Author Topic: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom  (Read 79423 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kerick

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 5206
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #255 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....
There's someone in my head, but it's not me!

Offline kerick

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 5206
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #256 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.
There's someone in my head, but it's not me!

Offline ysi_maniac

  • Kit Surgeon First Class
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #257 on: May 22, 2020, 11:16:57 am »
your project is really impressive :thumbsup: :wub:
Will die without understanding this world.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • Kit Surgeon First Class
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #258 on: May 24, 2020, 04:03:51 pm »
Which config do you prefer?

Will die without understanding this world.

Offline rickshaw

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10618
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #259 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.
How to reduce carbon emissions - Tip #1 - Walk to the Bar for drinks.

Offline tahsin

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #260 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.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • Kit Surgeon First Class
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #261 on: May 30, 2020, 01:20:42 am »
What if a long nose british Phantom?


Will die without understanding this world.

Offline McColm

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8341
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #262 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 ?

Offline Gondor

  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 7443
  • Builds Slower Than A Glacier Moves
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #263 on: May 30, 2020, 10:15:02 am »
What if a long nose british Phantom?



Done it , well completed one of three planed.

Gondor
My Ability to Imagine is only exceeded by my Imagined Abilities

Offline tahsin

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #264 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.

Offline McColm

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8341
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #265 on: May 31, 2020, 02:28:53 am »
Was their any attempt on a V/STOL version?

Offline tahsin

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #266 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.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 08:36:57 am by tahsin »

Offline ysi_maniac

  • Kit Surgeon First Class
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #267 on: June 01, 2020, 05:41:54 pm »
Phantom next generation. Some posibilities based on F-4 and F-15

Will die without understanding this world.

Offline Weaver

  • I'm either dumb or evil - you decide.....
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 18177
  • Has a life outside What-If that is also What If
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #268 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...
Neophyte: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
Neo: Even false things?
MtY: Even false things are true.
Neo: How can that be?
MtY: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
Principia Discordia

Twitter: @hws5mp
www.minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline NARSES2

  • Nick was always on his mind - just ask the Pet Shop Boys
  • Global Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 42937
Re: F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom
« Reply #269 on: August 14, 2020, 06:27:46 am »
So F4-L ; L for limey ?  :angel:
Decals my @r$e!