McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration

[CiTrus90]

Italian F-4 Frecce Tricolari

Phantoms at the back

Ooooh, me likes!!

It's reminiscent of the F-104S "999" with that all red livery :)

By the way, what it may have looked like with the traditional livery:

The Phantom for the PHrecce Tricolori

Regards.

[Zaskar24]

If you're going to model that one, note that it has an RF nose and an early Navy wing without the wheel bulges most later Phantom variants had (the various D&S volumes on the F-4 would be useful here).

For doing the canards, either thin plastic card laminations cut to shape and sanded to profile or see if the horizontals from a 1/144 Phantom II might provide a starting point.

I thought that the shape was similar to the horizontals. Will have to get a 1/144 Phantom II and see how it looks.  Thank you for the suggestion elmayerle.

[Daryl J.]

Since the Phantom is no more:

F3G-H, Spey engines, ASAT capable.  Swedish Splinter.

[GTX_Admin]

Old school - F-4 with AIM-4 missiles:

[M.A.D]

I'm fairly sure I've seen a pic of a bomb pallete carried under a Phantom's belly in trials at China Lake, but I can't find it at the moment.
EDIT: It's on chinalakealumni.org (LINK!), about twenty pics or so down. Caption reads: NAF "China Lake F-4B Phantom II BuNo 148393, with nine Mk 117 750 lb. bombs, China Lake, circa 1974. Testing supersonic bomb delivery from Boeing's Conformal Carriage low drag interior bomb racks. Photo from Charlie Souza."

The sideview photo from the same collection gives a good idea of the depth of the Boeing Conformal Carriage.

What a seemingly sensible arrangement!
Sorry to diverge from topic, but can anyone direct me more to this Boeing Conformal Carriage?

M.A.D

[M.A.D]

Ok, with the air war over the skies of North Vietnam showing the costly and inadequate shortfalls of U.S. air-crew training in air-to air combat of the USAF, USN and USMC, the failings and over reliance on the Aim-7 Sparrow medium-range air-to-air missiles in combat, and the neglect of a built-in cannon on its premiere fighter – the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, which all three services are being equipped. The May 1968 Pentagon published "Ault Report",  concludes that these problems can be remedied in the following manner underunder the title of
Emergency F-4 Phantom II Air Combat Improvement Program:
- priority placed on the USAF, USN and USMC establishing specialised Fighter Weapons Schools to hone air-crew training in air combat manoeuvring (ACM);

- The insulation of a built-in cannon armament and adequate ammunition into the F-4 Phantom II series to remedy this oversight and shortfall of such a weapon in the basic design, as well as negate the need to carry heavy and drag endured gun pods;

- In terms of the premiere McDonnell F-4 Phantom II fighter series, a Weight Reduction Program be initiated to reduce the ever growing weight of the design (but without significantly depart from the design and mission requirements, where and when possible) to optimise the Phantom II in the air-to-air combat arena against the more nimble Soviet supplied MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21's flown by the North Vietnamese.

Now gents, I’d like and appropriate your input to where and how the basic F-4 Phantom II could be structurally 'modified' to achieve this Weight Reduction Program, as well as improve air-to-air manoeuvring/combat.
Straight away the things that come to my mind to improve the Phantom II series in air-to-air combat are - smokeless engines, leading edge slats for enhanced manoeuvring, lead-computing gunsight, reduced internal fuel, built-in gun/guns .......

Gent's, I’m also interested in ideas/notions for other built-in cannon armament arrangements, other than what became the F-4E nose-mounted M61 20mm cannon and 640 rds. For although I see and view the F-4E variant as a natural progression of the Phantom II, the principle changes that constitute the F-4E are new-built and not a straight forward retrofit to existing/earlier F-4 model’s!

M.A.D

[Kelmola]

Wing-mounted single-barrel guns roughly where the guns are on A-4 (and where TISEO is on some F-4's)? This wouldn't require a compromise on the radar dish size (and wouldn't cause gas ingestion to the engines).

Weight reduction, well, a generation later Israel managed this when they redid the wiring and hydraulics on Turkish F-4's, reducing weight by some 750 kg / 1650 lb...  But seriously, revising the avionics suite (and possibly moving to fly-by-wire instead of physical control cables and the associated hydraulic boosters) would achieve significant weight savings due to miniaturisation even in the late 1960's/early 1970's timeframe.

EDIT: Substitute glass fibre/carbon fibre for metal in all non-critical components (depends on how feasible this would have been at the time).

Ditch the long in the tooth J79 powerplant altogether and switch to the F100 engine of similar dimensions for 50% more thrust, less fuel consumption, etc.

Maybe have the air-to-ground avionics be removable in the field, so that they are not carried when a plane is tasked to fly escort/CAP?

Optionally two-man crew (instead of the fully single-seat proposals), maybe allowing (again) provisions for the second crewmember to be removed in the field (note: how do the previous two modifications affect CoG?)

---

Still, these are technological solutions to a problem that the USN proved to have been a doctrinal one: pilots were simply not utilizing F-4 properly. USAF F-4E's actually had worse kill ratio against MiG's than what F-4C/D's used to have because when relying on the slats, guns, and such, pilots got into situations the Phantom had no business being in (not even a magic "weight reduction program" would have allowed a F-4 to out-turn a MiG-17), meanwhile USN F-4 kill ratios soared from the pre-TOPGUN levels using F-4's speed and climb rate to an advantage. (It also helped that both Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles had improved considerably even during those few years. Something a certain Mr. Sprey still hasn't caught up with.)

[elmayerle]

At the time of Vietnam, the J79 wasn't that long in the tooth (mid- to late-50's design and pushing state of the art for its time) and was still improving while the F100 is decidedly larger than the J79 by, IIRC, some 10 inches (only the reduced bypass F100, the PW1120, got down to a replacement fit for the J79 and that was a late 1980's development) and was still early in its development stages at the time (still was in the 1973-1975 timeframe when I worked on them at P&W).

I think I'd be tempted to go with a single-barrel gun pod proposal based in McDonnell's concept of a gun pod mounted at one of the aft Sparrow positions, perhaps a reverse license with Hawker to use modified Harrier gun pods.

[Kelmola]

the F100 is decidedly larger than the J79 by, IIRC, some 10 inches (only the reduced bypass F100, the PW1120, got down to a replacement fit for the J79 and that was a late 1980's development) and was still early in its development stages at the time (still was in the 1973-1975 timeframe when I worked on them at P&W).

Not to question someone who has first hand experience, so I blame Wikipedia, for it gives the J79-GE-17 the dimensions 530cm length, 98cm diameter, 1750 kg weight, whereas for F100-PW-220 it gives 490cm, 88cm, and 1467 kg respectively. (However, it says nothing of the external equipment possibly required for each engine at certain locations.) For PW1120, the dimensions are given as 411cm, 102cm, and 1292 kg, and for the Spey Mk. 202, which did require the re-engineering of the entire rear fuselage, 520cm, 109cm, and 1856 kg.

GE F110, on the other hand, is given the dimensions 463-590cm, 118cm, 1778-1996 kg.

I do realize F100 was still in the development (though was given false whiffy hope again by the Wiki entry stating it first flew in 1972 with the F-15 prototype), but maybe with extra attention paid to it it would have been possible to hasten the program?

Of course, extra thrust in the form of significantly more powerful engines would most likely necessitate larger intakes too to supply the engines with more air, leading to redesign and more redesign...

...in which case composite materials in non-loadbearing structures not subjected to the worst of aerodynamic heating would probably be the better way to go for actually reducing weight (but would be more expensive than aluminium and steel, leading to rising unit cost).

[elmayerle]

Ah, I think I see what happened, you went with the inlet diameter, not the maximum envelope diameter of 46.5 inches as opposed to the maximum envelope diameter of 38.4 inches for the J79.  Another complication would be that the J79, except for the variant used on the F-16/79 has engine mounted accessories whereas the F100, and most military engines since then, has a single drive shaft to an Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive gearbox.  Of course, the F100 has a rather higher mass flow which would require larger intakes.  Yes, the F100 first flew on the prototype F-15 but that was far from a production-ready, de-bugged, engine and the testing on the F-15 revealed that the spec. requirements that the F100 with respect to imposed loads were vastly understated and it took a fair while to sort that out.  That the F401, a "pushed" version of the same engine was cancelled probably delayed development, too, as its test engines were seeing problems before the test F100 engines were.

For the record, the F110 maximum envelope diameter also lists as 46.5 inches which makes sense as it was designed to fit the same installation envelope as the P&W engine.  It was the third engine in the family developed, the first two being the F101 and CFM-56, and the fourth in the family, drawing elements from all the others, is the F118 in the B-2A and U-2S.

The earliest you could probably see a quick replacement engine for the F-4 would be the late 1970's with the F/A-18's F404 (and derivatives) and an equivalent of the PW1120 likely wouldn't be available, at the earliest, until then, and that with a very dedicated program after the F100 was debugged.

[M.A.D]

Old school - F-4 with AIM-4 missiles:

Thank's Greg, can't say I've seen many pics of Phantom II's touting Aim-4's!!

M.A.D

[Kelmola]

Ah, I think I see what happened, you went with the inlet diameter, not the maximum envelope diameter of 46.5 inches as opposed to the maximum envelope diameter of 38.4 inches for the J79.  Another complication would be that the J79, except for the variant used on the F-16/79 has engine mounted accessories whereas the F100, and most military engines since then, has a single drive shaft to an Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive gearbox.  Of course, the F100 has a rather higher mass flow which would require larger intakes.  Yes, the F100 first flew on the prototype F-15 but that was far from a production-ready, de-bugged, engine and the testing on the F-15 revealed that the spec. requirements that the F100 with respect to imposed loads were vastly understated and it took a fair while to sort that out.  That the F401, a "pushed" version of the same engine was cancelled probably delayed development, too, as its test engines were seeing problems before the test F100 engines were.

For the record, the F110 maximum envelope diameter also lists as 46.5 inches which makes sense as it was designed to fit the same installation envelope as the P&W engine.  It was the third engine in the family developed, the first two being the F101 and CFM-56, and the fourth in the family, drawing elements from all the others, is the F118 in the B-2A and U-2S.

The earliest you could probably see a quick replacement engine for the F-4 would be the late 1970's with the F/A-18's F404 (and derivatives) and an equivalent of the PW1120 likely wouldn't be available, at the earliest, until then, and that with a very dedicated program after the F100 was debugged.

Thanks for the info - knew there had to be more to it than just outright measurements (another problem in relying on Wiki dimensions is that they are sometimes without afterburner, sometimes not).

So then it's back to actually reducing weight (which would help with wing loading) instead of increasing thrust.

I think I'd be tempted to go with a single-barrel gun pod proposal based in McDonnell's concept of a gun pod mounted at one of the aft Sparrow positions, perhaps a reverse license with Hawker to use modified Harrier gun pods.

This is actually a novel idea. However, considering that the front wells were rarely used for Sparrows when the centreline drop tank was in use, would placing the gun pod in one of the front wells work (reserving the other for ECM or targeting pod) or would it simply cause the same gas ingestion problems as the nose-mounted gun did? Or would this cause clearance issues with the drop tank (obviously, there has to be some reason why McD suggested the aft wells)?

[elmayerle]

I would suspect clearance issues as well as wanting to avoid potential gun gas ingestion problems for the chosen location.  I could see an ECM pod in one front well and perhaps a designator pod in the other for air to ground?  I could also see podding the TISEO or an IRST and mounting it there.

[ysi_maniac]

Weird Pherrys scheme in this Phrench Phantom



Isn't it chic? 

[The Big Gimper]

Phantastique mon phrère du phantôme!!

[ysi_maniac]

Phlanker

[tankmodeler]

OK, for a dedicated (or primarily) air to air Phantom weight reduction could include the following:

Change engines to Speys (not weight reduction, but greater thrust and, more importantly, greater fuel efficiency).

Eliminate any structural add-ons for carrier ops. Land based fighter only.

Restructure the wings to take missile loads only on the inboard pylons. Eliminate any other payload capability.

Reduce tankage commensurate with the Speys and with lower drag due to missile carriage only.

Eliminate EWO position entirely. Rely upon ground intercept for guidance to within Sparrow weapons range.

Reduce radar power and maybe size to account for ground controlled intercept.

Locate M61 in fuselage in space vacated by fuel and avionics. Muzzles to be on top of fuselage instead of the avionics spine and offset to fire to side of canopy yet behind inlets to eliminate gas ingestion. Ammo storage could be directly behind pilot in EWOs position.

Tail area increase slightly to make up for reduced cross section area due to elimination of avionics spine.

Retain only CL pylon for ferry tanks. wing missile pylons unplumbed. CL pylon not rated for air combat manoeuvering. Use the fuel and lose the tank before ACM.


With all that you have a chance to actually reduce combat mass at no expense in range but a loss in non air combat mission capability.

[ysi_maniac]

Not sure what is cooler. Difficult to enhance Phantom coolness.

[GTX_Admin]

 

[ysi_maniac]

Some alternatives to integrate F-4 and F-16

[ysi_maniac]

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


Iteration 2

[jcf]

I’d suggest a dorsal intake for the third engine, XB-51 or Grognard style perhaps.
The path from a nose inlet would be a non-starter for structural and airflow reasons.

[tankmodeler]

Holy Crap! That's as ugly as sin, ain't it?

[ysi_maniac]

José: Love your designs! 

[tankmodeler]

Given that the bulk of the fuel was carried in the centre fuselage, such a design would have a short range.

Spectacularly short the instant you turned on the burners! 

Paul