Recently bought the NATOPS (i.e. flight manual) for the Tiger because it’s a plane I’ve always felt a bit interesting even though its career was fairly short. There’s not a lot of literature out there available for it so I felt the flight manual would certainly have some interesting tidbits not found anywhere else.
Anyways, I was wondering if those of you on here might be willing to share any photos you have of it. I can’t find too many, so I felt checking here might get some results.
So please….share your Tiger photos! 🙂
By: PhantomII - 20th September 2011 at 07:29
So finally…here are the shots I took a few weeks ago of the NMNA’s F11F-1…it is painted to reflect VF-33 I believe…quite a striking paint scheme.
They also have a an F11F-1 (long-nose) cockpit section painted in Blue Angel colors that you can climb into…of course I did just what all the kids in the museum were doing…climbed in. 🙂
By: PhantomII - 19th September 2011 at 00:36
They are nothing groundbreaking, but I’ll try to get them uploaded this week. I consider the Tiger to be quite a photogenic bird, so perhaps you’ll enjoy them too!
By: danjama - 16th September 2011 at 02:37
Open in a image editor, such as irfanview, then save as > jpg. Much smaller file format.
By: PhantomII - 16th September 2011 at 02:03
I was trying to upload my recent Tiger photos from NMNA….they are all around 4 MB….how do I shrink them? (Or should I just use photobucket?)
By: PhantomII - 1st September 2011 at 02:11
Anyone know if the Super Tiger prototypes did any DACT with F-8’s or other fighters of the period?
By: PhantomII - 1st September 2011 at 02:11
Anyone know if the Super Tiger prototypes did any DACT with F-8’s or other fighters of the period?
By: PhantomII - 30th August 2011 at 05:42
In reality probably no better than F-4 and F-8, and everything from the A-1, A-4, A-6 & A-7 were doing aswel as they could, it wasn’t all out tech and performance that was needed in theatre.
That was kind of a rhetorical question…I think it probably would have performed similarly to the others mentioned…specifically the F-8 due to the similarity of its weapons fit (four cannon and up to four AIM-9’s) and performance (Super Tiger namely)….in any case not something I really intend to delve into now.
As for the fuselage missile launcher, I’ve never seen that…what an odd arrangement! Thanks for the photo though!
In any case, I ordered the Naval Fighters book on the F11F so hopefully I can learn a great deal more about this rather unknown aircraft.
By: PhantomII - 30th August 2011 at 05:42
In reality probably no better than F-4 and F-8, and everything from the A-1, A-4, A-6 & A-7 were doing aswel as they could, it wasn’t all out tech and performance that was needed in theatre.
That was kind of a rhetorical question…I think it probably would have performed similarly to the others mentioned…specifically the F-8 due to the similarity of its weapons fit (four cannon and up to four AIM-9’s) and performance (Super Tiger namely)….in any case not something I really intend to delve into now.
As for the fuselage missile launcher, I’ve never seen that…what an odd arrangement! Thanks for the photo though!
In any case, I ordered the Naval Fighters book on the F11F so hopefully I can learn a great deal more about this rather unknown aircraft.
By: Bager1968 - 30th August 2011 at 04:48
That was proposed for the Super Tiger… the original Tiger didn’t have that.
By: Bager1968 - 30th August 2011 at 04:48
That was proposed for the Super Tiger… the original Tiger didn’t have that.
By: pagen01 - 29th August 2011 at 15:58
Interesting to theorize how the Tiger (or Super Tiger) might have performed in the skies over Vietnam (when fitted with the proper equipment such as RHAWS of course).
In reality probably no better than F-4 and F-8, and everything from the A-1, A-4, A-6 & A-7 were doing aswel as they could, it wasn’t all out tech and performance that was needed in theatre.
Bager, great info and pic, was unaware of the Tiger being configured to carry missiles on its back like that. as you say there would be issues!
By: pagen01 - 29th August 2011 at 15:58
Interesting to theorize how the Tiger (or Super Tiger) might have performed in the skies over Vietnam (when fitted with the proper equipment such as RHAWS of course).
In reality probably no better than F-4 and F-8, and everything from the A-1, A-4, A-6 & A-7 were doing aswel as they could, it wasn’t all out tech and performance that was needed in theatre.
Bager, great info and pic, was unaware of the Tiger being configured to carry missiles on its back like that. as you say there would be issues!
By: Bager1968 - 29th August 2011 at 08:26
As long as they dropped the extending-launcher on top of the fuselage for 2 AIM-9…. that was a really strange idea, and would cause issues for ejection… especially in the proposed 2-seat version.
Many more drawings here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=455.0
By: Bager1968 - 29th August 2011 at 08:26
As long as they dropped the extending-launcher on top of the fuselage for 2 AIM-9…. that was a really strange idea, and would cause issues for ejection… especially in the proposed 2-seat version.
Many more drawings here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=455.0
By: PhantomII - 29th August 2011 at 06:09
Give me a day or so, and I’ll get them uploaded. They aren’t great. The lighting there makes for superb viewing of the aircraft, but you really need a good camera for proper photos…at least you need to have a grasp of all the lighting features of your camera (which I certainly don’t).
In any case, the example there is in superb shape, and it’s really great fun to walk around and look at all the aspects of the design (from the four guns to the interesting wing fold mechanism…just the tips and they fold downwards as opposed to upwards).
Some would say the Tiger was an underperformer, but I blame that on the engine. The J-79 powered Super Tiger would have been a superb aircraft in many ways I think although as we all know by the time it came around the Crusader was fully developed.
Interesting to theorize how the Tiger (or Super Tiger) might have performed in the skies over Vietnam (when fitted with the proper equipment such as RHAWS of course).
By: PhantomII - 29th August 2011 at 06:09
Give me a day or so, and I’ll get them uploaded. They aren’t great. The lighting there makes for superb viewing of the aircraft, but you really need a good camera for proper photos…at least you need to have a grasp of all the lighting features of your camera (which I certainly don’t).
In any case, the example there is in superb shape, and it’s really great fun to walk around and look at all the aspects of the design (from the four guns to the interesting wing fold mechanism…just the tips and they fold downwards as opposed to upwards).
Some would say the Tiger was an underperformer, but I blame that on the engine. The J-79 powered Super Tiger would have been a superb aircraft in many ways I think although as we all know by the time it came around the Crusader was fully developed.
Interesting to theorize how the Tiger (or Super Tiger) might have performed in the skies over Vietnam (when fitted with the proper equipment such as RHAWS of course).
By: J Boyle - 28th August 2011 at 21:04
I knew somowne would bring that up.
It was named by the U.S. Army in accordance with their policy of naming aircraft after native American tribes.
By: J Boyle - 28th August 2011 at 21:04
I knew somowne would bring that up.
It was named by the U.S. Army in accordance with their policy of naming aircraft after native American tribes.
By: Stony - 28th August 2011 at 20:48
So as I mentioned, there was a lot more to Gruimman names than just cats.
Don’t forget the Mohawk!
By: Stony - 28th August 2011 at 20:48
So as I mentioned, there was a lot more to Gruimman names than just cats.
Don’t forget the Mohawk!
Sign In
October 26, 2009 at 1:28 pm