mentioned that position is viable if you can get the separation right.

I've got the book. If you're interested in the Super Tiger (and you can find a copy for a reasonable price, (the Naval Fighters series are out of print) it's worth getting as there are a lot of whiffy versions include production propsals, recce variants, two seaters etc. In production, the ventral fins would have been deleted as testing showed they weren't required.

You cannot view this attachment.

Two seater:
You cannot view this attachment.