# Interesting Fighter Proposals



## Zipper730 (Nov 2, 2017)

I figure this seems like a good page to start up for various concepts that we've run across online

To start with, this is the Grumman Design 97







Some sources indicate that this design started development before the Grumman Design 98 (F11F), others say afterwords: Supposedly it was passed over the Grumman F11F because of the XF9F-9 designation being a creative way to get funding without competition (not sure if that's true)

I am curious how this design would compare with the XF5D and XF8U-1/F8U-1 in terms of performance.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 5, 2017)

Not that I know know much about prototypes but I'm assuming if Grumman decided to move on from Design 97 to 98 then it's safe to assume 98 (the Tiger) was superior to 97?


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 5, 2017)

There's a bit of information about the G-97 and the Tiger in the book American Secret Projects; Fighters and interceptors 1945 - 1978, in which it outlines specification OS-130 for a new carrier based day fighter, to which the G-97 was offered. It appears that the two Grumman aircraft were designed around the same time and that the G-98 (Tiger) was only intended as an interim from the outset, with the earlier designated G-97 being able to out perform it (on paper, of course). Grumman probably had it in mind that the G-97 would be the next standard carrier fighter, with the Tiger being introduced until the former entered service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 17, 2017)

Turned out to be a foolish assumption


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 17, 2017)

There is simply not enough information in the drawing to predict performance:

It doesn't appear to have boundary layer splitters for the inlets, so recovery may be poor, but they may have something internal to the inlet to deal with that, but it can't be seen.
The engine's location isn't obvious, so we can't even guess at the losses in the exhaust system.
The design doesn't appear to be area ruled, so high speed performance is suspect. It also appears quite chubby, which tends to be less than advantageous for high-speed performance. 
The aircraft really looks more like an enlargement of the F9F Cougar than a clean-sheet design.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 17, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> It doesn't appear to have boundary layer splitters for the inlets, so recovery may be poor, but they may have something internal to the inlet to deal with that, but it can't be seen.


There's some grooves on either side of the duct which seem to indicate a splitter...


> The engine's location isn't obvious, so we can't even guess at the losses in the exhaust system.


That's a good point, but at least the basic engine-type is known (J57)


> The design doesn't appear to be area ruled, so high speed performance is suspect. It also appears quite chubby, which tends to be bad less than advantageous for high-speed performance.


The fuselage narrows in where the wings are, but the fineness ratio definitely could have used some work.


> The aircraft really looks more like an enlargement of the F9F Cougar than a clean-sheet design.


There are numerous similarities...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2018)

Anybody heard of the Swiss N-20?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2018)

It ran like clockwork but needed a down slope to take off and land, lack of connection between the wheels and fuselage prove a major issue.

Seriously a prototype was built but the engine is quoted as a Suisse Mamba turbofan and the Mamba was a turbo prop.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> lack of connection between the wheels and fuselage prove a major issue.



They eventually dispensed with the wheels and used a pole instead....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jan 15, 2018)

I can not understand all this desire on the part of designers to design aircraft without a tail. Nostalgia of childhood?


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2018)

Elmas said:


> I can not understand all this desire on the part of designers to design aircraft without a tail. Nostalgia of childhood?
> 
> View attachment 479191



Manufacturers were hoping to increase profit by reducing parts count after massive cost-plus development contracts.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Seriously a prototype was built but the engine is quoted as a Suisse Mamba turbofan and the Mamba was a turbo prop.


Two different Mambas


----------



## Graeme (Jan 21, 2018)

Looking around the net it appears the Aiguillon was very under-powered so the next phase was to be the twin-Sapphire engined Harpon...

EFW N-20 - Wikipedia

_*During testing it was discovered that the engines would not produce the required thrust, so the N-20.20 project was started. The aircraft was similar to the N-20.10, but had one conventional engine, a Rolls-Royce Avon or Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet in each wing root. The wing was a little thinner and the main landing gear came a little closer to the fuselage because now there was no need to place the engines within the wing. The N 20:20 was never completed, although some wind tunnel models were manufactured.[4]*_

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

