What if

Hot Research Topics => Aircraft, Armor, Weapons and Ships by Topic => Topic started by: Glenn Harper on July 11, 2002, 01:21:58 am

Title: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Glenn Harper on July 11, 2002, 01:21:58 am
I'm in favour of the 'J for my little scenario (go to[a href=\"http://members.tripod.com/ta152h/index-2.html\" target=\"_blank\"]WW3 Warbirds in 1:72nd[/a] as, mentioned before by someone, the idea of the Canadians having a carrier in the late '60s or  early '70s is cute.

Here's the load for the CF-4J Canadian Armed Forces fast FAC that's in the box and partly started: 4 x AIM-7E (belly possies), centreline Mk5 20mm cannon pod (because I've got one and want to use it on something), the usual drop tanks on the outers, with a Pave Knife laser designator on the left inner and a TER with 2 x LAU-10 Zuni rocket launchers and a single Rockeye under a pair of AIM-9s on the left inner.

Another idea I've had would be to fit Phoenix AAMs on a Canadian NORAD interceptor (possibly based around an F-4S;  big radome and nice wing slats). If you can't afford an F-14 or F-15 or need an interim missile thrower, you could do worse. I'd call this the CF-4T or something like that (using left over letters from the F-4 sequence). Yeah, and a night ID light, too.

["But last night the plans of a future war
Was all I saw on Channel Four"
Morrissey, from Shoplifters of the world]
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Matt Wiser on June 25, 2003, 11:09:53 pm
I was checking some articles on the F-4 and they all mentioned potential users of the Phantom-but didn't get the plane for various reasons-here's the list as I recall:

Argentina-requested 24 in 1977-Mr. Peanut (AKA Pres. Carter refused)
Brazil-requested the Phantom in 1972-State Dept. refused to authorize the sale despite DOD approval
Australia-wanted to keep the two dozen that were leased pending the F-111C delivery and considered ordering more-that went down when McAir wouldn't allow an Aussie final assembly of the aircraft down under.
Kuwait-36 ordered in early '73-cancelled after 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Saudi Arabia-72 ordered in '73-cancelled when McAir demo'd the F-15.
Taiwan: Requested 60 aircraft and a license production line in 1974-refused due to Nixon/Ford Admins' detente with PRC.
South Vietnam: Asked for 48 Phantoms as part of Vietnamization in 1970-deemed too complex for VNAF to maintain.
Canada: Known to have been demo'd to RCAF-anyone know why our northern neighbors didn't buy the Rhino?
Jordan: Ordered 24 in 1976-Israeli lobby in Congress blocked sale-they bought the Mirage F-1 instead.
Italy: E offered to AMI in early '70s but no order placed.Only major NATO country other than Canada and France NOT to get the F-4.
Pakistan: offered along with A-7s in 1977-8 if Pakistanis would halt their nuke program-they refused.    
RF version offered to RAF and RN-RAF version would have been a Spey-powered RF-4C; RN version would have been a Spey powered RF-4B.
RF-4E also offered to Egypt but declined.
McAir did offer the Phantom to France, but Dassault lobbied against a sale of the E and RF-4E.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Alvis on June 26, 2003, 11:30:13 am
Hmmm...Cuban Air Guard, after a reconciliation in the late 60s between Castro and President B. Kennedy, Cuba receives 3 squadrons of E Phantoms to replace their MiG 19 and 21s. One squadron was to see action over Grenada with the US/Cuban invasion. Eventually replaced by the F-16 in the late 1980s.
I do like the Polish option...
Alvis :aa
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Matt Wiser on June 29, 2003, 12:12:43 am
Here are a few more possible F-4 operators-although they didn't consider the plane or it was too expensive to even think about ordering-circumstances under which getting Phantoms did exist:

Thailand-USAF leaves two squadrons' worth of F-4Es in the pullout post-Vietnam in 1975 after Saigon fell. Additional purchases after Viets invade Cambodia in 1978.

Singapore: Need for a interceptor with BVR capability leads them to purchase Phantoms after British pullout-augments their F-5Es in air-to-air and the A-4 in air-to-mud.

Oman: Fear of Khomeni's Iran in 1979 and possible Soviet move following Afghanistan-Oman gets the 31 F-4Es that Iran had on order at the time of the Revolution but were cancelled.

Ecuador: Ongoing rivalry with Peru-US supplies Phantoms after Soviets supply (and they did IRL) Su-22 Fitters to Peru. Attempt at preempting a French sale of Mirage F-1s and Jaguars (which did take place, along with Israel selling Kifrs).
Mr. Peanut imposed a ban on such sales to Latin America in 1977-which Reagan lifts in 1981 (IRL was lifted two years ago-now Chile is getting F-16s) Aircraft used in 1995 border war with Peru-they kill several Peruvian aircraft and lead to Peru ordering MiG-29s from Russia.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: retro_seventies on November 28, 2005, 08:07:36 pm
Hope this helps.  I have one partially completed, made from parts of 2 f-14's and an f-4S.  Planned to be a late service RAF example, awaiting replacement by Eurofighter Typhoon (in the air to ground role - the RAF having procured the swing wing phantom in place of the jag and bucc).

(http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/5500/vgphantom29ab.jpg)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: noxioux on November 28, 2005, 08:59:02 pm
That is excellent, retro.  Exactly what the doctor ordered.  Now, the decision of whether or not it's a good idea to cut my mostly completed f-14 into little bits. . .

I was starting to think along the lines of a Sukhoi "Fitter", with a similar shaped scratchbuilt wing, and less of the F-14 or F-111 looking setup.  But either way, it's an interesting idea.

Thanks!!! :cheers:  
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Leigh on November 28, 2005, 10:23:23 pm
WHY?
I love the look and the idea, but so many changes shoulder mounted wings, tail surfaces, undercarraige involved you almost have a completely new airframe. Why would this be considered feasable or costworthy instead of just a completely new design a la the F-14?

Think you could make the wings from a Tornado work on a kitbash?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: retro_seventies on November 30, 2005, 06:49:16 pm
Quote
I was thinking that the wing fold would be the straight line near the wing root.

that's rather nice - that kind of wing would pretty good on a cougar (or maybe a tiger) don't you think?

I don't see why tornado wings wouldn't be fine, ditto the fencer ones, all depends how much (or little) work you feel like doing on them - there's always the JHM scratchbuild and shape route too...

I found that the f-14 ones did fine, and it wasn't really that hard to throw them on a phantom once i'd had a drink to steady the hand that weilds the dremel.

Plenty of filling and sanding, and there's always that nagging suspicion that you really *should* be sanding and filling a little more - i know that mine had a blast of primer and then got more filler and more sanding, and i still don't think it's ready for it's "real" paint yet.

Rescribing is indeed going to be a pain in the arse, and i'm not looking at this being a finished model this year (for the second year running).  seriously, this has been 2 years now that i've been fiddling with this, but hey - they say that every man needs a hobby, eh?

I was thinking alarms, drop tanks, a couple of CBUs and a couple of 'winders just in case (pretty much like the SEAD loadout that the Tornado F3 carries).

One day...

Good luck Noxioux - i have no doubt that a better (and more motivated) modeler than me could really nail this one!
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GeorgeC on May 15, 2007, 01:10:54 am
Not the snappiest of titles, but does anyone have any information on the camera (?) pod that could be seen mounted on the forward port Sparrow recess on RAF F4s?  I have only seen this equipment mounted on aircraft in the earlier, FGR role rather than the later, AD role.

 (http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r268/GeorgeC2006/xv432.jpg)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Howard of Effingham on May 15, 2007, 02:20:08 am
easy to scratchbuild, but not sure if ever done in resin. is available in the fujimi
FGR2 phantom kit [the one with the fin top RWR] if you can ever find one.

trevor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GeorgeC on May 15, 2007, 03:46:19 am
Thanks Trevor, but what, exactly, is in it?  Given that it is carried in the early 70s it is unlikely to be a laser target seeker and can't (?) be a laser ranging and bombing system as the Navigation and Weapon Aiming System NAVWAS that was the great (only) advantage of the Jaguar.  While it could be a weapon training camera, I always assumed it was a simple, forward arc camera system for opportunity 'snaps' on armed recce rather than the huge, complex pod carried by 2 Sqn in the dedicated recce role.  There were a the couple of cameras built into the Harrier GR1 nose for this purpose, but these took lateral shots and I have some recollection that forward-facing cameras on low-level, near supersonic aircraft were given up by the RAF as a waste of film.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: upnorth on May 15, 2007, 11:39:37 am
I have read in various references about RAF Phantoms carrying something called a "strike camera".

Judging by the name of the device, I'd assume it was for recording missile, rocket or gun hits. That the Phantom in your post has rockets under the wings and a gun pod on centreline leads me to think the gadget you're asking about might just be one of those cameras.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GeorgeC on May 16, 2007, 05:22:40 am
I was told on another website:

Quote
The fixed forward facing oblique camera mount on an RAF Phantom was a Vinten F95 Mk 7 (70mm) with a 3 inch lens mounted at 20 deg depression.

So it is a small recce camera pod used as an alternative to the massive, complex beast used by the specialist recce sqns.  No doubt it could be used to 'snap' when weapons were fired, providing battle damage assessment and helping post-training debriefing.  
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 22, 2007, 10:54:45 pm
The camera pod in the image is also available in one of the Hasegawa 1/48th scale F-4 kits.  A strike camera was also carried by some USAF F-4C/D during the Vietnam unpleasantness, the real difference being that the USAF version was fitted with a vertical camera and your RAF camera appears to be forward facing.     

While you are upgrading the Rhino, you might want to consider the one piece windscreen that was tested on some of the Missouri ANG F-4Es stationed at St. Louis IAP.  I am still trying to decide on which would be the better donor; F-15 or F-18?  Both have a nice one piece windscreen but adapting it to the F-4 might be a problem.  Same thing could be and should be considered with any upgraded F-8 or A-7 by the way.   

After dwelling on this for a bit longer, I think that the best thing to do would be to use the cockpit and instrument panels from a two seat F-18 to update the Rhino cockpit.  This might justify the expenditure for obtaining the clear parts if you are going to kit bash and make it better.   
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on October 29, 2007, 12:58:41 pm
I have just read in a website http://wapedia.mobi/es/McDonnell_Douglas_F...ntom_II?p=6#3.2 (http://wapedia.mobi/es/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II?p=6#3.2). (sorry, it is in spanish) that in 1963 MacDonnell offered RAAF Atar powered Phantoms.
Semi PHRENCH PHANTOMS :blink:  :wacko:
 :o
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PolluxDeltaSeven on November 11, 2007, 08:07:10 am
I thought about something: what about an anti-ship Phantom??

There is enough place under its wings and fuselage to fit a large payload of Harpoon, Penguin, or even HARM, Shrike and torpedoes!

And what about an anti-ship cruise missile, maybe something derived from th esub launched anti-ship Tomahawk (but maybe lighter and smaller)?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on November 11, 2007, 11:57:54 am
Quote
There is enough place under its wings and fuselage to fit a large payload of Harpoon, Penguin, or even HARM, Shrike and torpedoes!
Japanese reportedly have their F-4EJ Kai compatible with ASM-1 (under the outboard wing hardpoints) so that the Phantoms can take over anti-ship missions from the aging F-1 support fighters.

Quote
Since you are wanting to WHIF-it up, how about going with that new F-22 camouflage that has the metallic look to it?
That one suggestion actually prompted me to start imagining a Phantom counterpart of EA-6B.

To ensure suitability for inter-service use (i.e. to land on carriers), what I have in mind is to be based on F-4N or F-4S.  Basically add a canoe-shaped fin top fairing as well as (as needed) antenna blades/blisters on the tail fin and/or throughout the fuselage.

Loadouts include: two ALQ-99 pods and either two AGM-88 HARMs or drop tanks under the wings, three AIM-7 Sparrows or maybe AIM-120 AMRAAMs in the fuselage missile wells, a pod representing communications jammer in the one unoccupied missile well at the front, and a third ALQ-99 pod on the centreline.

Then add that camouflage scheme used by F-22......

To represent machines in their early years, use AGM-45 or AGM-78 for ARMs then omit the communications jammer pod and load all four missile wells with Sparrow.  Use SEA camo. scheme or comtemporary USN or USMC colours

Suggestions for improvement welcomed.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: coops213 on November 12, 2007, 12:03:16 am
Instead of just replacing the windscreen, how about replacing the whole canopy? Give it a one piece canopy maybe taken from an F-14 or F-15 and modified somewhat. Something to give the crew all round better visibility.

Chris
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: elmayerle on November 12, 2007, 05:22:44 pm
I've in mind a couple single-seat Phantoms.  One's a conversion of the standard two-seater with a reduced height canopy like the early F4H-1s while the other is a purposely-designed single-seat with a cockpit and canopy similar to the F3H or the intermediate AH-1 proposal.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Daryl J. on November 25, 2007, 01:37:06 pm
What if McDD and Hawker colluded on the Phantom as they did on the Harrier?

The Spey Phantom would then have ogival main wing tips, still with dogtooth and upturn, a slightly higher ogival vertical fin tip, and horizontal stabs that looked like the offspring of the Yank Phantom and, say perhaps, the Victor K2 but downturned.
Green over Green    :thumbsup:

Squadron recommendations?
Perhaps it would be the Phantom GR.3 (or 4,5,6,7.....whichever)


This one may just have to be built in Ye Olde Basement.


Daryl J.

 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Archibald on November 26, 2007, 08:06:37 am
Quote
I have just read in a website http://wapedia.mobi/es/McDonnell_Douglas_F...ntom_II?p=6#3.2 (http://wapedia.mobi/es/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II?p=6#3.2). (sorry, it is in spanish) that in 1963 MacDonnell offered RAAF Atar powered Phantoms.
Semi PHRENCH PHANTOMS :blink:  :wacko:
 :o
this is actually what I plan for the Phantom GB, if it ever start one day :)
 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on November 26, 2007, 06:49:07 pm
Quote
What if McDD and Hawker colluded on the Phantom as they did on the Harrier?
That might be interesting to see the "signature" Hawker style curved tail empannage and wing tips on the Phantom. 

As far as a "semi-French" Phantom, I imagine that de Gaulle would be spinning in his grave if he new that a Frenchman was even suggesting something this outrageous.  But the idea of using the ATAR on the F-4 airframe could lead to all sorts of fun such as:

Interceptor with the 2 X R-530 on the inboard wing pylons or a quartet of R-550 on the dual rail launcher adapters mated to the inboard wing pylons and a single R-530 on the centerline.  Later versions might be configured to carry the Super R-530 on small pallets where the AIM-7 Sparrow were carried.

Tactical bomber with some of those rocket/fuel tank stores on the outboard pylon (JL100?).  Carrying countermeasures pods for jamming in the forward Sparrow wells and chaff/flare dispensers in the rear Sparrow wells. 

Nuclear strike aircraft carrying the free fall AN-52 or the smaller tactical nuclear weapon (AN-?).  Later it would be upgraded to carry the ASMP. Again configured with the countermeasures pods in the Sparrow wells and a quartet of R-550 Magic missiles for self defense. 

Naval strike fighter/bomber configured to carry the Exocet and a variety of conventional weapons as well as the ASMP and AN-52/22 nuclear weapons. 

Reconnaissance aircraft carrying the usual battery of cameras and other sensors for Navale and AdA missions.  Secondary mission would be nuclear strike.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: elmayerle on November 27, 2007, 12:03:36 am
Quote
Quote
I have just read in a website http://wapedia.mobi/es/McDonnell_Douglas_F...ntom_II?p=6#3.2 (http://wapedia.mobi/es/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II?p=6#3.2). (sorry, it is in spanish) that in 1963 MacDonnell offered RAAF Atar powered Phantoms.
Semi PHRENCH PHANTOMS :blink:  :wacko:
 :o
this is actually what I plan for the Phantom GB, if it ever start one day :)
As long as it's an ATAR 9K50, it should be a reasonable replacement, though I do believe the ATAR is a bit longer than the J79 (by roughly two feet) and also has a greater maximum envelope diameter (depending on J79 variant, it's 1.4 to 2.2 inches) but definitely weighs less.  I suggest the 9K50 because it comes closest to matching the J79's performance.

HTH,
Evan
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Archibald on November 28, 2007, 05:40:52 am
Quote
As far as a "semi-French" Phantom, I imagine that de Gaulle would be spinning in his grave if he new that a Frenchman was even suggesting something this outrageous.
Quote

Marcel Dassault would spin, too  :lol:  :lol:   

You're perfectly right, alas...  :rolleyes:

But the idea of using the ATAR on the F-4 airframe could lead to all sorts of fun such as:

Interceptor with the 2 X R-530 on the inboard wing pylons or a quartet of R-550 on the dual rail launcher adapters mated to the inboard wing pylons and a single R-530 on the centerline. Later versiosn might be configured to carry the Super R-530 on small pallets where the AIM-7 Sparrow were carried.

Tactical bomber with some of those rocket/fuel tank stores on the outboard pylon (JL100?). Carrying countermeasures pods for jamming in the forward Sparrow wells and chaff/flare dispensers in the rear Sparrow wells.

Nuclear strike aircraft carrying the free fall AN-52 or the smaller tactical nuclear weapon (AN-?). Later it would be upgraded to carry the ASMP. Again configured with the countermeasures pods in the Sparrow wells and a quartet of R-550 Magic missiles for self defense.

Naval strike fighter/bomber configured to carry the Exocet and a variety of conventional weapons as well as the ASMP and AN-52/22 nuclear weapons.

Reconnaissance aircraft carrying the usual battery of cameras and other sensors for Navale and AdA missions. Secondary mission would be nuclear strike.

Plenties of interesting ideas here  :cheers:  

Mine is to use the Phantom as CEV testbed, with Mirage noses and a nice dayglo paint sheme.

Atar, J-79 and Avon were rather similar in size, weight, and power. The Atar was slightly less powerfull than its counterparts.

 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PolluxDeltaSeven on November 29, 2007, 01:00:33 am
And don't forget that the F-4 was evaluated by the French Navy but the F-8 was prefered, due to its ability to land and operate from a smaller carrier.

 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 13, 2007, 06:59:57 am
I had another inspirational moment yesterday while pondering how to acquire some 1/72nd scale engine exhaust parts from modern aircraft that could be used to reflect an engine upgrade on an F-4 and I suddenly realized that I had read recently that the TF-30 had been used to power one version of the A-7 (w/o reheat/afterburner, of course) but this brought up an idea for creating a TF-30 powered F-4 based on the F-4K and F-4M since it was already widened to accomodate the Rolls Royce Spey engines.  This wider fuselage could also be used to accomodate the TF-30 and to demonstrate the upgrade it would only require the exhaust parts from an F-14 or if you really want to stretch it, try using the parts from an F-111.    
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: elmayerle on December 13, 2007, 12:00:14 pm
Quote
I had another inspirational moment yesterday while pondering how to acquire some 1/72nd scale engine exhaust parts from modern aircraft that could be used to reflect an engine upgrade on an F-4 and I suddenly realized that I had read recently that the TF-30 had been used to power one version of the A-7 (w/o reheat/afterburner, of course) but this brought up an idea for creating a TF-30 powered F-4 based on the F-4K and F-4M since it was already widened to accomodate the Rolls Royce Spey engines.  This wider fuselage could also be used to accomodate the TF-30 and to demonstrate the upgrade it would only require the exhaust parts from an F-14 or if you really want to stretch it, try using the parts from an F-111.
I'll have to check references, but ISTR that the afterburning TF30 is a rather larger engine than the Spey 200R series fitted to the F4K/M, which are of smaller diameter than the TF41.  I do know that McDD studied TF30-powered F-4 variants, but they never proceded beyond the paper study stage.

I belive the difference in diameters between the Spey 200R series and the TF41 is a function of which Spey version each is derived from.  ISTR that the Spey 200 drives from an earlier version also known as the Spey Jr. while the TF41 derives from a later version of the Spey.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Archibald on December 13, 2007, 01:20:50 pm
Quote
Ummm would the "French F-4" have the gun nose of the "E" for the AdA, and the "Naval" "B/J" for Aeronaval????? :huh:
I think all french phantoms would have been nose-gunned. Aeronavale aircrafts, too, had guns (I think about the Etendards, the Crusader is another story).

Don't know what kind of guns had the Israelis Phantoms.
 Did they try to adapt the DEFA as they did on their Skyhawks ?  :unsure:

Btw a M-53 powered Phantom would be cool, too.
Can't be worse than a Spey powered Phantom, and thrust is more or less the same...  

What about a scaled-up (25%?)  Phantom with J-58, J-75 or J-93 ?  
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on December 13, 2007, 03:54:21 pm
Quote
I think all french phantoms would have been nose-gunned. Aeronavale aircrafts, too, had guns (I think about the Etendards, the Crusader is another story).
One has to take the question as to if an F-4 with the gun nose can be accommodated by the carrier's elevators into account.  RN F-4K had to have the nose folded back to fit on the elevator of the Ark Royal- don't know if the gun nose can be made to do the same.  What's the demention of the elevators on Clemenceau class carriers?

Didn't Aeronavale Crusaders have quad 20mm guns just like the rest of the Crusader family?

Quote
Don't know what kind of guns had the Israelis Phantoms.
 Did they try to adapt the DEFA as they did on their Skyhawks ?  :unsure:
As far as I'm awared of, IAF F-4Es have the same 20mm M61.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: elmayerle on December 14, 2007, 12:21:38 am
As a follow-up to my earlier comments on the TF30-powered Phantom, the TF30 was as much greater in envelope diameter than the Spey 20s series in the F-4K/M as that engine was over the J79 ('bout 5 inches more in each case.  Too, the shortest afterburning TF30 is still over two feet longer than the Spey 200.

Actually, I think Archibald's idea of a M53-powered derivative of the F-4K/M airframe makes sense, the dimensions are close to the Spey s0s as is the performance (M53-P2 is actually a bit better) and the M53 weights a bit less (on the order of 700lb., or more, less).
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Zen on December 14, 2007, 05:10:53 am
How about twin RB106 Thames and Red Hebe AAMs?

RB106 is roughly the size of a Spey, and in reheat produces slight more thrust, but its in dry thrust you'd notice the difference, 15,000lb per engine at dry, 21,000lb in reheat.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 14, 2007, 10:06:40 am
As a follow-up to my earlier comments on the TF30-powered Phantom, the TF30 was as much greater in envelope diameter than the Spey 20s series in the F-4K/M as that engine was over the J79 ('bout 5 inches more in each case.  Too, the shortest afterburning TF30 is still over two feet longer than the Spey 200.

Actually, I think Archibald's idea of a M53-powered derivative of the F-4K/M airframe makes sense, the dimensions are close to the Spey s0s as is the performance (M53-P2 is actually a bit better) and the M53 weights a bit less (on the order of 700lb., or more, less).
Evan, thank you for the clarification on the overall dimensions and available space in the F-4 airframe.  Granted in real life, it would not work but here in Wacky WHIF World, it appears that most anything will work.  So for what I have in mind, the incorporation of a pair of TF30 exhaust parts could provide the requisite cosmetic changes to portray an engine upgrade to the F-4, or any other airframe that has a cavity close enough in size to accomodate the parts.  Granted, the real world has the laws of physics to deal with, but in here, that got tossed out the window.  Now if there were only a cheap source for engine exhaust parts...
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Archibald on December 14, 2007, 12:19:39 pm
Quote
How about twin RB106 Thames and Red Hebe AAMs?

RB106 is roughly the size of a Spey, and in reheat produces slight more thrust, but its in dry thrust you'd notice the difference, 15,000lb per engine at dry, 21,000lb in reheat.
Sounds very interesting to me. A flyoff between this Phantom, the Arrow, and Hawker P.1121 would be wonderfull  :wub:  
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on February 19, 2008, 09:50:09 pm
Here is another one- what if Royal Navy kept their CVA-01 project (or any CATOBAR alternative) and F-4K?  What if F-4K lasted with Royal Navy as long as F-4F did with Luftwaffe?

Make me inclined to take a page out of the F-4F ICE chapter...... replace the F-4K's radar with a Blue Vixen?

BVRAAM include Skyflash and AMRAAM...... how would adding Meteor into the options (like the proposed Tornado F.3 test machines in real life) look hobby-wise?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 12, 2008, 10:33:44 pm
From Air Enthusiast Thirty, pgs 34 - 37, "Swing-Wing Phantom" by Mike Spick with acknowledgment to Robert Shackleton Blake of McDonnell Douglas.

The article has more performance data for various mission profiles, if anyone is interested.

Jon
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: JoeP on May 01, 2008, 12:48:18 pm
I'll have to see if I have any F-4s and F-14s left in 1/700. One or more of the swing-wing version could go on my Euro-carrier.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on May 12, 2008, 09:32:27 pm
Here's a couple of ideas:

What about a VTOL Phantom - whack a bunch of liftjets in that baby!!???

What about your ultimate Phantom - i.e. the Phantom still in frontline USAF/USN etc service today (say the various F-15s, F-14s etc never made it to service for what ever reason(s) and the F-4 was forced to soldier on with various upgrades.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on May 12, 2008, 09:47:20 pm
What about your ultimate Phantom - i.e. the Phantom still in frontline USAF/USN etc service today (say the various F-15s, F-14s etc never made it to service for what ever reason(s) and the F-4 was forced to soldier on with various upgrades.

I have one earlier in this thread:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,18658.msg249179.html#msg249179

Say, instead of EA-6B and EF-111A, the USAF, USN, and USMC were instructed to standardize on a single ECM platform......
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Daryl J. on May 12, 2008, 10:16:02 pm
A Sparkspook?    That's interesting.   :thumbsup:

Spey Phantom, big egg on tail, glass cockpit with system designed by people who defected from Apple Computer as to make operating the system intuitive and simple.   Hmmmm.....




Daryl J.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 13, 2008, 08:58:19 am
^^^^^ Do you mean Boeing Enhanced Phantom?
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,13581.0/highlight,boeing+phantom.html
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on May 13, 2008, 11:36:45 am
Here's a couple of ideas:
What about a VTOL Phantom - whack a bunch of liftjets in that baby!!???
What about your ultimate Phantom - i.e. the Phantom still in frontline USAF/USN etc service today (say the various F-15s, F-14s etc never made it to service for what ever reason(s) and the F-4 was forced to soldier on with various upgrades.
Not too crazy about your VTOL Rhino, but an improved F-4 would be excellent.  Earlier comments in this thread provide some indication of what would be preferred such as a one-piece windscreen and even a complete canopy replacement with something that provides more all around visibility for the aircrew.  Other things to consider might be a new wing for the F-4 based on the wing from the F-15.  Granted the signature cranked wing would be gone but the benefits of a better wing design might have given the F-4 a real edge against contemporary adversaries at the time.  If someone wer to do a kit-bash, I think it would be a rather simple task since both wings are similar in shape the idea would be to mate up the upper wing surfaces of the F-15 wing with the lower wing surface of the F-4 to at least keep the main landing gear in the same location.  The original F-4 wing pylons would be used and there is a chance that the smaller outboard wing pylon from the F-15 (the one that was never used in real life) could be adapted to the new F-4 wing. 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on May 16, 2008, 02:43:40 pm
Quote
What about your ultimate Phantom - i.e. the Phantom still in frontline USAF/USN etc service today (say the various F-15s, F-14s etc never made it to service for what ever reason(s) and the F-4 was forced to soldier on with various upgrades.

Here are my rough interpretations of the 'Ultimate Phantom' (i.e. one still in front line USAF/USN service today instead of F-15s etc) - quite appropriate for a fighter that hits the 50 yr mark later this month (taking it from the first flight - the Phantom made its maiden flight on 27 May 1958 - I guess we should have tried for a GB of some sort to commemorate):

2 Seat version - mote that I figure it would get some stealth mods a bit like the Super Hornet though wouldn't necessarily be a full LO mod:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z.jpg)

Single seat version of above:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z3.jpg)

Slightly stealthier versions of above with new V tail:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4ZV.jpg)

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z2V.jpg)

And just for comparison - a standard F4E:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4E.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: tinlail on May 16, 2008, 05:25:18 pm
I really like these designs. I didn't think a F-4 could be made to look so sleek.
Some hopeful constructive thoughts.

1) A V tail is really good for saying I am stealthy, but I am not sure that the F-4 need to have it's tail, changed that way. The purpose is to not have any corner reflects, and to cover the exhausts, both of which seems to be happening.

2) The conformal belly tank, this could use some steathing, some facets on this to get rid of the 90 degree angles would good.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on May 16, 2008, 08:15:21 pm
Quote
What about a VTOL Phantom - whack a bunch of liftjets in that baby!!???

Folks, any suggestions on a VTOL Phantom?  I have two possibilities:



Su-15VD:
(http://vtol.boom.ru/rus/Su-15VD/3.jpg)
(http://vtol.boom.ru/rus/Su-15VD/2.jpg)

Mirage IIIV:
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/dassault_mirage-3v.gif)
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/dassault_mirage-3v.jpg)

Your thoughts, suggestions.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: tinlail on May 16, 2008, 08:51:38 pm
How about this as something to chew on.
Put tiltable exhausts on the existing(replaced?) engines something like this.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/YA2F-1_tilting_pipes_NAN6-60.jpg)
but with a little more tilt.
And replace the second seat and behind with lift engines just behind the pilot?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on May 16, 2008, 08:55:21 pm
Quote
Put tiltable exhausts on the existing(replaced?) engines something like this.

Or maybe aft nozzles like the F-35B (I watched a cool Lockheed movie of the first F-35B undergoing aft nossle transition during the week - seriously cool!)

I like the idea of removing the WSO  - definitely a good idea that as it also reduces some weight.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: tinlail on May 16, 2008, 09:55:03 pm
Or maybe aft nozzles like the F-35B (I watched a cool Lockheed movie of the first F-35B undergoing aft nossle transition during the week - seriously cool!)

Yes like that.
A f-4 can look at least some what balanced with the tail extending so far beyond the end of the engines. Of course the next trick is to stick the F135 engines in to a Phantom....
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on May 17, 2008, 04:23:57 pm
How's this for a first VTOL (or at least extreme STOL) F-4 with 2-4 dedicated lift engines behind the pilot:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/F4V.jpg)

Rear nozzles would also tilt downwards.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Nils on June 07, 2008, 07:16:07 am
the G-version of the phantom was one of the best SEAD aircraft out there until they were retired in the 1990's.
but to me it was one of the best looking phantoms out there  :mellow:.
but what if it had some export customers, from what i know, greece was interested in 30 to 40 ex-USAF aircraft back in 2000, but went for the F-16 block52 instead  >:(

it would have some nice export sales, even secondhand  :mellow:

Israel:
to cope with the new soviet-made SAM and radar air defence systems, Israel placed an order for 40 F-4G's in 1981. these were fitted with Israeli made ECM equipment, Python-2 AAM's, Shrike and AGM-88B HARM anti-radar missiles. during operations over Syria, F-4G's destroyed over 100 enemy SAMs and Radar instalations in less then 2 weeks. making the wild weasels an unmissable asset in the IDF/AF. in 1994, the 34 remaining F-4G's were upgraded with new avionics and even more advanced ECM gear. another even more intensive upgrade was integrated in 2004, the F-4G was fitted with a new Elbit AESA radar, new ALQ-131+ jammer pods, fully digital cockpit, Link16 datalinks and a new weapon, the AGM-88E AARGM misille to replace the earlier HARM's. the aircraft were new designated as F-4GI. the F-4GI is now expected to stay in service until 2020.

other export customers (witch i dont have a backstory for right now) would be:

-Greece
-Turkey
-Germany
-Spain
-RAF
-Brasil
-Mexico
-Argentina

(http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic220.jpg)

(off topic: yes, reached post #1500, of to the 2000 mark  :mellow:)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Geoff on July 08, 2008, 04:53:45 pm
I was reading that in 1963 McD tried to interest the RAAF in an Atar 9 engined version of the F-4C (model 98DX).
Does anyone have any info on this - my impression is that it was a paper proposal which got no further?
I expect after the fiasco of the Sabres it was a bit of a non-starter. :banghead:

But Wif they had bought these as a bomber a decade or so before the F-111C?  Ok the "C" was a fighter and the "D" the bomber version of the F-4 I know.

Any thoughts?

(Sorry if this has been covered before I've missed it if it was!).

GeoffP.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Archibald on July 08, 2008, 11:20:55 pm
I had to answer this one  ;D

They wannted a Phantom with Mirage engine, but this probably made it underpowered.
It didn't go very far, aside in my own alt-world.
There, the french build a prototype which was send to the ARDU for testing, and rejected because it was underpowered (Atar 9K really didn't matched J-79 power).
Thus the french flight test center, the CEV, took over the machine around 1967 and used to replace its Vautours. For 30 years it tested Mirage F1, Jaguar, Mirage III, Mirage 2000, and even Rafale radars and AAMs.
The Phantom proved so useful that the CEV obtained 3 more Phantoms, this time from the USN, in 1978.

Btw I've bought Revell F-4F, I have two Atar spare exhausts and CEV-Vautour photos from Airliner.net, but I've lost the will to build models 10 months ago  :huh: 

Maybe if the 500 phantom group build starts one day...
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,15662.150.html
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Geoff on July 08, 2008, 11:32:29 pm
Hi Archibald,
I suspect the extra costs for R+D along with the lack of extra performance if the Atar was no more powerful would have killed the project. The logistical advantages would not have been great enough on their own.
It might have led to the RAAF obtaining standard F-C's or D's in my alt-world.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on July 09, 2008, 11:50:31 am
An ATAR family doc that may be of use to some.

Jon

Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Archibald on July 10, 2008, 12:09:58 am
Thank you.

9K7 was the one in the Mirage IV in the mid-60's. As you can see its thrust is way too low for a Phantom (J-79 ranged from 7700 to 8200 kgp)

The most powerful variant (in the F1 and Mirage 50) was rated at 7200 kgp. Still a bit too weak...
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on July 11, 2008, 09:20:37 pm
Quote
I was reading that in 1963 McD tried to interest the RAAF in an Atar 9 engined version of the F-4C (model 98DX).
Does anyone have any info on this - my impression is that it was a paper proposal which got no further?

Has anyone got any actual evidence of this?  This is the only place I've read this proposal and would like to read more if there is anything.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: MAD on July 12, 2008, 01:18:19 am
I was reading that in 1963 McD tried to interest the RAAF in an Atar 9 engined version of the F-4C (model 98DX).


GeoffP.

Thank goodness the RAAF were smart enough not to have taken this offer up!
It would have been a lemon :banghead:

M.A.D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Geoff on July 12, 2008, 02:04:47 am
It was the opening sentence of the section on Australian Phantoms of the new SAM book on the F-4 Part 3.

"In March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the Royal Australian Air Force in their proposed Model 98DX, a version of the F-4C to be powered by a pair of French built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets. This engine was picked because it powerd the Dasault Mirage IIIO fighters that were already being flown by the RAAF,....."
Andy Evans, 2008, SAM Publications, The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, A comprhensive guide, Part 3: Overseas Operators, Page 6. (ISBN978-0-9551858-5-4)

GeoffP.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on July 12, 2008, 09:18:13 pm
Thanks - given what I understand about the ATAR in RAAF service, its probably a damn good thing the RAAF didn't go with this proposal.  Mind you, it might make an interesting story/model.  Of course it could be interesting also if the RAAF decided to take up the offer, trialed it, wasn't impressed but still liked the Phantom, purchased a batch and then decided to re-engine their Mirages with J-79s for commonality thus pre-empting the Israeli's Kfir by about a decade  (http://www.cugy.net/forums/images/smilies/idea.gif) 

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Geoff on July 13, 2008, 04:13:29 am
Yep, the Aussi "Kifir" does seem a good idea, along with F-4C/D's in RAAF service a decade before the F-111C becomes available.
It seems that if the RAAF had bought the F-4E's they leased, there was a plan to sell RF-4E's to them as well as part of the package. It was the need for a tanker force for the Phantoms (KC-135's) that sank the deal due to the longer range of the -111.
Also not enough aircrew as it would have ment standing down a Mirage sqd to man them. I don't quite understand that last bit about the crews as the -111 also had 2 crew members. ??
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Geoff on July 13, 2008, 04:01:57 pm
I did wonder about the cammo scheme if the RAAF had F-4C's; the delivery scheme in the early mid-sixties would be the Air Defence Grey over white the same as the USAF. But would they use the Green/Grey cammo the same as for the Mirages at that time, which would make them look a lot like RAF Phantoms. Or if the decision was taken later would they use the T.O.-114 SEA type cammo developed for the Vietnam war?


Mmm - OCD strikes! :banghead:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Howard of Effingham on July 14, 2008, 03:53:39 am
I did wonder about the cammo scheme if the RAAF had F-4C's; the delivery scheme in the early mid-sixties would be the Air Defence Grey over white the same as the USAF. But would they use the Green/Grey cammo the same as for the Mirages at that time, which would make them look a lot like RAF Phantoms. Or if the decision was taken later would they use the T.O.-114 SEA type cammo developed for the Vietnam war?


Mmm - OCD strikes! :banghead:

valid question geoff!?

hmm, could i do a model of a spey powered F-4M in air defence greys and use ADC gray as the overall color and use a
genuine scheme [like the 43 and 64 sqn schemes] on modeldecal sheet #89 and still call it a whiff?

or use the wrap-around USAF 3 color camo' [euro1 and tan, green and green, etc] on a RAFG attack F-4M with a real
scheme [say the 14 sqn one] on modeldecal sheet #94 and is it real?

must find me knitting!

ciao!

trevor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Geoff on July 14, 2008, 10:39:26 am
I have a sneaking suspision it would go something like -

Batch 1 - Air Defence Grey later repainted in Green/Grey.

Batch 2 - TO-114 SEA.

Batch 3 - Either Euro1 :wub:, or Hill Grey depending on the previous owners

lol :blink:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on August 21, 2008, 10:34:10 pm
Now I remember that the original design that would eventually lead to the F-4 was to be equipped with four 20mm M39 cannons...... how large is it in general compared to the F-4?

If F-4 is somehow enlarged from the original design, I was thinking of an intermediate version- two seater that is already in the general configuration of the F-4 but has the four 20mm cannons, probably a smaller radar (to make room for the four guns?), and Wright J65 engines......

Kinda like the relationship between F-5A and F-5E......

Or would it have been simpler to just have F-4B keeping the F3H-G nose, with the four 20mm guns and probably a smaller radar?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Shasper on August 22, 2008, 06:17:02 am
My apologies, maybe a pictorial explanation will help. Here's a shot of the F4H:

(http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4c-5382.jpg)

and a shot of the F3H:
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-3-line.gif)

Now then, the F3H-G proposed by McAir lacked the anhedral & dihedral, intake splitter plates and for most things the 2-place cockpit, with the 20mm cannons taking up residence in the area where the fwd sparrow wells would later go.

See here for more info: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4_1.html (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4_1.html)

Hope that makes everything a bit more clearer, I couldnt find a shot of the F3H-G mockup but ik theres one in the F-4 in Action book.


Shas 8)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on August 22, 2008, 07:13:01 am
What are those small intakes on either sides of the nose just behind the radome?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Shasper on August 22, 2008, 08:32:09 am
I believe (Ev can confirm or deny this) they are ram-air vents for the radar & associated electro-goodies. They provide cool air to the avionics compartment(s). The other F-4 variants should have them (or at least thru the D model for sure)

Shas 8)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on August 22, 2008, 09:16:59 am
I believe (Ev can confirm or deny this) they are ram-air vents for the radar & associated electro-goodies. They provide cool air to the avionics compartment(s). The other F-4 variants should have them (or at least thru the D model for sure)

What I was thinking is that if the USN decided to keep the guns, the small intakes might be relocated for a bit and maybe we'd have got a version that both has internal guns and fit on the deck lifts of British modernised armoured carriers......
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on August 22, 2008, 11:42:30 am
My apologies, maybe a pictorial explanation will help. Here's a shot of the F4H:

(http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4c-5382.jpg)

and a shot of the F3H:
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-3-line.gif)

Now then, the F3H-G proposed by McAir lacked the anhedral & dihedral, intake splitter plates and for most things the 2-place cockpit, with the 20mm cannons taking up residence in the area where the fwd sparrow wells would later go.

See here for more info: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4_1.html (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4_1.html)

Hope that makes everything a bit more clearer, I couldnt find a shot of the F3H-G mockup but ik theres one in the F-4 in Action book.

Shas 8)
Evidently that old F-4 came from Demon story is not correct.

From my post in the F-101 thread:
"According to  American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors 1945 - 1978 by Buttler the Model 98 that became the F3H-H/F-4 was
not a development from the F3H Demon series, the use of the F3H designator was sales gimmick.
The layout of the new aircraft was done following F-101A practice in terms of guns, cockpit and fuel arrangement.

So ya see, there is some 101 in the ol' F-4.  Grin

Buttler's source is an unpublished work by William E Elmore who was part of the design team and the person who came up with the basic design and layout, because of balance problems due to the required overall length, he later substituted a 60 degree delta wing.
The design was further refined by Gene Stephens, who revisited the original swept-wing layout and modified and balanced the design by shortening the tail. The Delta was the 98C and the "chopped-tail" the 98B, the 98B became the F3H-G/H."

The double designation for the Model 98B had to do with engine option:
F3H-G = J65
F3H-H = J79

The F3H-H was further developed into the Model 98R, which became the F4H-1.

Jon
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jschmus on August 22, 2008, 06:38:55 pm
AH-1/F3H-G mockup:
(http://aerofiles.com/mcdon-ah1mockup.jpg)

Sorry the image isn't bigger, but you get the idea.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: elmayerle on August 22, 2008, 07:12:53 pm
I believe (Ev can confirm or deny this) they are ram-air vents for the radar & associated electro-goodies. They provide cool air to the avionics compartment(s). The other F-4 variants should have them (or at least thru the D model for sure)

Yep, you're absolutely right (well, inlets, not vents, but you've got the right idea).  You'll find similar inlets on the spine of late-model two-seat F-16s for much the same reason (I know, I've had to do some reviewing of Tech pubs revisions that covered that area).

Regarding single-seat F-4s, I'm working on a single-seat gun-nosed one using the lower profile canopy of the original F4H-1, covering over the rear cockpit below the canopy, and using it as an extra avionics bay.  Since all the goodies I have for this are in 1/48, I'll likely be using a set of 1/72 F100 nozzles from a F-15 kit to give it PW1120s, too.  If I'm feeling rather radical, I'll take it one step further with the wing from the most radical F-4EJ-Kai proposals by McDD which included a wing aerodynamically indentical to the F-15's wing.  Add a blwon windscreen and an updated, glass, cockpit and you've got quite a performer.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on December 26, 2008, 03:58:25 am
Hmm  - I've just been having thoughts along these lines. The F-3G/H was re-cast as an attack type (AH-1) for a while, which would have made it a sort of Skyhawk-on-steroids. Tony Buttler (ref below) states that this was a purely budget/political maneuver since there was spare cash in the attack budget but not the fighter budget for a while following the purchase of the Crusader.

However, in Whiff World....... :wacko:

What if the A-6 Intruder programme had fallen flat due to insurmountable avionics problems (IRL it had severe difficulties)? The USN might then have got a bout of technophobia and decided to adopt a simpler F-105-style solution. The AH-1 (F3H-H) as proposed would, in operational terms, have been a "naval F-105", so it goes ahead in original form as per the mockup below.

Had this happened, it leads to two other interesting questions:

1. What would the USN have done for it's heavy all-weather fighter requirement? F-8U Crusader III?

2. What would the USAF have done, faced with F-105 Attrition in Vietnam? Re-instate the F-105 in an upgraded, perhaps multi-role form? A "Phantomised" F-105, similar in principle to the F-101A-to-F-101B evolution would be interesting....

Modelling-wise, you could "de-evolve" a Phantom kit quite a way towards the AH-1, but there are some sticking points. However, the AH-1 would probably have changed a bit from mockup to service type, so you could Whifjitsu some of those problems away as development changes.

Wing: de-kink and de-dogtooth it, and add an extra outboard pylon.

Empennage: straighted the tailplanes. The AH-1 tail is shorter-chord and more curvaceous, resembling a Voodoo.

Engines: if you want to go for J-65s. they had shorter, plain nozzles.

Intakes: cut the splitter plates right back to the lip and re-profile. It's not exactly right but it's close.

Fuselage: fill in the Sparrow bays and add two fuselage corner pylons.

Nose: the tricky bit.... You could probably blend bits of a real F-4 canopy together to get a 3-section, single-place one of higher profile compared to the mockup and claim it as "development: after all, the A-4's original tiny canopy got expanded significantly. The nose would have to be cut short and an intermediate radome (bigger than F-4B, smaller than F-4E) found.

I've no idea if a kit is available, but if these was a kit of the F-101A, would it's nose graft straight on, perhaps with the back of the canopy lifted up a bit?

Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on December 26, 2008, 10:34:57 am
Weaver,

Quote
Hmm  - I've just been having thoughts along these lines. The F-3G/H was re-cast as an attack type (AH-1) for a while, which would have made it a sort of Skyhawk-on-steroids. Tony Buttler (ref below) states that this was a purely budget/political maneuver since there was spare cash in the attack budget but not the fighter budget for a while following the purchase of the Crusader.

It's kind of amazing how many times the Navy has resorted to strategies like this.  Calling the XF8U-3 that instead of the XF9U-1, calling the FJ-2 the Fury that instead of F2J-1, and calling it the Fury instead instead of the Sea-Sabre (which they had considered)...

Quote
However, in Whiff World....... :wacko:

What if the A-6 Intruder programme had fallen flat due to insurmountable avionics problems (IRL it had severe difficulties)? The USN might then have got a bout of technophobia and decided to adopt a simpler F-105-style solution. The AH-1 (F3H-H) as proposed would, in operational terms, have been a "naval F-105", so it goes ahead in original form as per the mockup below.

It would have been a complete catastrophe.  The F-105 had awful low speed handling -- from what I remember it's takeoff speed was something on the order of 200 kts.

Quote
Had this happened, it leads to two other interesting questions:

1. What would the USN have done for it's heavy all-weather fighter requirement? F-8U Crusader III?

It would have probably entered service.  I mean the reason it did not enter service was because of the F4H-1/F-4B.  An AH-1 kind of design would have been exclusively an attack machine and would have left the Air to Air / Interceptor field exclusively to the XF8U-3.

The air-war in Vietnam would have been different for the USN.  The Air to Air arena would have been a hell of a lot better as the Super Crusader was way more agile. 

However the air to ground missions would have had far more sorties done by the AH-1, and less by the A-4 and A-7, and little to none by the A-6.  The Phantom II could not withstand battle damage from AAA as well as planes such as the A-4, A-7, and possibly A-6 could have.  The A-6 also had a greater bomb-load too, so it wouldn't have packed the same punch as an A-6 would have also.  Not necessarily so good. 

I'm not sure how things would have went for the USAF.  I don't know if the XF8U-3 would have ended up in the USAF's inventory.  It's possible I suppose as McNamara ordered the flyoff between the F-106 and F-4 as he was impressed with the F-4's performance as an interceptor for ADC.  It should be noted that the ADC never employed the F-4 in active service -- it is possible that the same thing would have happened to the F8U-III as well.  The F4H-1 was able to be used by TAC because of it's multi-role capability, the F8U-III had no A2G capability. 

Plus I'm not even sure that McNamara's intentions were to use the F-4 in ADC and TAC from the very beginning.  If so, I don't see any reason why he would have ordered the flyoff in the first place as TAC didn't really have much interests for fighters that were not multi-role. 

Quote
2. What would the USAF have done, faced with F-105 Attrition in Vietnam? Re-instate the F-105 in an upgraded, perhaps multi-role form? A "Phantomised" F-105, similar in principle to the F-101A-to-F-101B evolution would be interesting....

To have allowed it to be an effective fighter it would have needed one of the following modifications...

1.) A more powerful J-75 variant, or a more powerful engine.  (Reason:  Increased T:W ratio improves sustained cornering performance; the F-105A didn't do so well on the vertical as well)
2.) A revised wing with lighter wing-loading.  (Reason:  It could improve sustained turning-performance with a small increase, and with a large increase would provide improved sustained turning at lower speeds which is more favorable for dogfighting -- could come with a price of reducing sustained-agility at the high-speeds it routinely flew at for it's attack runs or at the very least provide a rather rough ride)
3.) A more powerful J-75 variant or more powerful engine AND a revised wing with lighter wing loading  (Best of both worlds)

...To reduce it's loss of attrition though, one could revise the electronics to give it all-weather strike capability with or without the previously mentioned aerodynamic or engine modifications

Quote
Modelling-wise, you could "de-evolve" a Phantom kit quite a way towards the AH-1, but there are some sticking points. However, the AH-1 would probably have changed a bit from mockup to service type, so you could Whifjitsu some of those problems away as development changes.

Wing: de-kink and de-dogtooth it, and add an extra outboard pylon.

Why did the F4H-1/F-4B have the upward canted (dihedral outboard of the fold-line) wing-section?


KJ Lesnick
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on December 26, 2008, 11:04:56 am
Weaver,

Quote
Hmm  - I've just been having thoughts along these lines. The F-3G/H was re-cast as an attack type (AH-1) for a while, which would have made it a sort of Skyhawk-on-steroids. Tony Buttler (ref below) states that this was a purely budget/political maneuver since there was spare cash in the attack budget but not the fighter budget for a while following the purchase of the Crusader.

It's kind of amazing how many times the Navy has resorted to strategies like this.  Calling the XF8U-3 that instead of the XF9U-1, calling the FJ-2 the Fury that instead of F2J-1, and calling it the Fury instead instead of the Sea-Sabre (which they had considered)...

Not to mention the "lightly modifed F-18C/D" that is the F-18E/F....... :rolleyes:

Quote
However, in Whiff World....... :wacko:

What if the A-6 Intruder programme had fallen flat due to insurmountable avionics problems (IRL it had severe difficulties)? The USN might then have got a bout of technophobia and decided to adopt a simpler F-105-style solution. The AH-1 (F3H-H) as proposed would, in operational terms, have been a "naval F-105", so it goes ahead in original form as per the mockup below.

It would have been a complete catastrophe.  The F-105 had awful low speed handling -- from what I remember it's takeoff speed was something on the order of 200 kts.[/quote]

Whoa - I am most certainly NOT suggesting trying to land a Thud on a carrier!  :blink: what I mean is that the AH-1(F3H-H) provides a similar single-seat heavy strike capability to the F-105 whilst being carrier compatible.

Quote
Quote
Had this happened, it leads to two other interesting questions:

1. What would the USN have done for it's heavy all-weather fighter requirement? F-8U Crusader III?

It would have probably entered service.  I mean the reason it did not enter service was because of the F4H-1/F-4B.  An AH-1 kind of design would have been exclusively an attack machine and would have left the Air to Air / Interceptor field exclusively to the XF8U-3.

The air-war in Vietnam would have been different for the USN.  The Air to Air arena would have been a hell of a lot better as the Super Crusader was way more agile. 

The Super Crusader didn't have a gun though.....

Quote

However the air to ground missions would have had far more sorties done by the AH-1, and less by the A-4 and A-7, and little to none by the A-6.  The Phantom II could not withstand battle damage from AAA as well as planes such as the A-4, A-7, and possibly A-6 could have.  The A-6 also had a greater bomb-load too, so it wouldn't have packed the same punch as an A-6 would have also.  Not necessarily so good. 

Perhaps an attack-focussed AH-1 would pay more attention to survivability, with armour, redundant systems and the like. Had the AH-1 gone ahead, I doubt if the A-7 would have been built at all: too much cross-over with the AH-1, who's strike "envelop" would be shifted significantly from the A-6's territory to the A4's. What you might end up with is a uniform all AH-1 strike force on big carriers and all A-4s on Essexes.

Quote
Quote
2. What would the USAF have done, faced with F-105 Attrition in Vietnam? Re-instate the F-105 in an upgraded, perhaps multi-role form? A "Phantomised" F-105, similar in principle to the F-101A-to-F-101B evolution would be interesting....

To have allowed it to be an effective fighter it would have needed one of the following modifications...

1.) A more powerful J-75 variant, or a more powerful engine.  (Reason:  Increased T:W ratio improves sustained cornering performance; the F-105A didn't do so well on the vertical as well)
2.) A revised wing with lighter wing-loading.  (Reason:  It could improve sustained turning-performance with a small increase, and with a large increase would provide improved sustained turning at lower speeds which is more favorable for dogfighting -- could come with a price of reducing sustained-agility at the high-speeds it routinely flew at for it's attack runs or at the very least provide a rather rough ride)
3.) A more powerful J-75 variant or more powerful engine AND a revised wing with lighter wing loading  (Best of both worlds)

...To reduce it's loss of attrition though, one could revise the electronics to give it all-weather strike capability with or without the previously mentioned aerodynamic or engine modifications

Yeah, pretty much my thoughts too. Other things you could do are delete the bomb bay entirely and replace it with fuel, thereby reducing the need for tanks on the limited number of wing pylons, and re-instate the raised 2-seat cockpit of the abortive F-105C trainer variant, to give better visability (the view out of the back of a -G sucked).

However, another thought occured to me. Rather than trying to make a fighter out of the Thud, just re-instate it with the original wing and the bomb-bay mod as a pur attack aircraft. Then for the fighter role, produce a "Tactical-Dart" from the F-106. The Gunfighter evaluation showed that it was agile and a got it a gun instead of the Genie: all of that could have been done earlier. It would benefit from a conventional canopy/windscreen, a different radar/fire-control setup (rather than the semi-automatic data-linked ADC one) and a Sparrow/Sidewinder weapon fit.




Quote
Why did the F4H-1/F-4B have the upward canted (dihedral outboard of the fold-line) wing-section?

KJ Lesnick

They realised that they needed the dihedral (don't know why though) and it was easier to kink the outer panels which were already separate than to re-design the whole centre wing box and make the u/c longer.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on December 26, 2008, 07:33:27 pm
Weaver,

Quote
Not to mention the "lightly modifed F-18C/D" that is the F-18E/F....... :rolleyes:

Good point.

Quote
Whoa - I am most certainly NOT suggesting trying to land a Thud on a carrier!  :blink: what I mean is that the AH-1(F3H-H) provides a similar single-seat heavy strike capability to the F-105 whilst being carrier compatible.

Okay, I understand what you mean

Quote
The Super Crusader didn't have a gun though.....

Actually I'm not entirely sure that's true...  The prototype did not have guns, but the production model was to have 4 x 20 mm cannons.  I doubt it would have made much of a difference though, as few of the F-8's kills in Vietnam were performed with guns (a total of 9) with the rest performed with Zuni-rockets and AIM-9 Sidewinders.  For all I know, though, I could be wrong (The F-8's gun had a high incidence of jamming, I don't know if the proposed guns for the Super-Crusader would have had as high an incidence of jamming)

Quote
Perhaps an attack-focussed AH-1 would pay more attention to survivability, with armour, redundant systems and the like.

I don't think so.  To my knowledge the F4H-1 was designed with the same survivability the AH-1 would have had...

Quote
Had the AH-1 gone ahead, I doubt if the A-7 would have been built at all: too much cross-over with the AH-1, who's strike "envelop" would be shifted significantly from the A-6's territory to the A4's. What you might end up with is a uniform all AH-1 strike force on big carriers and all A-4s on Essexes.

I honestly don't know.

Quote
Yeah, pretty much my thoughts too. Other things you could do are delete the bomb bay entirely and replace it with fuel, thereby reducing the need for tanks on the limited number of wing pylons, and re-instate the raised 2-seat cockpit of the abortive F-105C trainer variant, to give better visability (the view out of the back of a -G sucked).

Deleting the bomb-bay isn't actually a bad idea... it worked on the original design but it was virtually never used in Vietnam.

Quote
However, another thought occured to me. Rather than trying to make a fighter out of the Thud, just re-instate it with the original wing and the bomb-bay mod as a pur attack aircraft.

I think all-weather capability would be a serious thing to consider however.  The F-105 was restricted to day use only.

Quote
Then for the fighter role, produce a "Tactical-Dart" from the F-106. The Gunfighter evaluation showed that it was agile and a got it a gun instead of the Genie: all of that could have been done earlier. It would benefit from a conventional canopy/windscreen, a different radar/fire-control setup (rather than the semi-automatic data-linked ADC one) and a Sparrow/Sidewinder weapon fit.

Fitting a streamlined gun-pack to the center weapons-bay and revising the cockpit (removing the metal-braces) as done with the sharpshooter-mod is obviously a good idea.  Re-doing the fire-control system probably is do-able.  As for the Sparrow and Sidewinder mounting, I know you can actually fit an AIM-120 in the left and right weapons bays, though I don't know how if an AIM-7 is exactly the same length (it might be longer and is definitely heavier).  I don't know exactly how significant the drag-effects would amount to carrying them externally on flush-mounts.

Quote
They realised that they needed the dihedral (don't know why though) and it was easier to kink the outer panels which were already separate than to re-design the whole centre wing box and make the u/c longer.

Okay, understood. 


KJ Lesnick
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rallymodeller on December 26, 2008, 11:32:07 pm
According to the sources I have on hand the Super Crusader was never to have any guns installed, nor was there really anyplace to put them. The Sparrow fit pretty much took up any space for guns -- it even displaced the nosewheel to an off-centerline position. Remember, when the Super Crusader was in the works, guns were way out of fashion. Missiles were the way to go, you know.

As to giving the Thud a larger wing: lowering the wing loading would have negated any advantages the F-105 had as a low-level high-speed bomber. One of the reasons the Thud was such a good attack aircraft was that it's wing loading was so high that it had almost no gust response at low level. Pilots transferring from the F-105 to the F-4 often complained about the Phantom's rough ride down in the weeds (sort of the same situation now with F-111 pilots who went to the F-15E). It is also worth noting that the high wing loading of the F-101 also made it a superior strike aircraft (F-101A) as well as being a very stable recon platform.

There are always tradeoffs. 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on December 27, 2008, 02:44:05 am
One of the scenarios I was considering was a range of new F-105 variants: updated strikers with the original wing and new, more fighter-like ones with reduced weight and an enlarged wing. On reflection though, I still think it would be better to "Phantomise" the F-106 than the F-105 if there were no Phantoms.

Everybody always insists that the F-105 was a good strike aircraft but a lousy fighter. Interestingly, it actually scored 27.5 victories in air-to-air combat compared to 22 losses, and most of those were with the gun, since the lack of pylons meant that they rarely carried Sidewinders. Wonder what a pair of Sidewinders on tip pylons would have done for that figure?

Anyway, we're getting off the point here: redesigning the F-8U, F-105 and F-106 in detail is a job for their own threads: I only raised them as likely gap-fillers if the multi-role Phantom never happened. Now what about the consequences for other F-4 users: what would the Brits, Japanese, Germans, Israelis et al have bought if the Phantom was just a single-seat attack jet?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Geoff on December 28, 2008, 11:04:58 am
One of the scenarios I was considering was a range of new F-105 variants: updated strikers with the original wing and new, more fighter-like ones with reduced weight and an enlarged wing. On reflection though, I still think it would be better to "Phantomise" the F-106 than the F-105 if there were no Phantoms.

Everybody always insists that the F-105 was a good strike aircraft but a lousy fighter. Interestingly, it actually scored 27.5 victories in air-to-air combat compared to 22 losses, and most of those were with the gun, since the lack of pylons meant that they rarely carried Sidewinders. Wonder what a pair of Sidewinders on tip pylons would have done for that figure?

Anyway, we're getting off the point here: redesigning the F-8U, F-105 and F-106 in detail is a job for their own threads: I only raised them as likely gap-fillers if the multi-role Phantom never happened. Now what about the consequences for other F-4 users: what would the Brits, Japanese, Germans, Israelis et al have bought if the Phantom was just a single-seat attack jet?

Hi, IIRC the Thuds carried one Sidewinder under one wing and an ECM pod under the other for self defence when operating over North Vietnam,at least at one point in time.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PR19_Kit on January 02, 2009, 11:50:42 am
Now what about the consequences for other F-4 users: what would the Brits, Japanese, Germans, Israelis et al have bought if the Phantom was just a single-seat attack jet?

TSR2s of course.......... :)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on January 05, 2009, 11:20:54 am
Just out of curiousity, why did the F-4's Ailerons only deflect downwards (with a spoileron popping on the "up" side) rather than the normal set-up which has one aileron going up and one going down?

I do remember hearing some explanation awhile back but I forgot honestly.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Daryl J. on January 16, 2009, 09:37:02 pm
This caught my eye today and wouldn't mind making a photo-recon variant of it:

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/f3hgtm_1.htm (http://hsfeatures.com/features04/f3hgtm_1.htm)

[Edit] Hasegawa 1/72 RF-4E purchased just for this.




Daryl J.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Daryl J. on January 17, 2009, 01:34:50 pm
What I'd like to do to Hasegawa's F-4J is to create a machine similar to the link above but have it serve the Navy alongside the F-3H-x Demon and the Phantom in a photo recon role.    It would have a 50+ year service life.

Shorten the nose further than it is on the J, revise the intakes backwards in time to rememble the F3H-G mockup,  redo the leading edge of the wing to match the increased sweep of the dog tooth, de-kink the main wing, lengthen the fuselage aft of the engines, reprofile the vertical stab, reduce and reshape the horizontal stabs and reduce the anhedral, short nozzels for the J-79 if modeling budget allows, and have unique fuel/photo/electonic pods underslung on Phantom hard points.    Paint in a blend of old and new ideas:   Pattern:  Gull Grey over White but use a lightened Tamiya X-59 Desert Yellow substituted for the grey, Hi Viz markings, red tail and trim.   

As an aside, the XF-88 is planned to get a similar treatment but for the USAF.


Daryl J., getting ready to put a #15 blade and scribing needle to styrene
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on August 06, 2009, 04:11:20 am
What if some Commonwealth Nations had gone down the route of the Phantom in the Late 60's early 70's

RAAF actually used the F4E till they got their F111's and the RAF/RN used the FG1/FGR2.

The Australian Govt decide to follow the UK lead and Equip the larger carriers with the F4K and the RAAF to get F4M instead of Mirage III and the Buccaneer for the FAA & instead of the F111.

The Canadians get the F4K for their large carrier and the F4M instead of the F101 Voodoo CANUSADZ and F104 Star Fighter for RCAF Germany

New Zealand gets F4M instead of the A4K
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on August 06, 2009, 04:28:46 am
Couple of things strike me:

1. The Spey conversion was expensive and not particularly successful, so given a straight choice, the Aus/Can forces might well have gone for J-79 versions instead. However, since the Spey conversion was motivated by politics rather than technicalities, the same forces might be brought to bear on a Commonwealth buy. As it was, all the Brit Phantoms were built in St.Louis: with a suitably big combined order, a licence production deal might have been possible, with politically desirable workshare for Aus and Canada.

2. NZ would probably have struggled with the running costs of an F4 fleet. How about giving them the RAAF's cast-off Mirages with a big upgrade in the mid 1980s when such things became widely available?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on August 06, 2009, 05:11:55 am
Alot of NZ's financial woes of the 70's were caused by the UK's realignment as alot of NZ exports went to the UK and with the EEC rules thease had to be cut back.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on August 06, 2009, 07:26:40 am
Alot of NZ's financial woes of the 70's were caused by the UK's realignment as alot of NZ exports went to the UK and with the EEC rules thease had to be cut back.

So we stay out of the EEC so the NZers can buy American aircraft?  ;D

Actually, we could well have stayed out: the referendum was close-run and I'm not the only one by a LONG way who'd like to see a re-count..... >:( ;D

This probably feeds more into your other thread in Alt. History.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on August 06, 2009, 08:04:16 am
If you think about the Commonwealth Negiotating with MCDD over the Phantom and the Production run of the Spey Engined aircraft being lengthened the development cost would have been spread out and Maybe MCDD would have liscenced production to Commonwealth countries.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on August 06, 2009, 09:30:12 am
Adding to Weaver's comments, another factor in favour of purchasing J79 variants is that Canadian and Australian forces would most likely
be working with US forces far more often than they would UK forces and using the same engines would simplify logistics.  Just a reality of the post-WWII world.

Here's an option, ditch the Spey Phantom altogether and the everybody, UK included, uses J79 powered machines, not an unlikely scenario as there
were many who questioned the re-engining project.


Jon
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on August 06, 2009, 03:25:25 pm
The J79 would always have been the better option but the British wanted to agnlicize the phantom as much as possible. With the change if Foreign policy stance I have outlined the British, Australians and New Zealanders would be working together east of Suez 28th Commonwealth Brigade would have continued in Singapore.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Sauragnmon on August 06, 2009, 03:36:56 pm
See, I could quite imagine the RCAF liking the Spey Phantoms, as they were originally looking to get the Phantom not for Voodoo/104 replacement, but for Supplementation in Tactical Air Support.  A lot of the modifications, in addition to the longer cruise range, better low-altitude accelleration, would probably have been appealing to the RCAF brass.  The Extending Nosegear would amusingly also be added to the CF-5 when we built them, because we didn't like the takeoff rolls for the F-5 as well, so I could imagine that would have continued in service.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on August 06, 2009, 06:42:51 pm
Adding to Weaver's comments, another factor in favour of purchasing J79 variants is that Canadian and Australian forces would most likely
be working with US forces far more often than they would UK forces and using the same engines would simplify logistics.  Just a reality of the post-WWII world.

Here's an option, ditch the Spey Phantom altogether and the everybody, UK included, uses J79 powered machines, not an unlikely scenario as there
were many who questioned the re-engining project.


Jon

Or alternately, with a big order in prospect, sit down with a clean sheet of paper and design a twin-Spey powered Phantom-sized aircraft from scratch. There was nothing wrong with the Spey in itself: the problems came from the mis-match with the Phantom airframe. The result, assuming conservative use of 1960s technology might have looked rather like a JH-7.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on August 06, 2009, 07:20:36 pm
Towards the end of the Phantoms life in RAF they also added a periscopic forward looking sight to allow the Navigator/WSo to help with visual recognition of a target the story I was told was the periscopes had been recovered from Chieftan or centurion tanks.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on August 06, 2009, 09:22:39 pm
Since the F-4E seems to be what a gun-armed Phantom really should be, I once contemplated modelling a F-4K with the nose and the cannon fairing of the F-4E grafted onto its forward fuselage...... until I realized that the F-4K has the folding radar radome in order to fit onto the elevators onboard the Ark Royal......

Which got me wondering...... did the elevator size influence the F-4K's configuration, or did the F-4K's configuration influence the elevator size?

Either way, is there a way to solve the elevator accommodation problem with the gun-equipped nose (i.e. along where should I make the nose radome fold)?

Here's an option, ditch the Spey Phantom altogether and the everybody, UK included, uses J79 powered machines, not an unlikely scenario as there
were many who questioned the re-engining project.

So...... what about the notion that Spey-powered F-4K was safer to operate from the smaller European fleet carriers (also the angle-deck-equipped Essex class, if the USN wanted to keep the ships in service)?

I did see pictures of USN Phantoms cross-decking with the British, but then again the American jets seemed always to launch without any external stores whatsoever- something that probably won't happen very often during a conflict......
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on August 07, 2009, 01:28:20 pm
Re Alt Phantom operators (at least of the Spey engined variety), may I point people to the following:

Saudi Arabia (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14124.30.html),
Pakistan (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14124.45.html),
New Zealand (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14124.45.html) (bottom of page),
USAF/South Vietnam/North Vietnam/Poland/Russia (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14124.75.html),
Australia (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14124.90.html),
Canada (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14124.135.html),
French/Chilean (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14124.180.html) (Story with single profile further down page), and
Israeli/Argentine, South African, Portuguese/Rhodesian, Swedish and Chinese (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14124.180.html) (stories only)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on September 29, 2009, 12:23:31 pm
I began to wonder: can a GSh-23 cannon fit into the F-4's Vulcan gun fairing?

It's just that I remember hearing someone mentioning before that the Russian twin-barrelled cannon is better suited for bomber interception (shells being more powerful) while the Vulcan is a better fighter combat weapon (higher muzzle velocity)......
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Sauragnmon on September 29, 2009, 12:34:28 pm
I would imagine that it could, in theory, owing to the fact of the massive size of the vulcan's chamber/motor/barrel assembly vs the volumetrically smaller gast gun design.  Alternatively, you could probably fit the GSh-30-1 in there for some Mega Punch.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: pyro-manic on September 29, 2009, 03:02:43 pm
Which got me wondering...... did the elevator size influence the F-4K's configuration, or did the F-4K's configuration influence the elevator size?

Either way, is there a way to solve the elevator accommodation problem with the gun-equipped nose (i.e. along where should I make the nose radome fold)?

Ark Royal was built long before any mark of Phantom. :) The gun would be a problem. An alternative could be a group of ADENs, as mounted on the Hawker Hunter. That aircraft had the cannons and ammunition in a pack that could drop out for quick rearming, and the barrels stayed in the aircraft. You could adapt this to the folding nose, with the barrels folding and the chambers and ammunition staying put.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Shasper on September 29, 2009, 07:51:35 pm
I had the idea of sticking a pair of gunpods in the fwd missile wells . . . Modded Harrier pods anyone?

Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on October 16, 2009, 10:48:16 pm
When reading on about Logan Hartke's Geriatric military thread, I found the Super Phantom to be a favourite among participants.

And then I was thinking...... the centreline hardpoint of the Phantom is known to be capable of carrying serious bomb loads, but the proposed conformal fuel tanks can carry more fuel while offering much less drag compared to the conventional centreline drop tank.

Is that confromal centreline tank of the Boeing Super Phantom removable?

If not...... what I was thinking is a variation of the RF-4X's extra tanks, attached conformally to the intersection joints of the fuselage spine and the engine nacelles......
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Sauragnmon on November 01, 2009, 09:12:37 pm
Had a rather random thought come past my head at a rather odd altitude - What if the French had done something similar to the Phantom, take the airframe, give it the Mirage style intakes with the souris on them... I think that might look pretty interesting.  Though I don't happen to have any Mirage intakes on hand unfortunately.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on January 21, 2010, 05:29:49 am
Suppose they decided to solve the Spey/F4 problems instead of eating them, and designed completely new intakes for it? They might have ended up with F-14-style intakes, which would have been a natural mounting point for canards.....
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on January 21, 2010, 10:29:19 pm
A F4E with speys would have made sense for the RAF, RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF. However given the extending front wheel leg of the F4K was to allow an angle of attack to get the Aircraft of the smaller Decks of UK carriers I would say F4K would be only variant with this.
 Wonder if the RN would have found operating Phantoms of the Proposed Malta class carriers any easier? Mind you a friend once mentioned that towards the end of Ark Royal every time a Phantom landed on it poped rivets out of the bottom of the ship with the force of impact!
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Sauragnmon on January 22, 2010, 12:20:49 pm
I have a feeling the RCAF would have wound up with F-4K or similar, for that extending nosewheel - the takeoff roll of the F-5 was too long for taste, so we redesigned it with an extending nosegear to shorten the roll, the Sled's takeoff roll is even more so if I recall, so it would have been quite likely as well in RCAF service, and considering we wanted them for air support at the time, Speys would have been the better choice, for fuel economy and low altitude performance.  Redesigned intakes might well have fixed the problem, though I recall hearing it threw off the plane's area ruling with enlarging the intakes, so shifting more weight aft might have been a better choice.

As to the Ark Royal, one could question if that was a case of the Phantom landing, or the lower grade of maintenance in the fleet - let's remember, that when they went off to war in the Falklands, the carriers had been rusting in peace beforehand.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: pyro-manic on January 22, 2010, 02:58:42 pm
Ark was knackered even before the Phantom refit. Eagle was in much better condition, and should have got the work done in her place, but the whole thing was a political move to get rid of fixed-wing naval aviation.

The extensive rust seen on Hermes on her return from the Falklands was unique to that ship - due to the lower-grade wartime rust-proofing used on her during construction. See Brown/Moore's "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" for details on that.

RCAF Phantoms in Germany would have been cool. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on January 22, 2010, 04:11:46 pm
Redesigned intakes might well have fixed the problem, though I recall hearing it threw off the plane's area ruling with enlarging the intakes, so shifting more weight aft might have been a better choice.

It wasn't so much the intakes that screwed up the area ruling as the bulged engine bays. The intakes only screwd up the engines by being mismatched to them.

Quote
As to the Ark Royal, one could question if that was a case of the Phantom landing, or the lower grade of maintenance in the fleet - let's remember, that when they went off to war in the Falklands, the carriers had been rusting in peace beforehand.

Ark didn't go the Falklands: she'd been paid off for scrap well beforehand (something Maggie didn't appreciate: apparently she had a major wobble when told that we didn't have a conventional carrier to send.... :rolleyes:). Of the carriers that did go, Hermes was old but in full service, and Invincible was brand new. Bulwark (Hermes' sister ship) had been converted into a "reserve ASW carrier" (no ski jump though) but had been laid up for sa couple of years due to a fire - there was talk of reactivating her for the Falklands, but a survey showed she was too far gone.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: norseman on January 24, 2010, 04:42:04 am
In the late 60's to early 70's there was an offer to fit the newly uprated Spey/TF41 engines to the Corsair, F14, F111 and Phantom, these were more economical, had better lifespan with reduced service costs but gave 17,500lb dry and 27,000lb reheat (28,000lb version was also offered in the early 70's). I am supposing that tight purse strings was why the RAF/RN Phantoms never had these Spey ugrades fitted but I know a fair bit of flight testing was carried out in Corsairs with the dry version. I can only imagine that the acceleration of a Phantom with these engines would have been spectacular and to get the added bonus of better economy was even better. There were no real competitors in these thrust regimes (for the size) at the end of the 60's and with the problems the TF30 engines had for years then with a bit better marketing and government investment we might have had a very wide customer base for the upgraded Spey, particularly in the F14's, F111's and dare I say it the F15?
I know the Chinese managed to get hold of a couple of these modified engines but didn't seem able to reverse engineer the technology so the JH7's stuck with the older lower thrust version.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on January 30, 2010, 09:32:07 pm
Anyone want to have ago at this:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ca15/CompleteAirForce.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on February 01, 2010, 02:30:47 pm
Likely to be just angle issues, but yeah, what say we put a compact, rocket-powered interceptor under the F-4's pylons as a way to get at MiG-25 recce planes?  ;D

(If Sparrow missiles couldn't do it more effectively......)

Or a Phantom-Leduc Mistel?  Use the Phantom for cruise flight, and the Leduc would then seperate and light up the ramjet for high speed run?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on February 01, 2010, 06:47:26 pm
Or you could have a Phantom carrying a small, manned, delta-winged rocket plane as the latest "commercial" means of getting NASA astronauts into space...... :wacko:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on February 02, 2010, 01:16:31 am
Likely to be just angle issues,

Actually no - it is meant to show a Phantom with a couple of Mirages attached underwing - it was a postcard sent to the Mirage boys when the RAAF briefly operated Phantoms.

Regards,

Greg

Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Nils on February 12, 2010, 11:11:21 am
i have ben thinking, after reading about the best F-4 upgrades over on the key publishing forum.
there are a lot of improvents on various Phantom upgrades, but how plausible would it be to combine the best features of all upgrades (python-4 from kurnas 2000, AMRAAM & Radar from the F-4F ICE, CFT's from the F-4X,...)

i have been thinking of improving the F-4X, by keeping the CFT's but with a  single peice canopy. but i was wondering, how plausible is it to fit an GE F404 or F414 engine on the spook  :huh:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: apophenia on February 12, 2010, 01:16:45 pm
... but i was wondering, how plausible is it to fit an GE F404 or F414 engine on the spook  :huh:

Well the PW1120 fit into the F-4E (IDF Kurnass 2000 development airframe) so the shorter, smaller, and lighter F404 would be no problem. IIRC, the PW1120 mountings moved the engine aft to maintain balance. That might be an issue for the F404 which weighs about 2500 lbs less than the J79.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Daryl J. on February 21, 2010, 10:58:40 am
What determined the length of the Phantom?  The elevators on carriers?    If not, how much longer could a Phantom fuselage have been and still been functional on a carrier deck?      

Once Monogram rereleases the F-4C/D, the plan is to blend in ideas from the older  F-3H-H/G design and possibly some F-3H Demon characteristics.    Just because.   ;D ;D.    Raised panel line kits are more amenable to whiffing for me.

[Edit]  About 5-6 feet to be added here and there and about 1-2 feet removed from the nose netting about a 4 foot length increase.   See Tory M's F3H-G/H from the Aurora Phantom (one of which was sent via the Young Model Builder's Club---I wish it was still in possession) on Hyperscale from some time back.
http://hsfeatures.com/features04/f3hgtm_1.htm (http://hsfeatures.com/features04/f3hgtm_1.htm)



Thanks again,
Daryl J.

PS:  Mods, if there's a better place for this matter, don't hesitate to move it.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 21, 2010, 11:26:12 am
PS:  Mods, if there's a better place for this matter, don't hesitate to move it.
Merged with the F-4 Phantom Discussion under the Hot Topics Forum.

What determined the length of the Phantom?  The elevators on carriers?    If not, how much longer could a Phantom fuselage have been and still been functional on a carrier deck?     

Once Monogram rereleases the F-4C/D, the plan is to blend in ideas from the older  F-3H-H/G design and possibly some F-3H Demon characteristics.    Just because.   ;D ;D.    Raised panel line kits are more amenable to whiffing for me.


I am hoping Revell/Monogram will release the F-B/J from Monogram since it has the Navy peculiar ECM/ESM fairings included in the kit as well as the Navy type inboard pylons which were originally configured to launch a single Sparrow missile before modification with the adapter to allow carriage of a triple ejector rack/multiple bomb release gear and a pair of Sidewinders.   Either Phantom is a great kit for the price and they do look like a Phantom in overall appearance.  So rivet counters and panel deviates be damned! 

The missiles provided in both versions will need to be considered for replacement.  The AIM-7 Sparrow shapes have just three fins (forward and at the rear) instead of four for each station and depending on which version of the F-4C/D this is the AIM-9 Sidewinders in the original kit were a bit chunky on the control surface details.  There was a later release of the F-4C/D that had an additional sprue included for an Air National Guard/Air Defense Command version that contained four additional AIM-9L Sidewinders which were substantially better looking than the original kit weapons.  The ADC version will also have the SUU-19 Gun Pod, some ECM pods and a missile well mounted strike camera that was originally carried  for bomb damage assessment during air strikes.  So hopefully will have some extra parts for other projects left over unless Revell/Monogram chose to delete those items which would be most unfortunate. 

Regarding the fuselage length.  Since all of the modern U.S. Navy carriers have deck edge elevators the length would not be as critical as the wheel base.  If you can manage to extend your fuselage and keep the landing gear inside the same footprint (for lack of a better description) you could increase the length to rival the A-3 or A-5 which were both longer than the F-4. 

Elevator dimensions aboard other carriers build during and just after WWII and Korea would have had restrictions on the overall length for the elevators situated in the flight deck with no waterfront view which is why you see the folding nose feature on some aircraft operated by the Royal Navy. 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Daryl J. on February 21, 2010, 11:38:33 am
Perfect.   A better answer than I'd even hoped for.

Thanks muchly.


 :cheers: (Irish Breakfast Tea, cream, sugar, and a quiet Sunday morning),
Daryl J.
Title: F-4 Phantom Bang-Seat for your office?
Post by: John Howling Mouse on February 21, 2010, 05:30:58 pm
wow...really gotta get me one of THESE:

http://nexus404.com/Blog/2009/07/02/motoart-f-4-phantom-ejection-seat-chair-f-4-office-chair-great-for-quick-exits/
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: elmayerle on February 21, 2010, 08:00:01 pm
... but i was wondering, how plausible is it to fit an GE F404 or F414 engine on the spook  :huh:

Well the PW1120 fit into the F-4E (IDF Kurnass 2000 development airframe) so the shorter, smaller, and lighter F404 would be no problem. IIRC, the PW1120 mountings moved the engine aft to maintain balance. That might be an issue for the F404 which weighs about 2500 lbs less than the J79.
Given that the F404 and F414 share the same basic envelope, I'd prefer to install the F414 since the F404 has performance closer to the early J79s in the F-4B/C.  I rather suspect some interesting weight and balance problems here, especially since the F-4 doesn't employ flight control computers to the extent later designs do, if at all.  When the USN couldn't supply upgraded flight control computers for the F110 installation on the F-14, Grumman and Ge had to redesign the afterburner section of the F110 to get the engine core to a location where it wouldn't severely impact weight and balance; you might have to do the same with the F404/414; one reason I'd go with the PW1120.  I know McAir studied the F404 as a replacement for the J79 but dropped it from consideration after the preliminary study.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on April 02, 2010, 12:28:40 pm
Some real life proposals to develop a dedicated ground attack version of the Phantom (ala MiG-23 - MiG-27) - note the replacement of the radar by cannon amongst other things (the first pic also has only a single crew member).  This is part of a 1964 report I can email anyone if they're interested.

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98GAInternalArrangement.gif)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98FZInternalArrangement.gif)

Might make an easy catch for the JMNs - model this and then when they say it's wrong, produce the report.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: MAD on April 02, 2010, 07:35:52 pm
Some real life proposals to develop a dedicated ground attack version of the Phantom (ala MiG-23 - MiG-27) - note the replacement of the radar by cannon amongst other things (the first pic also has only a single crew member).  This is part of a 1964 report I can email anyone if they're interested.

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98GAInternalArrangement.gif)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98FZInternalArrangement.gif)

Might make an easy catch for the JMNs - model this and then when they say it's wrong, produce the report.

Put me down for your offer of emailing a copy of that 1964 report please Greg!

Thanks in advance

M.A.D

Regards,

Greg

Put me down for your kind offer of emailing a copy of that 1964 report please Greg!

Thanks in advance

M.A.D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on April 02, 2010, 10:09:19 pm
Some real life proposals to develop a dedicated ground attack version of the Phantom (ala MiG-23 - MiG-27) - note the replacement of the radar by cannon amongst other things (the first pic also has only a single crew member).  This is part of a 1964 report I can email anyone if they're interested.

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98GAInternalArrangement.gif)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98FZInternalArrangement.gif)

Might make an easy catch for the JMNs - model this and then when they say it's wrong, produce the report.

Regards,

Greg

Obviously this was pre-F-4E.  Interesting that they had plans to utilise a laser designator (I assume a designator) that early.   Which brings up an interesting question.  Anybody know a good history of the military development/utilisation of early laser systems?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on June 15, 2010, 12:38:36 pm
I'm think of an idea that...... probably shouldn't involve guns.  I mean, if the F-4E can mount a bigger radar than the F-4D/S, then of course I'd choose the F-4E as a basis, but the F-4D/S does give me an impression of having a bigger radome.

So here is my question.  Which one has a bigger radar radome and space for other electronics: F-4D/S or F-4E?

EDIT: Did some search in this thread...... as the starting post of this thread suggests, I might not be the only one to feel that F-4D/S has the bigger radome......
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 16, 2010, 09:30:38 am
The F-4B/C/D/J/K/N/S all have roughly the same radome size.  The F-4E/F-4F/F-4G has a smaller radome.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on June 23, 2010, 03:58:53 pm
With reference to the topic title, Are there any aftermarket decal sets for the F-110 ?

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Shasper on June 26, 2010, 10:21:42 am
The F-4B/C/D/J/K/N/S all have roughly the same radome size.  The F-4E/F-4F/F-4G has a smaller radome.

Depends on which F-4G we're talking about . . . there were about a dozen or so "G" models (Bs fitted with an automatic landing system IIRC) assigned to VF-213 during the last half of the '60s before the aircraft reverted back to B config.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: anthonyp on June 26, 2010, 10:52:18 am
The F-4B/C/D/J/K/N/S all have roughly the same radome size.  The F-4E/F-4F/F-4G has a smaller radome.

Depends on which F-4G we're talking about . . . there were about a dozen or so "G" models (Bs fitted with an automatic landing system IIRC) assigned to VF-213 during the last half of the '60s before the aircraft reverted back to B config.

That G no one talks about anymore.  There were only 12 built, and they were all converted back after 3 years (in 1966).  The external differences between it and the B was an extendable antennae forward the landing gear.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on June 26, 2010, 11:31:11 am
The F-4B/C/D/J/K/N/S all have roughly the same radome size.  The F-4E/F-4F/F-4G has a smaller radome.

Depends on which F-4G we're talking about . . . there were about a dozen or so "G" models (Bs fitted with an automatic landing system IIRC) assigned to VF-213 during the last half of the '60s before the aircraft reverted back to B config.

That G no one talks about anymore.  There were only 12 built, and they were all converted back after 3 years (in 1966).  The external differences between it and the B was an extendable antennae forward the landing gear.

In the grand scheme of things, I intend to choose the F-4S as a basis- larger radome, and the lack of existing chin pod fairing means I can put one on to represent perhaps any special capability that I wish.

This project, should I get around executing it, would probably be the first one to include a cockpit illustration...... 'cause that one might be a what-if, too...... ;D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on July 04, 2010, 11:36:10 pm
Folks,

Options for kits in 1/48 with the FGR.1's extending nose landing gear or just the landing gear itself?

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: kitnut617 on July 05, 2010, 03:23:35 am
Folks,

Options for kits in 1/48 with the FGR.1's extending nose landing gear or just the landing gear itself?

Regards,

Greg

Landing gear here Greg

http://www.greatmodels.com/~smartcart/cgi/display.cgi?item_num=SCV48081

Wheels here:

http://www.greatmodels.com/~smartcart/cgi/display.cgi?item_num=AHM4415
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on July 06, 2010, 03:15:11 am
Thanks - you're a legend!

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on September 18, 2010, 02:42:30 pm
Quick single seat, slimmed F-4:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/avia893.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on September 18, 2010, 04:57:20 pm
Quick single seat, slimmed F-4:

I like where you are going with this idea.  Now if you can give it a one piece windscreen (as used on the F-15 and F-18) to improve forward visibility. 

Nice Greg! That canopy is very F4H  :thumbsup:

This may be sacrilege to Phantom-o-philes but the cannon arrangement on the F-4 seems too much the afterthought that it obviously was. An 'empty' back seat provides an obvious space for placing the ammunition drum closer to the c/g if the M61 were moved aft. (I've also moved the radome higher up -- as per the F4H.)

The empty back seat would be an ideal location for a lot of the avionics that had been previously located in hard to access areas of the fuselage.  That would then free up additional space for fuel and your ammunition drum in these vacated areas. 

In your drawing I am correct in the assumption that you have mounted the gun in the forward missile well?

Were you aware of the original proposals for the gun armed Phantom which had the weapon mounted in one of the rear Sparrow missile wells?  It was an odd location but considering the shortage of space the location forward and under the nose made a lot more sense. 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Shasper on September 18, 2010, 05:44:05 pm
Back when what became the F4H was first pitched, it had 4 20mm guns mounted under the intakes similar to the F3H.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on September 18, 2010, 05:49:01 pm
Those last two phantoms are marvels! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Daryl J. on September 19, 2010, 12:57:55 am
...and the Monogram Phantom is out.... :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


Daryl J., ready to Cut and Paste, Washington State style. 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: MAD on September 19, 2010, 04:19:26 am
Quick single seat, slimmed F-4:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/avia893.jpg)

Regards,

Greg

Hey Greg, nice, very nice :bow:

For almost my intire life I have begged the question on how a single-seat Phantom II would look :wub:

Could we raise the cockpit a little (as a lesson from Vietnam), so as to give the pilot a better rear view?

M.A.D 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: MAD on September 19, 2010, 04:27:11 am
Nice Greg! That canopy is very F4H  :thumbsup:

This may be sacrilege to Phantom-o-philes but the cannon arrangement on the F-4 seems too much the afterthought that it obviously was. An 'empty' back seat provides an obvious space for placing the ammunition drum closer to the c/g if the M61 were moved aft. (I've also moved the radome higher up -- as per the F4H.)

Hell Apophenia, I love your single-seat Phantom II concept as well  :thumbsup:

You make this as hard as having to choose between to beautiful twins  :wacko: (Hell lucky I have never had the opportunity ;D)

I like the idea of the gun relocation, but I think I would stick with the original F-4E arrangement, and utilize the back-seater`s vacated space as a weight saver for improved thrust-to-weight ratio and air-to-air performance!!!

M.A.D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on September 19, 2010, 05:28:28 am
what about a stretched nose, similar to the F-4E(S).
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on September 19, 2010, 06:59:56 am
Nice Greg! That canopy is very F4H  :thumbsup:

This may be sacrilege to Phantom-o-philes but the cannon arrangement on the F-4 seems too much the afterthought that it obviously was. An 'empty' back seat provides an obvious space for placing the ammunition drum closer to the c/g if the M61 were moved aft. (I've also moved the radome higher up -- as per the F4H.)

Hell Apophenia, I love your single-seat Phantom II concept as well  :thumbsup:

You make this as hard as having to choose between to beautiful twins  :wacko: (Hell lucky I have never had the opportunity ;D)

I like the idea of the gun relocation, but I think I would stick with the original F-4E arrangement, and utilize the back-seater`s vacated space as a weight saver for improved thrust-to-weight ratio and air-to-air performance!!!

M.A.D

Errr, that actually doesn't save any weight over apophenia's idea of relocating the gun.  If anything it means the gun is kept in the less than satisfactory nose position (as far as weight distribution is concerned).  Putting it under the fuselage, fed from a magazine in the rear seat position, means that the weight of the ammunition is closer to the c-of-g, which means the aircraft would be more manoeuvrable.   All he's proposing is a redistribution of weight, not an increase.  The thrust-to-weight ratio would remain the same and the air-to-air performance actually improved.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: dy031101 on September 19, 2010, 07:09:30 am
How easily can the gun(s) be made a customer-specified equipment (for example, a pair of DEFA 30mm instead of the M61 if so desired) in apophenia's single-seat Phantom?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on September 19, 2010, 10:21:28 am
Boeing F-4 (enchanced)/ super phantom had a raised canopy.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Pablo1965 on September 19, 2010, 11:22:40 am
The Phamtome with variable geometric wings is one of the best ideas over this plane that I ever seen
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: anthonyp on September 20, 2010, 05:45:11 pm
In 1976, McDonnell Douglas responds to concerns over the forthcoming Hornet's escalating costs/weight and range limitations with yet another variation on the Phantom. The entire nose section of the F/A-18B is grafted on to the fuselage of the F-4 to lower development costs.

Northrop, MD's erstwhile partner in the F/A-18 program, counters with lawsuits and a fresh proposal of its own. The result would become that most well-known of modern USN carrier fighters, the F/A-17 Sea Cobra series.  ;D

Now, THAT is thing of beauty and demands to be built!!!!!

Great something else I have to think about.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on September 20, 2010, 10:22:26 pm
I have been wondering for some time what an F-4 Phantom would look like in plan form with the wings of an F-15 added to it.  Now I know.  As you can see in the attached image it is certainly different looking.  I also tried added the wings from an F-18 to the F-4 Phantom but it did not turn out very well so I deleted the file.  This concept certainly has potential if you can manage to mate the F-15 upper wing section with the portion of the lower F-4 wing section that contains the wheel wells it just might work.  The only advantage that the F-18 wing brought to the party was the wing tip mounted missile launch rails. 
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on September 21, 2010, 04:34:21 am
Wonder if you could combine the last two ideas, i.e. the F/A-18B forward fuselage and the F-15 wing? Flat F-15 tailplanes would look good too, although you'd have to make the fin even bigger to compensate. You could also complete the update by changing the intakes to F-15-style horizontal ramp types, possibly by scaleorama-ing the intakes off something like a 1/100th F-15 or a 1/144th MiG-25.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on September 21, 2010, 05:28:35 am
How easily can the gun(s) be made a customer-specified equipment (for example, a pair of DEFA 30mm instead of the M61 if so desired) in apophenia's single-seat Phantom?

How much money are you prepared to spend?  :)

Anything is possible with appropriate funding.  All that is required is some imaginative metal work.  It wouldn't be too hard, put one cannon in each missile well.  Dispersion might be a bit wide, thats all.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ChernayaAkula on September 21, 2010, 04:56:27 pm
Go for it!  :party: That Hornet/Phantom bash really HAS to be built! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: MAD on September 21, 2010, 11:49:47 pm
Nice Greg! That canopy is very F4H  :thumbsup:

This may be sacrilege to Phantom-o-philes but the cannon arrangement on the F-4 seems too much the afterthought that it obviously was. An 'empty' back seat provides an obvious space for placing the ammunition drum closer to the c/g if the M61 were moved aft. (I've also moved the radome higher up -- as per the F4H.)

Hell Apophenia, I love your single-seat Phantom II concept as well  :thumbsup:

You make this as hard as having to choose between to beautiful twins  :wacko: (Hell lucky I have never had the opportunity ;D)

I like the idea of the gun relocation, but I think I would stick with the original F-4E arrangement, and utilize the back-seater`s vacated space as a weight saver for improved thrust-to-weight ratio and air-to-air performance!!!

M.A.D

Errr, that actually doesn't save any weight over apophenia's idea of relocating the gun.  If anything it means the gun is kept in the less than satisfactory nose position (as far as weight distribution is concerned).  Putting it under the fuselage, fed from a magazine in the rear seat position, means that the weight of the ammunition is closer to the c-of-g, which means the aircraft would be more manoeuvrable.   All he's proposing is a redistribution of weight, not an increase.  The thrust-to-weight ratio would remain the same and the air-to-air performance actually improved.

Fair enough!

Thanks

M.A.D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on January 19, 2011, 12:23:38 am
As seen on Secret Projects:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/xF-4MFVSRoyalNavyartwork.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on January 19, 2011, 01:13:59 pm
With reference to the topic title, Are there any after market decal sets for the F-110 or does anyone have some sitting around spare?

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: pyro-manic on January 19, 2011, 01:23:04 pm
I know Hasegawa did a F-110 boxing of their Phantom kit. Don't know how easy it will be to find one, but there's a preview of it on modelling madness: http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/viet/previews/has/00618.htm

GTX: That's gorgeous. :wub:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on January 19, 2011, 01:26:49 pm
I know Hasegawa did a F-110 boxing of their Phantom "A" kit. Don't know how easy it will be to find one, but there's a preview of it on modelling madness: http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/viet/previews/has/00618.htm

It would be more difficult than getting blood from a stone to find one of Hasegawa's boxing's let alone finding one at a reasonable price seeing that it was a limited run boxing. But Yes that is what I am after, or equivelant decals by themselves as I have enough Hasegawa Phantom kits to build one.

Gondor   
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on January 20, 2011, 02:29:09 am

GTX: That's gorgeous. :wub:

Isn't it just.  Makes me want to look at modelling it!

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on March 23, 2011, 01:29:35 am
Anyone want to profile or model this one before it becomes reality?

Quote
Croatia offered German Phantoms to replace MiG-21s
By Igor Bozinovski

Germany has offered Croatia a possible deal to acquire 20 of its McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom fighters, as Zagreb nears a decision on how to replace its remaining Soviet-era Mikoyan MiG-21s. Just two of these are available at any given time to protect its airspace.

Croatia must retire its eight MiG-21bisD fighters and two MiG-21UMD trainers by November 2013, while the German air force plans to phase out its last ICE upgrade-standard Phantoms by the end of the same year.

Cash-strapped Croatia is considering whether to launch a competition for a new supersonic fighter, or move for an interim solution that would allow it to slip an expensive purchase by around five years.

Germany has offered Croatia a possible deal to acquire 20 of its McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom fighters, as Zagreb nears a decision on how to replace its remaining Soviet-era Mikoyan MiG-21s

Alternatively, it could opt to retire its MiG-21s with no replacement capability and request that NATO cover its air defence requirements until its financial situation improves.

Flown from its 91 AFB at Pula, Croatia's MiG-21s were produced between 1972 and 1980 and upgraded with NATO-compatible systems by Romania's Aerostar in 1993.

Wittmund-based Fighter Wing 71 is the German air force's sole remaining F-4F unit, with the type flown by its 711 and 712 squadrons. Two of the aircraft are providing quick reaction alert cover for NATO members Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from the latter's Siauliai air base, with the commitment to end on 28 April.

Germany's Phantoms accumulated more than 5,000 flight hours last year, but use of the type will be reduced to 3,000h in 2011, 1,800h in 2012 and 900h in 2013.

DATE:21/03/11
SOURCE:Flight International
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ChernayaAkula on March 23, 2011, 03:06:42 pm
Anyone want to profile or model this one before it becomes reality?

Quote
Croatia offered German Phantoms to replace MiG-21s

Iranian F-14A's already done it. LINKY! (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,12634.msg494243.html#msg494243)  :thumbsup: And it looks brilliant!
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on March 25, 2011, 12:24:21 pm
Anyone want to profile or model this one before it becomes reality?

Quote
Croatia offered German Phantoms to replace MiG-21s

Iranian F-14A's already done it. LINKY! (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,12634.msg494243.html#msg494243)  :thumbsup: And it looks brilliant!

Doh, missed that - good work!

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: pyro-manic on March 25, 2011, 05:27:51 pm
Phantoms sounds ideal if all the Croatians want is air defence. My main concern would be how expensive are they to run and maintain? I think that would be the biggest problem for a country with a very limited budget.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ytown2010 on August 05, 2011, 07:18:23 pm
What about re-engining the F-4 with EJ200s?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ChernayaAkula on August 05, 2011, 09:43:10 pm
What about re-engining the F-4 with EJ200s?

On paper, that reads like WIN! (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/Emoticons/woo.gif)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on August 06, 2011, 01:09:13 pm
Possible, though you would require some sort of adapter given the EJ200 is a lot smaller than the J79.

I would have still liked to see where the various PW1120 turbofan (which was a derivative of the F100 from F-15/16 fame) powered variants such as the Boeing Super Phantom or IAI F-4-2000 Super Phantom could have ended up.  The IAI aircraft could supposedly exceed Mach 1 without afterburners and also supposedly resulted in an aircraft with 17% better combat thrust-to-weight ratio, 36% improved climb rate, and a 15% improved sustained turn rate than the F-4E.

Take that and continue it through to today with the same type of improvements the core F100 has seen and you could have something quite spectacular.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 06, 2011, 01:19:51 pm
Possible, though you would require some sort of adapter given the EJ200 is a lot smaller than the J79.

So put THREE of them in there........  :lol: ;)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on August 06, 2011, 01:36:06 pm

I would have still liked to see where the various PW1120 turbofan (which was a derivative of the F100 from F-15/16 fame) powered variants such as the Boeing Super Phantom or IAI F-4-2000 Super Phantom could have ended up. 


So if I used a pair of exhausts from an early Hasegawa F-15 in an F-4E I would have the basis for an IAI F-4-2000 ?

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on August 06, 2011, 02:10:14 pm

So if I used a pair of exhausts from an early Hasegawa F-15 in an F-4E I would have the basis for an IAI F-4-2000 ?


Not quite - though there is no reason why you couldn't come up with a credible story for it so don't let me stop you.

The two Super Phantoms are shown below - the lower is the Israeli one:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/SuperPhantoms.jpg)

In addition, here are some photos of the IAI Super Phantom from Le Bourget '87:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/attachment.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/attachment-1.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/attachment-3.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/attachment-2.jpg)

Also, here are some photos from the Israeli Air Force Museum showing the exhaust of a PW1120 (from the Lavi which planned to use the same engine):

(http://i.pbase.com/u43/xnir/upload/28239810.241_4131_PC.JPG)
(http://i.pbase.com/u43/xnir/upload/28239811.241_4132_PC.JPG)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on August 07, 2011, 01:49:09 am

Off the top of my head, and without actually digging mine out the stash, I think a 1/100 scale F-15's exhaust nozzles would make for passable PW1120 exhaust nozzles.


From looking closely at the pictures provided by GTX the F100 would not work as a possible replacement due to the shape of the petals  :banghead:

Plan B has been put into operation though with an email to Anigrand to see if they will sell me a pair of engines from their 1/72 Lavi kit. Alternative solutions will of course be welcome.

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: GTX on August 09, 2011, 02:25:38 am

Off the top of my head, and without actually digging mine out the stash, I think a 1/100 scale F-15's exhaust nozzles would make for passable PW1120 exhaust nozzles.


From looking closely at the pictures provided by GTX the F100 would not work as a possible replacement due to the shape of the petals  :banghead:

Plan B has been put into operation though with an email to Anigrand to see if they will sell me a pair of engines from their 1/72 Lavi kit. Alternative solutions will of course be welcome.

Gondor

It could still work - what if the PW1120 developed the same problem as the F100 did and thus result in the "petals" being removed?  Alternatively, say it was a prototype fitted with a F-100 nozzle.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: overscan on October 11, 2011, 10:42:50 pm
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/McDonnell%20Model%20Numbers%20List.pdf

This file contains dozens of real proposed Phantom models, some begging to be built. Some that caught my eye:


98CK F4H/ADC Advanced Interceptor with AN/ASG-18, 2 GAR-9, F4H wing with widened center section, F4H tail, longer (69ft 10in) fuselage, J93 engines (1960)
98CN  F-4H/ADC Phantom IIG Advanced Interceptor with AN/ASG-18 - wing and tail area inceased 20%, longer fuselage, two primary GAR-9, one alternate GAR-9, J93-MJ 252F engines. b) a 4 GAR-9 variant. (1960)
98CP Phantom IIF, as above with J58 engines (1960)
98CR Phantom IID,  TF10A-20 engine (1960)
98CS Phantom IIE,  J52 engine (1960)
98CX F4H with 700W Hughes coherent pulse-doppler radar, GAR-9. (1961)
98CY F4H with WECO 2000W coherent pulse-doppler radar (2 target track capability), 2 x Eagle AAMs, 6 in nose extension. (1961)
98CZ F4H,  WECO 2000W coherent pulse-doppler radar, Hawk (Kestrel) missile system. (1961)
98DD Improved F4H with 700W Hughes coherent pulse-doppler radar, GAR-9 (1961)
98DO Improved F-4C with ASG-18, 4 GAR-9, TF-30 turbofan engines. (1963)
98FG F-4B VERY ADVANCED - 600 sq ft wing area with slats and double slot flaps, 119 sq ft tail area, AWG-10 with multishot Sparrow & Phoenix, SPARM. Nose lengthened 18", aft lengthened. (1964)
98FH As above with TF-30 engines (1964)
98FI As above with RB168-25R engines (1964)
98FVS Variable sweep, medium high wing (1966)
98KU Navy advanced interceptor, F-4J modified AWG-10, Sparrow III and AIM-47 (1967)
98LD/LE/LF F-4J with AWG-9, Phoenix (1967)
98LK F-4J with enlarged wing, Phoenix (1968)
98LL/LM/LN F-4J with AWG-10, Phoenix (1968)
98MC F-4 for ADC, AWG-9 or ASG-18, AIM-47B (1968)
98MQ F-4E with F-15 systems (1969)
98MS F-4E with F-15 wing (1969)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Thorvic on October 12, 2011, 12:16:27 am
Some interesting proposals there, i wonder if the drawings still exist ?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: anthonyp on October 12, 2011, 05:54:46 pm

98KU Navy advanced interceptor, F-4J modified AWG-10, Sparrow III and AIM-47 (1967)
98LD/LE/LF F-4J with AWG-9, Phoenix (1967)
98LK F-4J with enlarged wing, Phoenix (1968)
98LL/LM/LN F-4J with AWG-10, Phoenix (1968)
98MC F-4 for ADC, AWG-9 or ASG-18, AIM-47B (1968)
98MQ F-4E with F-15 systems (1969)
98MS F-4E with F-15 wing (1969)


I wanna see drawings of these, especially the last two  :wub: :wub:

Frak it, I may just get a few extra kits of both and have at it.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on July 27, 2012, 10:39:05 am
Extra engined Soviet Phantom  :o

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/f4e_soviet-1.jpg)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 06, 2012, 10:15:44 am
First approximation
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F111_f4.jpg)

To fix the problem with F-111 cockpit width: longer fuselage ...
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F111_f4_01.jpg)

... or broader fuselage. But then ... add a 3rd J-79. :wacko: Two posibilities.
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F111_f4_02.jpg)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F111_f4_03.jpg)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 09, 2012, 08:02:34 am
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/f4_panavia.jpg)

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/f4_panavia_01.jpg)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: gofy on August 09, 2012, 11:44:16 am
My stealth Phantom (Mine+GTX's)

(http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r626/GofyTomcat21/FA-24.jpg)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on August 16, 2012, 11:33:05 pm
Just had a thought, combining the Yak-38 with the F-4. A sort of V/STOL Phantom.
Great designs :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: tahsin on August 27, 2012, 12:53:16 am
This large picture (http://www.indigorenderer.com/images/f4phantomindigo?size=_original) might be interesting...
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Dizzyfugu on August 27, 2012, 02:34:31 am
Another whif project could be the originally projected F-4F for Germany: it was supposed to become a single-seater! I have never seen drawings or such about it, but it still sounds interesting.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Martin H on August 27, 2012, 05:45:16 am
You mean the F-4E(F), that was a very simple conversion. I built one a number of years ago. All they intended to do was to plate over the aft cockpit and fill the space with either an extra fuel tank or avionics.

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/martinhiggs/wipmarch2005038.jpg)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Dizzyfugu on August 27, 2012, 06:07:10 am
Yup, that's it  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on August 27, 2012, 05:48:10 pm
The Germans wanted to do the samething with their Tornadoes, have them as single seaters in the maritime attack role.
Great model and drawings :bow: :bow: :bow:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: FAR148 on December 08, 2012, 03:11:08 pm
How about a Swedish Air Force F-4 or RF-4 paint in the Viggen camo pattern?

Steven L  :cheers:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on January 03, 2013, 02:38:15 pm
I've seen pictures of SUU20 pods fitted to F4E phantoms in Veitnam for night interdiction work on the Ho Chi Mhin trail. added to the gun in the Nose would give fire support.
 Now if you fitted a 3rd SUU20 pod on the centre line pylon would it work? would it have clearence over the Nose gun? And if fired would it have caused any Aerodynamic issues?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on January 03, 2013, 11:38:29 pm
Hi,
I'm building at present the front half of a F-4D and the rest from a F-18 in 1/72 scale. I did have a look at using the F-111 & F-4 combo but the upper fuselage spine of the F-4 dosen't blend in to the F-111 cockpit very well.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on January 06, 2013, 02:39:17 pm
I wonder if the RAF had continued with the F4 K/M instead of Tornado F3 what updates would the RAF have carried out?

Could Blue Fox/Blue Vixen been added to the Airframe?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: pyro-manic on January 06, 2013, 03:58:43 pm
If it could be shoehorned into a Harrier, I'm sure you could get it on a Phantom! I think the Phantom fleet would have needed a lot of work if it'd been decided to keep them though - they were pretty well worn out as I understand it, many were close to their fatigue limits. SLEP-ing the whole fleet would be very expensive, and I'd say the money was better spent on Tornado.

If the Tornado programme fell apart though (say the Germans did what they did to Eurofighter) or the Cold War ended a decade earlier, and it might have happened. Downsize the fleet, retiring the worst machines and refitting the better ones. A Blue Vixen variant and AMRAAM capability, Paveways and TIALD pods, swansong over Kosovo?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on January 11, 2013, 02:38:47 pm
I remember someone somewhere posting a picture of all the Century series fighters which included an F-110. As I wish to make a model of the F-110 I would like to get some information from the modeller. I have tried a search or two but with no luck. Can anyone help?

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Sauragnmon on January 11, 2013, 03:44:20 pm
Just a little looking around, apparently the F-110 designation was used for the F-4C in USAF service, so take from that what you will...
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: kitnut617 on January 11, 2013, 03:54:28 pm
I remember someone somewhere posting a picture of all the Century series fighters which included an F-110. As I wish to make a model of the F-110 I would like to get some information from the modeller. I have tried a search or two but with no luck. Can anyone help?

Gondor

There used to be a vacuform conversion kit in 1/72 of that, trying to remember who produced it ---
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: pyro-manic on January 11, 2013, 04:09:39 pm
Hasegawa released an F-110 boxing of their Phantom at one point. http://modelingmadness.com/scott/viet/previews/has/00618.htm
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on January 12, 2013, 04:01:30 am
Hasegawa released an F-110 boxing of their Phantom at one point. http://modelingmadness.com/scott/viet/previews/has/00618.htm

Trying to get hold of that boxing is like trying to find rocking horse poo and if you do find one you would probably have to pay silly money to get it. The description of how the F-110A came about and then it's demise in the text on that page is a little confusing and Despite my library and trying various searches on the web I still have no idea of what exactly the F-110 was, the B or the C version of what we now know of as the F-4 family.

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Geoff on January 12, 2013, 04:13:01 am
I thought it was the proposed code for the F-4C, could be wrong though.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: pyro-manic on January 12, 2013, 06:25:43 am
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2320

That says the F-110A was an F-4B (designation at the time was F4H-1) on loan from the USN pending deliveries of the USAF-standard aircraft (which were later designated F-4C). The F-4C didn't fly until May 1963 (after the designations changed in September '62), so the Spectre had to be one of the loaned Navy machines.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PR19_Kit on January 12, 2013, 08:15:34 am
I remember someone somewhere posting a picture of all the Century series fighters which included an F-110. As I wish to make a model of the F-110 I would like to get some information from the modeller. I have tried a search or two but with no luck. Can anyone help?

Gondor

There used to be a vacuform conversion kit in 1/72 of that, trying to remember who produced it ---

I think that was Falcon Robert. I had one at one time but traded it to someone on here, quite a while ago now though.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: kitnut617 on January 12, 2013, 08:29:07 am
I remember someone somewhere posting a picture of all the Century series fighters which included an F-110. As I wish to make a model of the F-110 I would like to get some information from the modeller. I have tried a search or two but with no luck. Can anyone help?

Gondor

There used to be a vacuform conversion kit in 1/72 of that, trying to remember who produced it ---

I think that was Falcon Robert. I had one at one time but traded it to someone on here, quite a while ago now though.

Yes I think it was Kit, I might even have one too ---
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on January 12, 2013, 11:40:34 am
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2320

That says the F-110A was an F-4B (designation at the time was F4H-1) on loan from the USN pending deliveries of the USAF-standard aircraft (which were later designated F-4C). The F-4C didn't fly until May 1963 (after the designations changed in September '62), so the Spectre had to be one of the loaned Navy machines.

So an F-110A is what became the F-4B (in USAF service) which would make the F-4C probably an F-110B? :blink:

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: pyro-manic on January 12, 2013, 12:22:04 pm
Yep.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on January 13, 2013, 03:00:40 am

So an F-110A is what became the F-4B (in USAF service) which would make the F-4C probably an F-110B? :blink:

Gondor

Yep.

Great  :thumbsup:

All I need to do now is work out the decals, as I have an F-4B in the stash to be an F-110A, which I should be able to assume are almost exactly the same as the Grey/White F-4C's when they entered service but with different numbers (which is kind of obvious)?

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on January 18, 2013, 03:23:23 pm
A related subject to what I was asking earlier is the stabilisers (tailplane's) in the Hasegawa 1/72 Phantom kits. The F-4B/N is provided with the slotted versions that you have to convert back to the non slotted version and I am worried that I will make a real mess of doing this. Does anyone know of a replacement set or is willing to swap a couple of sets of non slotted for slotted version?

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on January 07, 2014, 03:29:39 am
I wonder if a UK version of the F4E would have been a good Canberra B(I)/Hawker Hunter/ BAC Lightning replacement?

Should the UK F4K/M phantom fleet been updated instead of buying Tornado F3?

could the F4M have been fitted with a greater variety of weapons/systems like maverick/Shrike/Standard/Paveway/ALQ ecm pods?

Could the Phantom FG1 in naval service been fitted with the suu23 pod and the EMI recce Pod and still been carrier capable?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Thorvic on January 07, 2014, 05:38:05 am
I wonder if a UK version of the F4E would have been a good Canberra B(I)/Hawker Hunter/ BAC Lightning replacement?

Should the UK F4K/M phantom fleet been updated instead of buying Tornado F3?

could the F4M have been fitted with a greater variety of weapons/systems like maverick/Shrike/Standard/Paveway/ALQ ecm pods?

Could the Phantom FG1 in naval service been fitted with the suu23 pod and the EMI recce Pod and still been carrier capable?

Well the F-4M was initially used in the Strike/Recon role until the Jaguars came online, so the improved NavAtttack systems of the F4E could have made the RAF Phantom more suitable in the Strike Fighter role.

The RAF FG1 aircraft they got off the Navy were back fitted for the suu23 pod, as the FG1 was mainly a Naval Interceptor with secondary strike roles it was not fitted for the Recce pod as they already had the Recon Pack for the Buccaneer. Operating off HMS Ark Royal and ideally HMS Eagle the RN Phantom would not carry either pod as the safe landing weight restrictions would exclude the use of such hardware. Operating off CVA-01 then the gun pod becomes a possibility although they would likely opt for the belly tank to increase the range and endurance of their primary CAP mission.

It was envisaged that the Phantom would carry the Bullpup ASM and i have seen documentation that Martel would replace it being carried on the inner pylons.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on January 07, 2014, 10:53:57 am
Should the UK F4K/M phantom fleet been updated instead of buying Tornado F3?

They looked at it, but the problem was that the early usage in the low-level strike role ate up a large slice of the F4Ms' airframe fatigue lives, so a mid-life refit was deemed uneconomic. Another thing they looked at was a top-up buy of more aircraft to spread the hours around more, but the Phantom line was scheduled to close in 1979(?) and there wasn't money in the UK defence budget for fighters until about 1985 when the bulk of Tornado GR.1 expenditure was over, so the only way to do that would have been to buy all the F-4K/M tooling from McDD and make them ourselves, which got to looking very expensive again.

The clever thing about the Tornado ADV was that all the interceptor-specific changes were made to UK-manufactured sections of the aircraft, so we could exploit the economies of scale inherent in the Tornado program yet only impose the tooling cost of a second version on a minority of it.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on January 10, 2014, 12:19:26 pm
If the F4 K/M had had the Fatigue life what do we think would have been fitted. I'd like to have seen the Blue Vixen radar and AMRAAM
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Daryl J. on January 10, 2014, 02:46:07 pm
Could a Blue Vixen fit into the radome area of a RF-4?   Options open significantly for the Spey Phantoms if it does.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on January 13, 2014, 11:53:22 am
Germans fitted the F4-F with the AGP65, I am speculating on a similar program for the Phantom FG1/FGR2 as an upgrade program instead of the Tornado F3 by creating the Phantom F3 and F4. The Blue Vixen would give AMRAAM capability like the German F's. These would have served till Typhoon eliminating the Tornado F2/3 program.
 As has been said they were fatigue life expired which is a shame.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on January 13, 2014, 06:45:55 pm
Well in Whiff World you can always re-write history. For instance:

The RAF goes straight from the TSR.2 to the Buccaneer without wasting a few years on the F-111K debacle, and this means there is budget available to buy a greater number of Buccs and adapt them better to the RAF nuclear and recce roles in Germany. This in turn means that the F-4Ms go straight into the interceptor role and therefore preserve their fatigue lives sufficiently to make a mid-life update feasible. The motivation for that might come from the delays and problems with the Tornado ADV's Foxhunter radar, leading the RAF to turn to Ferranti for an alternative set for the F-4s. The latter radar, "Blue Ghost", is effectively a precursor to the Blue Vixen with a bigger aerial and uses an all-digital architecture which ensures compatibility with AMRAAM or Active Skyflash missile when it enters service.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PR19_Kit on January 14, 2014, 01:45:09 am
Well in Whiff World you can always re-write history. For instance:

The RAF goes straight from the TSR.2 to the Buccaneer without wasting a few years on the F-111K debacle, and this means there is budget available to buy a greater number of Buccs and adapt them better to the RAF nuclear and recce roles in Germany. This in turn means that the F-4Ms go straight into the interceptor role and therefore preserve their fatigue lives sufficiently to make a mid-life update feasible. The motivation for that might come from the delays and problems with the Tornado ADV's Foxhunter radar, leading the RAF to turn to Ferranti for an alternative set for the F-4s. The latter radar, "Blue Ghost", is effectively a precursor to the Blue Vixen with a bigger aerial and uses an all-digital architecture which ensures compatibility with AMRAAM or Active Skyflash missile when it enters service.

That sounds a VERY good idea.

Now where's that time machine.....?  ;D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP on January 14, 2014, 10:14:25 am
wonder what other kit would have been added.
Pave spike?
AlQ pods

The original order for F4M's was meant to be bigger as well and if all the F4K's had been delivered they could have equipped most of the AD sqns and the Balance of the M's could have been Recce
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on January 18, 2014, 01:51:52 am
Just received a second hand kit of the Hasegawa F-110A Phantom II in 1/72  :thumbsup:

Slight problem though as the kit is second hand some of the bags were opened. Only thing that is missing is the decal placement sheet  :banghead:

Can anyone help? Scale will not matter as long as each marking is easily identifiable.

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on April 10, 2016, 01:39:57 pm
Here's one to fool the JMNs: paint up an F-4K in this 'zapped' scheme and wait for somebody to object... >:D

(https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12932703_1102745479790566_5342079613119321467_n.jpg?oh=603d013d7d32eacc68db1a0543fd4881&oe=57B31753)

(https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12924364_10206123856484260_1213625274056909416_n.jpg?oh=d13130ac9197d32d9e4cbce76c1864a2&oe=5786567E)

Quote
After a visit at the NAS Oceana, the Phantoms of the 892 NAS Ark Royal got new livery inluding the VF-171 Aces emblem as well as the inscription Colonial NAVY.

From here: https://www.facebook.com/SIERRA-HOTEL-AERONAUTICS-196749240390199/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/SIERRA-HOTEL-AERONAUTICS-196749240390199/?fref=nf)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on April 11, 2016, 04:50:43 pm
It's been brought to my attention on BTS (cheers Greg!) That Model Alliance actually do a decal sheet with a couple of these whiffs on it (MA-72126 or MA-48126 depending on the scale) If using the sheet leaves you with a spare set of tail markings from the donor kit, you could use one of the spare Omega flashes to make the retaliation bird:

(https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12919773_923088707788572_2885871015514250752_n.jpg?oh=9c4ec698ac9d024cb422653b54e2d2c8&oe=57809945)

Hmmm: make an F-4K and an F-4J that are both physical whiffs (F-4K with Red Tops on the inners, F-4E for the Marines?), use those markings, then watch everybody assume that the markings are the whiff..... >:D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: tahsin on May 11, 2016, 12:31:23 am
There is this "argument" in the F-105 thread that goes on like this:

F-105 after 1955 is just a waste of time, with Phantom on the horizon...

But back in 1955 they didn't know that the F-4 was going to be so good.

And it was, *GASP* a Navy plane! 


And there's the rub: it wouldn't have mattered if they HAD known how good the F-4 was going to be, the USAF still has a HUGE institutional resistance...

How good Phantom would be was clear in 1954... That's why it came back even it was refused as an "F", then as an "A", yet finally turned into an interceptor...


Proved to whom? ...


Proved to those who actually paid attention...



Oi, you two!

A short summary of it... The end of WW II sees the United States as the dominant maritime power, replacing the British Empire. Leading to the conclusion that it's also the strongest power on earth, which can use the methods that provided global supremacy to London with less risk and yet greater return. Though there is also a feeling that the "fall" of England should be carefully examined to prevent its recurrence, this time to US. The inevitable conclusion is that the British were not prepared for the WW II. Primarily due to their smugness in assuming America could be conspired into the fighting whenever it suited London, to bear the burden and pay the price with its inexhaustable potential. Roosevelt was a tough customer, true, and yes Churchill would have wiped the floor with him if the British Empire still had the werewithal; but when the US was conspired into WW II, the Japanese tidal wave was lethal to London while just a temporary setback, a pinprick to Washington. Average politician or strategist would see that as proof of "manhood" while Eisenhower was a consummate politician and certainly a cut above the average strategist... And the committee he was part of consisted of Americans Eisenhower accepted as equals -and a few betters. So they just decided America would be ready for the next war.

When? 1939 had followed 1918 almost in the sense that the soldiers returning home had caused a baby boom replacing "stocks" but it was cooler to follow a convention of 25 years between '14 to '39... Yeah, WW III in 1964. If America kept a quantifiable nuclear superiority, Russians would be tempted to avoid total destruction. As already referenced this would mean conventional warfare to drive back Communist gains. Perhaps in China, where Mao looked like he could win. Perhaps against India if Communists gained more influence after the British departure. Maybe even in Europe to liberate Poland; upto River Bug so that the stigma of defeat would convince Russians to depose their overlords instead risking the Great Patriotic War II with atoms. That committee was aware that they hadn't netted all German rocket scientists or all the schematics of German ICBMs.

Looking back at the British experience of the recent war, one glaring failure was the lack of a "strategic fighter", that beast which had been causing so much mayhem since 1934. A heavyweight that could escort bombers into enemy heartland and could intercept the response, at night or bad weather, could act as a bomber itself and could be responsive in demands of a mobile ground action as a durable weapon of war. Mustang wasn't it  -even if there was a noble attempt with the P or F-82. More in the sense of a Mosquito or a Ju-88. The future belonged to the jets and this unnamed committee took the USN conception of a twin as the basis. As we have or have not seen, American naval experts were not keen on the European designs with midwing engines. Increased the span hence the ever present danger of running into the island. Control problems with one engine out were just a minor issue in the then current reasoning. Size and weight issues seemed to indicate a ground based plane but the USN was also developing large carriers. As for performance 12 years were to pass between the Volta Conference and the breaking of the sound barrier so another 12 years might also see Mach 2. 1959-60,  a good time for a brand new jet to put into mass production for the ordeals ahead. One might have already noticed the winner of the Penetration Fighter contest was the P-88...

Following the very Phantom which "diverged" into Banshee for naval service. And the F-101 which alone kept to a 360 degree hood in the Century series but also suffered from the speed fetish prevalent in the era. Because the committee was following what the US Army would want the USAF to have. USAF would want B-36s so that the USN could be put out to pasture and the US Army would be reduced to patrolling outside the wire fences of USAF bases. There are such stories to be told of the USAF generals bloodlust to nuke the Russians and anyone else but let it suffice that SAC would not want anything about a strategic fighter that would stop nuclear destruction of any targeted country, by offering the prospects of a conventional victory. While the F-101 would have done very well with a Demon type wing it would also be "slow" and not worthy of evermore supersonic USAF. It would rather have arrived as a 300 sq. foot winged plane but for the need to lessen the drag of the intakes. While not an aerodynamist,  Ike followed the development of "his" plane and was informed side inlets was helpful for such concerns. Side inlets were on the P-90, the "itireration" of the initial USN concept. Or the F7U, the likely placeholder as the onboard heavy. The last suffered greatly from poor engines and (considering there were quite a few "SAC Generals" in the USN) was developed into the gross injustice it turned out to be, compared to its sleek originals. Which could still eat an MiG-15 alive, if they managed to be in the same volume of airspace at the same time...
And now that it wasn't US Presidents that decided the well-being of aircraft companies and Ike wasn't even the President at the time, he was given his side inlets in the Demon. Which was a spectacular plane, if you hang external fuel tanks on it it flew even less. So far we seen that the F4H stems from the P-88 which descends from FD/FH-1 and aims "initially" at the USN. To cover up the Demon's sins. With Ike in the Whitehouse and fretting about lack of progress and even ready to accept corners cut. F4H does anything and everything, noses can be changed and when "proper" engines come by it will be capable of carrying "lots of things". USN apparently started ordering J-79s from 1954 and I can't guess any application. If you are going to say A-5, why,  the USN considered the Phantom too small for that job. And no bomb bay for the temperamental nukes of the day... It was always there, a need to "placate" the White House and finding reasonable reasons not to. After spending 7 million manhours on it there's no way McDonnell could be pushed into slowing down.

USAF had seen this coming, just like P-47 had proven that size mattered when it came to bomb carrying for tactical air operations. Not wanting the "Phantom" long before it even existed they had to offer something better. Which was the "Ultimate Interceptor". It was legitimate that there was no way a B-52 could be escorted to Moscow to drop radio guided bombs for surgical strikes. But Nuclear Deterrence would work if Russian bombers could be reliably shot down. It's because of the Phantom that Convair was guided to claim a Mach 2 delta variously by 1952 or 54. Which they could have done, if they had kept to the "Mirage" formula. "Half" the size, the French jet DID achieve Mach 2 at 6 tons of thrust, less than what the J-57 was delivering. Convair got a 1/48 programme with extensive range and many internal weapons with wind tunnel data of a 1/72 plane with limited external carriage. No, this sentence does not imply problems with extrapolating wind tunnel data to full size article; it suggests fraud. Dassault was even limited one single AAM with nothing of the blistering climb of the F-104. A Delta Dagger with Mach 2 capability would have been the size of the Mirage III with no potential for the defence of Continental US. Delta Dart put it right, in 1959, but no one would ever permit Convair to clear its name by making a Mach 5 F-106... Let's just keep out of any Avro Arrow debates and how insulted the Canadians later felt when they were denied a licence to produce Phantoms. With US presidents having some weight in foreign affairs.

As for Congress, they were keenly after saving the taxpayer's money. They banned prototyping so that there would be no way for interested companies to play their hands at Ike's plane. The Cook-Cragie law assured only "worthy" companies would be allowed in business and no money would be saved prototypes of planes that didn't fit in. That it cost immensely is a fact; but Eisenhower termed it Military Industrial Complex -without Congressional. The Lawmakers were not worth mentioning, except with terms of contempt...




Quote from: Osprey Books
While the Navy prepared to accept its potent new fighter, in 1958 McDonnell was already approaching the US Air Force about a potential ground-attack version with a new bombing radar installation. However, it was the F4H-1’s multimission potential, demonstrated in tests, that attracted USAF interest. Initially its superior performance compared with the primary USAF interceptor, the Convair F-106A, came into focus. Lt Gen Tom Miller, supervizing the F4H-1 program for the US Marines, recalled:
Air Defense Command (ADC) first became interested in the F4H-1. Col Graham was permitted to fly the F4H-1 very early in the program and he pushed it for ADC versus the F-106. His effort culminated in a fly-off between the two aircraft [Project Highspeed], which showed the F4H-1 to be a far superior fighter. It was during a Pentagon debrief of the results of the competition between the F-106 and F4H-1 that Admiral Pirie [in charge of the air-to-ground aspect of the program] offered to provide USAF tactical air operations with an F4H-1 bombing demonstration. I came away from the meeting with the impression that that the USAF personnel were very impressed with the fighter capabilities of the F4H-1 and that caused Admiral Pirie to bring up its bombing capabilities.
The USN was already planning to show off the Phantom II’s conventional weapons delivery using multiple bomb racks that were unavailable to the Air Force at the time. Major General Hal Vincent (a captain at the time) ran the O/V 5 air-to-ground tests supervized by Admiral Pirie within the Navy’s VX-5 test squadron. He was using F4H-1 BuNo 143390, the fifth Phantom II, for tests with the Mk 7 nuclear special weapon, but “I hung a multiple bomb rack (MBR) on the centerline of the aircraft and I cut another in half, rewired it and made a triple ejector rack for the other two stations, allowing carriage of 24 500lb bombs.” Photographs of the original high-drag MBR configuration were circulated by McDonnell and attracted international interest in the Phantom’s attack possibilities. Tom Miller was ordered to make a “Nav Tac” demonstration drop of 22 500lb bombs on the Camp Lejeune range at MCAS Cherry Point on April 25, 1961, but further “performances” were requested, witnessed by several congressmen and one of the USAF’s most influential policy-shapers, General Curtis Le May. Tom Miller: “They were so impressed that they stole [the Phantom II] away from Air Defense Command. The F-106 remained in ADC and the Phantom II was bought for Tactical Air Command.”

Is what Air Vanguard 007 of Osprey says. 1961 it might be. But Eisenhower would have actively pressed the Phantom into USAF service. I don't know whether it would be appropriate to use the term "shove up" in this site, but it might well have been the case if USAF showed any more signs of stalling.
So, where is the F-105 in all of this? It's a nuclear bomber bought extensively by SAC generals despite their great hate for it. Hated for making TAC still relevant in an nuclear age. Keeping an organization intact inevitably with people with fond memories of blasting Panzer Divisions to scrap instead of burning Japanese cities to cinders. USAF needs almost thousands of the F-105 to full all of their wings with "modern" jets so that there will be no place left for the Phantom. Now that this costs money, to the detriment of their B-52s and ICBMs,  they even ask for the removal of the gun and all sorts of tactical elements. They deny duplication of hydraulics, ECM , training for tactical missions. After years of messing with the development of the jet itself. There are repeated attempts at upgrading by Republic, engines of higher power, even increases of wing area. All refused due to the existance of Phantom... A Catch-22 situation. They actually twice refused a conversion trainer because it would cost them a few airframes out of the 1500 they "needed". When Phantom was on for sure they decided it was really needed and twice refusing a single piece canopy they had to go a different way. The result in F-105F was so imposing that nobody ever actually used it with instructor flying wing to the student as they always did...
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 17, 2016, 03:53:20 pm
I was thinking: Why did the USAF need the fatter tires?  It seemed to require a needless design and while landings might be a bit rough, it's not United Airlines, it's the frakking Air Force
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: sandiego89 on June 17, 2016, 06:08:42 pm
I was thinking: Why did the USAF need the fatter tires?  It seemed to require a needless design and while landings might be a bit rough, it's not United Airlines, it's the frakking Air Force

As I understood it the air force wanted a lower pressure tire for improved safety.  The early Navy Phantoms tires had very high pressures, ~450PSI  :o

-Dave
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on June 18, 2016, 02:30:36 am
Rough field performance is also easier with softer tyres

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 18, 2016, 02:00:29 pm
As I understood it the air force wanted a lower pressure tire for improved safety.  The early Navy Phantoms tires had very high pressures, ~450PSI  :o
The concern was blowouts?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on June 18, 2016, 08:37:10 pm
As I understood it the air force wanted a lower pressure tire for improved safety.  The early Navy Phantoms tires had very high pressures, ~450PSI  :o
The concern was blowouts?

Kendra/Robyn the concern was many things, blowouts just one of them.  With a higher tyre pressure, there comes a rougher, firmer ride, which isn't important on a small runway like a flight deck but on a long, concrete runway it can cause problems to the runway (because of the thinner, harder edged tyre) and the aircraft and crew (the aircraft is subject to greater shocks and hence becomes less reliable and the crew suffers from back problems).   Weapons have a tendency to also fall off, if subjected to numerous heavy jolts - not a good look when its possibly a nuclear weapon.

Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on June 19, 2016, 09:17:20 pm
Anyone fancy making Freightdog's day by modelling this loadout?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClOZDcQWkAAjTwk.jpg:large)

From here: https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/744106651137998849
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Captain Canada on June 20, 2016, 04:23:03 pm
Looks like she's ready to ruin somebody's day !

 :blink:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 20, 2016, 09:24:55 pm
rickshaw

Quote
Kendra/Robyn the concern was many things, blowouts just one of them.  With a higher tyre pressure, there comes a rougher, firmer ride, which isn't important on a small runway like a flight deck but on a long, concrete runway it can cause problems to the runway (because of the thinner, harder edged tyre)
You mean it can wreck the concrete?

Quote
and the aircraft and crew (the aircraft is subject to greater shocks and hence becomes less reliable and the crew suffers from back problems).
Then what about carrier crew?  They take harder landings and seem to be okay...

Quote
Weapons have a tendency to also fall off, if subjected to numerous heavy jolts - not a good look when its possibly a nuclear weapon.
True, but the USN could carry nuclear weapons just fine last I checked/

Regardless, on a more serious note, did the bulged doors cause trouble with the aerodynamics?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on June 20, 2016, 09:31:30 pm
rickshaw

Quote
Kendra/Robyn the concern was many things, blowouts just one of them.  With a higher tyre pressure, there comes a rougher, firmer ride, which isn't important on a small runway like a flight deck but on a long, concrete runway it can cause problems to the runway (because of the thinner, harder edged tyre)
You mean it can wreck the concrete?

Basically, yes, it can.  Anything that continually strikes concrete with a heavy weight can knock holes in it on the landing zone/threshold.

Quote
Quote
and the aircraft and crew (the aircraft is subject to greater shocks and hence becomes less reliable and the crew suffers from back problems).
Then what about carrier crew?  They take harder landings and seem to be okay...

Because they are expected to and remember, their landings don't have long run outs whereas ground based aircraft do.   Human anatomy is resilient in the short-term but in the longer-term continuous shocks can lead to muscular-skeletal problems.

Quote
Quote
Weapons have a tendency to also fall off, if subjected to numerous heavy jolts - not a good look when its possibly a nuclear weapon.
True, but the USN could carry nuclear weapons just fine last I checked/

Again, a case of short, sharp knocks (carrier landing) as against continuous bumps/knocks (runway landing plus run out),

Quote
Regardless, on a more serious note, did the bulged doors cause trouble with the aerodynamics?

What do you think?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 20, 2016, 11:51:40 pm
Anyone fancy making Freightdog's day by modelling this loadout?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClOZDcQWkAAjTwk.jpg:large)

From here: https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/744106651137998849

Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload.  ;D :lol: ;)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on June 21, 2016, 12:16:12 am
You mean that it couldn't have melted the deck, launching with that payload?  ;) ;D ;D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on June 21, 2016, 03:27:34 am
Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload.  ;D :lol: ;)

Were they 68mm SNEB pods (2 rings of tubes) or 2" Mircocell pods (3 rings of tubes) though? I think I've seen RAF Phantoms flying with 6x Matra pods on the inners before now.

Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Martin H on June 21, 2016, 05:42:14 am
Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload.  ;D :lol: ;)

Were they 68mm SNEB pods (2 rings of tubes) or 2" Mircocell pods (3 rings of tubes) though? I think I've seen RAF Phantoms flying with 6x Matra pods on the inners before now.



yeah, the RAF tooms in the ground pounding role could and did carry 6 sneb pods on TER's mounted on the inboard pylon. They had a slight advantage over the RN shipboard tooms. A full length runway!

Were as the navy had to work on a reduced payload due to the maximum weight capability of the catapults the Ark Royal was using.

Photos like that are still great thou, even thou the load out is purely an open house publicity stunt.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on June 21, 2016, 06:22:57 am
Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload.  ;D :lol: ;)

Were they 68mm SNEB pods (2 rings of tubes) or 2" Mircocell pods (3 rings of tubes) though? I think I've seen RAF Phantoms flying with 6x Matra pods on the inners before now.



yeah, the RAF tooms in the ground pounding role could and did carry 6 sneb pods on TER's mounted on the inboard pylon. They had a slight advantage over the RN shipboard tooms. A full length runway!

Were as the navy had to work on a reduced payload due to the maximum weight capability of the catapults the Ark Royal was using.

Photos like that are still great thou, even thou the load out is purely an open house publicity stunt.

It'd be fun to model it as it was at the open day, complete with notice boards, rope barriers and gawking kids.... ;D
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 21, 2016, 03:36:16 pm
Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload.  ;D :lol: ;)

Were they 68mm SNEB pods (2 rings of tubes) or 2" Mircocell pods (3 rings of tubes) though? I think I've seen RAF Phantoms flying with 6x Matra pods on the inners before now.


Pass, they were whatever I had in my spares box at the time and which looked good. They not have been all the same for all I can remember.  ;D

The model was pretty attractive to some little tea leaf though as it was nicked right off the club stand!  :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 24, 2016, 04:33:05 pm
rickshaw

Quote
Basically, yes, it can.  Anything that continually strikes concrete with a heavy weight can knock holes in it on the landing zone/threshold.
I know if you put enough pressure on a small enough spot, you can bust through things.  I was just surprised the tires would on that plane.

Quote
Because they are expected to and remember, their landings don't have long run outs whereas ground based aircraft do.   Human anatomy is resilient in the short-term but in the longer-term continuous shocks can lead to muscular-skeletal problems.
What about the Marines?

Quote
Again, a case of short, sharp knocks (carrier landing) as against continuous bumps/knocks (runway landing plus run out),
Did the USN have more problems with their missiles?

Quote
What do you think?
I'd assume so, but not everything is what it seems
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ChernayaAkula on June 26, 2016, 12:08:57 am
Regarding the thicker wheels/wings issue:

From "USAF Phantoms: Tactics, Training and Weapons" by Tony M. Thornborough, p. 14:
Quote
"Other modifications included larger, softer, lower-pressure main gear landing tyres, increased in width by 3.8 in, so that a fully loaded F-4C could better distribute its weight over thinner paved concrete runways ; similarly, commensurate with the higher gross operating weights of USAF aircraft, more powerful brakes and an anti-skid system were also added. All these main undercarriage modifications required the wing roots to be enlarged in order to accommodate the bulkier landing gear assembly."

From "WAPJ: McDonell F-4 Phantom - Spirit in the Skies" by Jon Lake, p. 128:
Quote
"The high tyre pressure of the F-4B was unacceptable for USAF operations, and the wheel/tyre assembly was redesigned with lower pressure and the width increased from 7.7 in (19.5 cm) to 11.5 in 29 cm). in turn, this enabled a Hydro-Aire anti-skid braking system to be installed, considered by the Air Force to be essential even with an emergency hook. The larger wheels required shallow bulges in the upper and lower wing skins."

Another thing that might play into this (this is only my speculation, though) is that thicker, lower-pressure tyres might be more forgiving in a crosswind landing, which can be quite demanding of a tyre. While crosswinds may be less of an issue in carrier operations, they can pose difficult situations to shore-based aircraft.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP2 on October 21, 2016, 02:33:09 am
In flight refueling the phantom?

th USN, USMC & UK versions had folding probes on side of cockpits. The Airforce versions like the F4E has flying boom system.

Did any Airforce versions get the navy in flight re fueling system.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on October 21, 2016, 08:15:53 am
The only F-4's to fly with the USAF that had probe & drogue refuelling system were the F-4B's that were loaned to them until their F-4C's were available

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: DarrenP2 on October 31, 2016, 12:44:12 am
what about other airforces?
like Iran, Israel etc
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on July 22, 2017, 05:53:55 pm
Weird Pherrys scheme ;D in this Phrench Phantom

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/PhrenchPhantom.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/PhrenchPhantom.jpg.html)

Isn't it chic? :mellow:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: NARSES2 on July 23, 2017, 07:21:39 am

Isn't it chic? :mellow:

Mais Oui
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Rheged on July 23, 2017, 08:50:11 am

Isn't it chic? :mellow:

Mais Oui

Zut alors! c'est magnifique!   .........and would probably be able to fly off French carriers to escort their Buccaneers.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on July 23, 2017, 10:12:01 pm

Isn't it chic? :mellow:

Mais Oui

Zut alors! c'est magnifique!   .........and would probably be able to fly off French carriers to escort their Buccaneers.

Sûrement vous voulez dire Boucanier?   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Rheged on July 23, 2017, 11:40:50 pm

Isn't it chic? :mellow:

Mais Oui

Zut alors! c'est magnifique!   .........and would probably be able to fly off French carriers to escort their Buccaneers.

Sûrement vous voulez dire Boucanier?   :thumbsup:

Wholeheartedly agreed,  but my French A level was nearly 50 years ago and one loses certain nuances of vocabulary over time.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on July 24, 2017, 04:54:56 am

Isn't it chic? :mellow:

Mais Oui

Zut alors! c'est magnifique!   .........and would probably be able to fly off French carriers to escort their Buccaneers.

Sûrement vous voulez dire Boucanier?   :thumbsup:

Wholeheartedly agreed,  but my French A level was nearly 50 years ago and one loses certain nuances of vocabulary over time.

I failed French, badly.  Along with Latin.  I just Google Translate nowadays.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: NARSES2 on July 24, 2017, 06:08:56 am
It was suggested that in the interests of Anglo-French friendship I didn't pursue my study of the language at school  :banghead: I was useless at it and yet strangely became quite adept at reading it over the years. All that ploughing through the E.U. Official Journal every morning . Comes in useful now when I'm reading the English translation of a French book but the page notes etc are still in French  :thumbsup:

Never had a brain that was adept at others languages, a school mate was superb and had 5 at A Level, plus others he did at O Level for fun  :o
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on July 24, 2017, 01:47:46 pm
what about other airforces?
like Iran, Israel etc

Off the top of my head the Israeli F-4E's had a probe fitted to the side of the fuselage on the right side behind the WSO and plumbed into the USAF Probe slot , I think they exported the system to Spain and that no one else used this method of refuelling to the F-4. Of course I could have that wrong but I think I am right, off the top of my head.

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 24, 2017, 01:56:36 pm
You're dead right Alastair.

I have an excellent book on IDF Phantoms (named Kurnass by the IDF I believe) and that's pretty well what it shows in the numerous pics in the book.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on July 24, 2017, 10:57:06 pm
You're dead right Alastair.

I have an excellent book on IDF Phantoms (named Kurnass by the IDF I believe) and that's pretty well what it shows in the numerous pics in the book.

I was more referring to remembering if Spain used the same system or not Kit

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Old Wombat on July 25, 2017, 01:56:36 am
Looks like their RF-4C's did:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Spanish_Air_Force_McDonnell_RF-4C_Phantom_II_Lofting-2.jpg)

But their F-4C's didn't:

(http://www.worldwide-military.com/Military%20Aircraft/US%20Fighters%20plaatjes/Groot/F-4%20(Germany)_004.JPG)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 29, 2017, 11:14:35 pm
Phlanker

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/Phlanker.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Phlanker.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 30, 2017, 12:04:12 am

Phlanker


 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on October 23, 2017, 04:15:10 am
Not sure what is cooler. Difficult to enhance Phantom coolness.

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-4E_KAI_SS.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-4E_KAI_SS.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on November 02, 2017, 10:21:22 am
Some alternatives to integrate F-4 and F-16

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/PhantomPhalcon01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/PhantomPhalcon01.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/PhantomPhalcon02.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/PhantomPhalcon02.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on November 04, 2017, 10:05:06 pm
Here I try to design something in the line of: hard hitting, punishing, punching, ... to be called SATAN or similar, please feel free to contribute with ideas in this line.

Iteration 1
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/Mig-XX01.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Mig-XX01.jpeg.html)

Iteration 2
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/Mig-XX02.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Mig-XX02.jpeg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 01, 2018, 03:53:28 am
Some time ago elmayerle mentioned a study related with F4-EJ Kai. Here F15 wings will be used insted of originals. I was wandering to use some more F15 bits, such as cockpit and canopy, single or double post, enlarge tailfin, ...

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F4_XKai.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F4_XKai.jpg.html)

What do you think?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 01, 2018, 08:34:28 pm
More F-4EJ Kai (Eagle wing)

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-4_XKai01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-4_XKai01.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Captain Canada on February 02, 2018, 01:10:03 pm
Looks like a Russian VTOL  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 15, 2018, 07:05:44 am
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F4_XKai_profile.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F4_XKai_profile.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-4_XKai_3v.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-4_XKai_3v.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on February 16, 2018, 01:14:16 am
Why not give it F-15-style horizontal ramp intakes and PACT-style canards, whose fairings would blend in the change from the square-edged intakes to the rounded Phantom fuselage?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 16, 2018, 04:35:11 pm
Like this? :thumbsup:

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-4_XKai_01_3v.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-4_XKai_01_3v.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on February 17, 2018, 10:16:44 am
That's the spirit, but the intakes would have to be further back in order to allow them to open fully behind the canopy.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 24, 2018, 08:43:40 pm
Stealth Phantom. Top drawing is 'presumably' scaleoramed from 1/100 to 1/72

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/StealthPhantom1.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/StealthPhantom1.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: NARSES2 on February 25, 2018, 05:44:32 am
Top one looks very nice  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on February 27, 2018, 09:58:07 am
Cool :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Captain Canada on February 27, 2018, 03:28:39 pm
For sure !

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 21, 2020, 01:06:14 am
Do you remember F-16/79? With this in mind, what about Phantom III equipped with 3 J79?

(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F4Phantom-III.jpg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F4Phantom-III.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: kerick on May 21, 2020, 01:33:52 pm
Wasn’t there a three engine version of the Vigilante? Or was that fictional? Or maybe just a proposal? Off to google I go....
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: kerick on May 21, 2020, 01:53:26 pm
The NR-349 manned improved interceptor for the USAF. At least that’s the official story.

If you could do it with a Vigilante? At least the Vigilante had a “tunnel” between the engines. Intake would have been another matter.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 22, 2020, 11:16:57 am
your project is really impressive :thumbsup: :wub:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 24, 2020, 04:03:51 pm
Which config do you prefer?

(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F-4E_3xJ79.jpg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F-4E_3xJ79.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: rickshaw on May 24, 2020, 07:56:28 pm
Number 1 looks better but it would suffer FOD with it's intake there, behind the nosewheel.  If you carrier it's intake forward to where the gun is, it would be OK.  The other two don't grab me all that much.  You'd need for all of them to seriously increase the fuel tankage.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: tahsin on May 26, 2020, 01:18:10 pm
Much larger intakes. The Vigilante one similarly divided inlets as far as l know, dividing the inlet two thirds of it feeding a full engine and the one thirds remaining is combined with the one on the other side. Though it might be  "poor" as a side profile.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 30, 2020, 01:20:42 am
What if a long nose british Phantom?

(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/LongNoseBritPhantom.jpeg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/LongNoseBritPhantom.jpeg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on May 30, 2020, 08:22:57 am
Much larger intakes. The Vigilante one similarly divided inlets as far as l know, dividing the inlet two thirds of it feeding a full engine and the one thirds remaining is combined with the one on the other side. Though it might be  "poor" as a side profile.
Would you really need a third engine air intake ?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Gondor on May 30, 2020, 10:15:02 am
What if a long nose british Phantom?

(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/LongNoseBritPhantom.jpeg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/LongNoseBritPhantom.jpeg.html)

Done it , well completed one of three planed.

Gondor
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: tahsin on May 30, 2020, 11:30:22 am

Would you really need a third engine air intake ?
The G-91 Gina thing had one inlet dividing into two to feed the twin J-85 setup and l imagine having read it could cause interruption to the other if any issues happened to one engine. So maybe a Spey front end with 3 J-79 nozzles and wait for some web expert to come and declare it perfect example to cause triple engine stalls at once. Though it should be easy to divide the Spey inlet into appropriate ducts. Anyone willing to do it in plastic would perhaps be better to look at the Vigilante interceptor and it is quite possible that l misremember the sizes and relevant structures.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on May 31, 2020, 02:28:53 am
Was their any attempt on a V/STOL version?
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: tahsin on May 31, 2020, 08:29:30 am
BEWARE, company trolls can't handle the truth.  ln any form...

Of course it is a spelling error, meant to read was there... And nothing about a graduation thesis of sorts circa 1976 about permanently diverting part of the airflow of a large BPR engine to Boundary Layer Control system and an exhaust chamber as required. Would be sort of classified and depending on local traditions either never mentioned or leading to a situation of don't ask if you won't like the answer. Comparing it with the Tornado setup of thrust reversers immediately proves the futility of half the engine power with all the extra confusion of the tails as well.  ln short, any trained engineer would prove it would be of no use with 50 words. As for VTOL, that certainly requires the hull form of the VG proposal making it no longer a Phantom.

But l am pretty willing to do the salient points of the backstory.

-US Congress makes it mandatory for USN to buy Vought 1600.

-Northrop returns to basics with F-5, has no further interest in F-17 or 18.

-McDD is content with the F-15 until the disaster strikes. Newly developed materials in turbofan engines are proven to rapidly decay after a certain point of service use, knocking out the F-15 and both F-16 versions. A solution is expected in the form of 30 000 pounds engines projected to be available by 1985. USAF is forced to buy about 200 Tomcats. Which would naturally mean the Spey Phantom for US forces, Spey or TF-30
an afterburner version of the A-7 engine except...

-the backlash after the Vietnam War, that RR has crashed far harder, hippie communes, the surprising box office success of the Adventures of Luke Starkiller in 1975 and the Battleplanet Galactica that rapidly followed it. All combining to create quite a potent mix of a belief that people in Defence business are liars and thiefs, an assertion quite hard to refute.

-McDD (unjustly saddled with the F-15s that are directly trucked to the desert to wait for engines) has to stage a PR coup. The F-5G engine suddenly becomes a thing. Nowhere near the sfc it will demonstrate a decade later as the 404, it is at least available and doesn't start an onboard fire most of the time...

-On company money McDD redesigns the two engine Phantom into a triple. Regaining some respect in Washington where people have to win elections and a respite until mid 80s when it can re-start deliveries of Strike Eagles and single seater fighters.

-Apart from the engine issue, people in this forum will probably look to permanently fixing the 370 gallon drops to the wings as shown in some Secret Projects Forum thread only because that would clear the way to carry 3x600 gallon tanks. Remember the Air Force Tomcats? lntroducing the Aim-54 to a new set of users and the Navy will fight dearly to keep its vision of all Grumman carrier wings it will fall to USAF to lead the way for the initial carriage of 4, one each on wing pylons. And the later central station for which the model builder will probably prefer to butcher one of those mine/bomblet dispensers Tornados used to have against airfields. Explains why the tailhook section disappeared while modeller was fixing 3 F-18 exhausts to the end. Some modellers, though might prefer otherwise and that would relate to how the USN and USMC were forced to modernize theirs by fiat. Modellers do also have the option of building the gunboats, two regular gunpods on the wings and a central pod, larger and the muzzles cut off from an A-10. Another PR function as USAF desperately tries to stop being forced to buy a couple of thousands of A-10s.
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: ysi_maniac on June 01, 2020, 05:41:54 pm
Phantom next generation. Some posibilities based on F-4 and F-15

(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/Phantom-NG2.jpg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Phantom-NG2.jpg.html)
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on August 13, 2020, 10:40:14 am
I've just read here: https://hushkit.net/2020/06/16/top-10-cold-war-combat-carrier-aircraft/ that the USN briefly considered buying the British Phantom, with it's lower landing speed/catapult requirements, for use from the Essex class carriers, the tentative designation being F-4L. The proposal was quickly killed off due to lack of commonality with US models* and a desire to protect the status of the Nimitz class.

The variants list on Wikipedia confirms this and also mentions AIM-54 Phoenix armament!

This would be another credible alternative scheme for the Airfix F-4K/M...


*The engine would have a degree of commonality with the Allison TF-41 in later Corsairs though...
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: NARSES2 on August 14, 2020, 06:27:46 am
So F4-L ; L for limey ?  :angel:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Martin H on August 14, 2020, 11:43:41 am

This would be another credible alternative scheme for the Airfix F-4K/M...


Might look a little like this then......................
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/4605/CEX8ew.jpg)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/230/o8OiRk.jpg)
Did this one Ages ago using a Matchbox toom with the scheme and decals taken from am Italeri F-4S kit
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: Weaver on August 14, 2020, 11:46:59 am
Nice one Martin - I felt sure somebody wuold have done it at some point. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
Post by: McColm on August 18, 2020, 12:45:10 pm
Good  job  :thumbsup: