Beyond The Sprues

Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: GTX_Admin on January 16, 2012, 02:46:17 AM

Title: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 16, 2012, 02:46:17 AM
Hi folks,

An area for your McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration.

To start with, here is some inspiring artwork by Andy Wenner:

(http://auroraartcompany.com/WARBIRDS%20PAGE/PHANTOM.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on January 16, 2012, 10:52:19 AM
Just to start discussion, let me through a few simple ideas out there:

Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Cliffy B on January 16, 2012, 10:57:14 AM
Production version of the test bird fitted with canards on the sides of the intakes.  Always thought that one looked rather wicked.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: upnorth on January 17, 2012, 12:32:51 AM
I always liked the variable geometry concepts of the Phantom.

Like a two engined MiG-23 from some angles.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Maverick on January 17, 2012, 05:40:39 AM
I've finished a total of 63 Rhino profiles over the years including a number of Swingers with various noses.

Regards,

John
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Iranian F-14A on January 17, 2012, 05:47:27 PM
Production version of the test bird fitted with canards on the sides of the intakes.  Always thought that one looked rather wicked.

Never seen a pic,but I heard some Israeli F-4s were modified with canards. Not sure if I believe this one or not. I know Israel had a habit of doing local modifications to aircraft, including adding canards to the Mirage 5 to make the Kfir,but still, never seen any evidence of this one.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Scooterman on January 17, 2012, 10:02:22 PM
62-12200 was the only canard Rhino.  Looks hot IMHO.  Been wanting to model this machine for awhile but she's quite the mash up.  Thin, fixed slat wings, no front missile bays, I forget what else.
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/f4e/fbw_phantom.jpg)
(http://afbase.com/files/attach/images/667/422/186/YRF-4_02.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Maverick on January 17, 2012, 10:33:15 PM
I believe the basic airframe was that of an RF-4C which explains the lack of missile bays for starters.  That said, I've also seen references to an F-4E which wouldn't preclude missile bays.

Regards,

John
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Iranian F-14A on January 18, 2012, 04:56:23 AM
You're both right,in a sense. 62-12200 was an RF-4C,not sure if it was the prototype of it( I have seen it listed as a "YRF-4C"),but it was the prototype F-4E,or YF-4E. The first tests done with an internal M61 were pretty crude,and they used this model,with the gun sticking out of the forward looking camera window right below the radome. Obviously the production models had a better installation,but for the prototype,this was good enough.Because it was orginally built as an RF model,this would explain the lack of foreward missile bays.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: apophenia on January 18, 2012, 06:19:55 AM
Alternate Users: Canada being the most obvious for sevral variants

And here's one ...
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on January 18, 2012, 12:45:13 PM
The CF-110 Phantom II looks nice!  Definitely a project worth consideration and a nice companion for an RCAF CF-110. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 18, 2012, 05:06:44 PM
Sweet :-*
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 27, 2012, 04:39:08 AM
ESTOL Phantom anyone?

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/F4V.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 27, 2012, 04:41:05 AM
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/RBCF-4XYZ.jpg?t=1282268087)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 27, 2012, 04:55:18 AM
Some inspiration:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/xF-4MFVSRoyalNavyartwork.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 04, 2012, 12:39:39 PM
Single seater (maybe even the original F-4F)

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/avia893.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 04, 2012, 03:17:12 PM
The single-seater I'm planning to do is a simpler mod to a "stock" F-4E using the original low F4H-1 canopy and following F-15 convention of making the backseat area an avionics bay.  I'm just questioning if I should add other "enhancements" such as improved engines and possibly a new wing aerodynamically similar to the F-15's wing.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on February 05, 2012, 12:28:43 AM
Fouga version with a V-tail?

My favorite What If question about the F4 is "what if it never happened?". It was so influential that concocting alternative procurements leads you into all sorts of interesting ideas....
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 05, 2012, 01:26:34 AM
"It never happened" leads to a couple of interesting ideas, a production F8U-3 and/or an enlarged F5D variant with a J75 and variable inlets (I'm partial to Fieri inlets like the F-105's myself).  Choice of seats (tandem for a two-seater most likely) would be up to the modeler and backstory.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 05, 2012, 01:36:08 AM
The single-seater I'm planning to do is a simpler mod to a "stock" F-4E using the original low F4H-1 canopy and following F-15 convention of making the backseat area an avionics bay.  I'm just questioning if I should add other "enhancements" such as improved engines and possibly a new wing aerodynamically similar to the F-15's wing.

No idea how to improve on the canopy but the suggestion of adapting the F-15 wing to the Phantom is appealing.  It should be easy enough to accomplish.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 05, 2012, 06:36:26 AM
No idea how to improve on the canopy but the suggestion of adapting the F-15 wing to the Phantom is appealing.  It should be easy enough to accomplish.
Very easy in that the root chords are nigh unto identical (I've done the test fit with a spare set of F-15 wings).  For the canopy, I was going to use the appropriate bits from Falcon's F4H-1 conversion.  Thinking of doing it to a Testors/Italieri F-4E/F/G kit and using the leftover G parts, particularly the sensor, in doing a WW Eagle from a two-seat F-15.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on February 05, 2012, 06:48:52 PM
"It never happened" leads to a couple of interesting ideas, a production F8U-3 and/or an enlarged F5D variant with a J75 and variable inlets (I'm partial to Fieri inlets like the F-105's myself).  Choice of seats (tandem for a two-seater most likely) would be up to the modeler and backstory.

And that's just for the Navy. What might the airforce had done for Vietnam once they realised they needed a dogfighter and they were losing Thuds hand-over-fist?

1. Productionised F-107 with the intake back in the ventral position?

2. F-106 "gunfighter" (Vulcan plus fuel in the bay, twin sidewinders on new outer-wing pylons) deployed to 'Nam and the production run extended?

3. Fighter F-105 with a bigger wing, fuel in the bay and more missiles? (for all their size, Thud's did surprisingly well in air-to-air combat: most of the losses were down to ground fire, and many might have been avoided by better detail design)

4. USAF procurement of the F-8 Crusader, possibly with a J-79 and a Vulcan?

5. USAF emergency procurement of a foreign type? A J-79-engined Mirage would seem tasty, and might, of course, give other people ideas......
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 05, 2012, 06:54:32 PM

4. USAF procurement of the F-8 Crusader, possibly with a J-79 and a Vulcan?

Mmmm.... :-*

Maybe also USAF A-6 Intruders in the strike role?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on February 05, 2012, 09:30:15 PM
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/trijetPhantom.jpg)

A heavier version with three engines?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 05, 2012, 11:15:45 PM
5. USAF emergency procurement of a foreign type? A J-79-engined Mirage would seem tasty, and might, of course, give other people ideas......
Well, considering that Boeing-Wichita had the US license for the Mirage III (if built, it would have been the Mirage IIIW) for entry in the FMS competition won by the F-5, procurement of first the Mirage III and later a J79-powered version would definitely be possible.

Mind you, I think the USAF adapting the F-8 much as they did the A-7 (armament and engine changes as well as a switch in inflight refueling methods) would be more likely given the attitude set of the SecDef of the time.  I suspect the same thing might have happened in the strike role with the A-6 picking up the slack (hmm, 'twould take enlarged engine nacelles, but a TF30-powered A-6?  Using the turbofan version of the J52 would be just a bit too much).

Of course, I could also see P&W pushing to replace the J75s in the F-105 and F-106 with afterburning JT8Ds, similar to the Viggen's RM8.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 05, 2012, 11:23:38 PM
A heavier version with three engines?
Only if you're enlarging the existing intakes to handle the needed increased airflow or are adding another intake or set of intakes (see, for example, the proposed 3-engined Vigilante).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 06, 2012, 02:22:13 AM

A heavier version with three engines?

Interesting concept!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on February 06, 2012, 02:59:46 AM

4. USAF procurement of the F-8 Crusader, possibly with a J-79 and a Vulcan?

Mmmm.... :-*

Maybe also USAF A-6 Intruders in the strike role?


Distinct possibility...

However, another "no Phantom" scenario I've considered is "it's a Phantom Jim but not as we know it". In this version, the A-6 gets bogged down in unsolvable avionics difficulties and is cancelled before it enters service. This causes a huge scandal, ends the careers of those officers pushing for a sophisticated attack plane, and causes a change of USN policy towards a more general-purpose big, fast striker like the F-105. The Thud itself would never be carrier compatible, but MacDonnell just happened to be trying to find a niche for it's new big "fighter" by calling it the AH-1 at the time, so the Phantom WAS adopted, but in the form of a sort of "Super-Skyhawk", with a small radar, single seat, 4 x 20mm, flat 6-pylon wing, flat tailplanes and no missile bays.

The AH-1 Phantom effectively displaced the Skyhawks onto the smaller Essex class carriers, and meant that the A-7 Corsair never happened either. Big carriers now operated updated A-5 Vigilantes (in an expanded conventional role) for long-range attack/recce/tanker functions, AH-1s for heavy attack and F-8U-3 Super-Crusaders as fighters. Essexs operated orignal F-8s and Skyhawks.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 06, 2012, 04:02:39 AM
I like that one, Weaver, though I think aerodynamics might push the bent wings and anhedral tailplanes anyway.  Still, that would be a rather different looking McD product.  As an alternative, the demise of the Intruder sees the USN buying the Blackburn Buccaneer and McDonnell getting the US rights to build it.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 06, 2012, 05:54:11 PM
Dedicated ground attack F-4 proposals:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98FZInternalArrangement.gif)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98GAInternalArrangement.gif)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 04, 2012, 01:50:57 PM
Phantom updates anyone?

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z3.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4ZV.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z2V.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on March 04, 2012, 07:51:41 PM
2nd from the top is my favourite.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 18, 2012, 03:47:58 AM
Random Idea:  F-4 Phantom in Ukrainian markings
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 18, 2012, 03:52:17 AM
Another random idea:  Indian Air Force or Indian Navy F-4s???
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 19, 2012, 01:47:02 AM
Yet another random idea:  RAF F-4 FGR.2 serving in the 1991 Gulf War (by keeping the aircraft in service a tad longer or even slide the war forward a couple of years) and in the desert pink scheme worn by the RAF tornadoes and Buccs and also adorned with appropriate nose art...

Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: gofy on May 21, 2012, 01:03:13 AM
"MiG Eater" F-4?
cool!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on July 23, 2012, 12:38:48 PM
Phantom updates anyone?

([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z3.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4ZV.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/F4Z2V.jpg[/url])


Nice work of faceting Greg!!
Also very impressed with the massive conformal tank/sensor arrangement!! Would this hold internally stored AIM-120 AMRAAM's??

M.A.D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on July 23, 2012, 08:24:58 PM
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F4_F111.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 24, 2012, 02:24:47 AM

Also very impressed with the massive conformal tank/sensor arrangement!! Would this hold internally stored AIM-120 AMRAAM's??

M.A.D


I believe it was for fuel only...specifically 1,100 US gal (4,230 L).

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-4.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tsrjoe on July 24, 2012, 03:06:07 AM
some manufacturers display models of F.4C exports ...

cheers, Joe
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tc2324 on July 26, 2012, 11:28:10 PM
Russki F-4

(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/tc2324/006-23-2.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Maverick on July 27, 2012, 07:41:48 AM
Don't forget the 'swinger' F-4's:

(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Germany/F-456.png)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20RAF/F-441.png)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20USN/F-453.png)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20USMC/F-451.png)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20USAF/F-446.png)

Regards,

John
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on July 28, 2012, 01:49:36 AM
Extra engined Soviet Phantom  :o

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/f4e_soviet-1.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ChernayaAkula on July 28, 2012, 03:15:08 AM
^ (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/Emoticons/faint.gif) Mad as a box of frogs!  I love it! (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/Emoticons/ukliam2.gif)

The one-piece canopy is just inspired! Would look the dog's danglies for a modernized F-4, especially when coupled with the one-piece windscreen.  :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 04, 2012, 02:37:50 AM
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F111_f4.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: TerryCampion on August 05, 2012, 05:57:02 AM
Argentine F-4S
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on August 05, 2012, 05:58:56 AM
Very nice camouflage scheme.  Is that the Italeri or Hasegawa F-4 kit?   
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 05, 2012, 06:30:56 AM
Nice indeed.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: TerryCampion on August 05, 2012, 09:56:10 PM
Italeri 1/72nd.
I also built alongside it an Italeri 1/72nd F-4(E)S for the RDAF....basically an F-4S but I added some length tp the noce with plasticard and filler.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 07, 2012, 12:09:16 AM
([url]http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F111_f4.jpg[/url])


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. 8) 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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 07, 2012, 02:20:28 AM
 :-\
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 09, 2012, 11:49:27 PM
(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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on September 07, 2012, 12:01:27 AM
Extreme scalorama

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/mini_phantom_10.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on September 29, 2012, 12:03:12 AM
Early flat profile canopy, flat wing, slightly stretched fuselage behind the main wing, slightly reduced tail empennage with subtle recontouring.    Not quite a F-4A, not quite the Super Demon.

Ogival main wing, vertical stab.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 25, 2012, 12:37:29 PM
FAR148 has recently completed his RCAF Phantom FGR.4 (RR Spey powered F-4G Wild Weasel) and has shared his WIP and images at the following links:

Aircraft Resource Center ------>  Royal Canadian Air Force F-4 Phantom FGR.4 (http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=258612)

What if Modelers ------> Royal Canadian Air Force F-4 Phantom FGR.4 (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,34276.0.html)

Most impressive and his weapons load is wicked!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on December 25, 2012, 02:06:36 PM
It's a jaw dropper isn't it. :) :D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: finsrin on December 25, 2012, 02:52:03 PM
Interesting changes and profile fittings.
All right on as realistic configurations.  :)
To pick a favorite -- its the single seat.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 08, 2013, 09:44:52 AM
Looks to be very much based upon this one Richard did a while back:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/Gekko_1/Canada11.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on February 25, 2013, 05:09:53 AM
Confession: I'm Scandanavian and enjoy my Norse Rival's splinter scheme even if red with white and bue trim are better than blue and yellow.   With those two cliches expressed. I'd love to do a reconnaissance Phantom in Swedish splinter.   But include as an update some sort of pod-based recce electronica that exceeds some of the Hughes developed equipment for the U-2R/S.   Scandanavians are like that if given a chance.  ;D

So the question:  which was more maneuverable?   Slotted or unslotted stabilizers? 

Edited to correct an autofill error. :-\
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 25, 2013, 05:16:52 AM
Why not go the whole Hog Rhino with a Swedish RF-4E(S):

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/avf4_3_04_zps01d188c1.png)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on February 25, 2013, 05:41:19 AM
Didn't Cutting Cheddar do a Peace Jack nose Conversion once upon a time?   I'd hate to think of the cost of that resin bit on eBay!  :icon_crap:

Since the Luftwaffe got the RF-4E, the B model is under consideration for their neighborly Scandihooves.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 25, 2013, 05:49:29 AM
RF-4E(S) conversions in both 1/72 and 1/48 here (http://eagledesigns.50megs.com).  I have never ordered from them though and can only assume they still operate.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 25, 2013, 09:58:00 AM
Enhanced recce Spey-Phantom with a late RF nose and with a full electronic recce pod from the RAF's recce pod.  Could also work with a Peace jack nose.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on February 25, 2013, 10:03:38 AM
I'm thinking of a Spey-powered naval Phantom with the nose, radar, and other EW-related gears of the F-4G Wild Weasel......

The problem is that the result probably won't fit into the deck lift of RN carriers; but then again, I'm thinking Ace Combat, and every country in Ace Combat has supercarriers......  ;D

The only question left for me in this regard, then, is the centreline hardpoint.  It's not rigid enough to grant the use of a gunpod with accuracy.  Does it have more to do with the pylon or a weakness with the fuselage?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 25, 2013, 10:11:29 AM
*laughs* I've got the bits in hand for the recce-Spey Phantom.  My EF-4G bits are going on an EF-15E Wild Weasel using the faired nose sensor aerodynamically tested on 71-0283, one of the FSD birds (Soaring Eagles has good pics of it as well as 71-0291 in Peak Eagle markings and equipment fit - yet another mod to properly show in operational markings).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on February 26, 2013, 12:45:53 PM
Suggestions for a very high speed recce Phantom circa 1975-1990 anyone?    It's a continuation of the Swedish Phantom in Splinter.  :-*.   

And no, I do not want the highly revised F-4X intakes. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 26, 2013, 07:03:13 PM
Maybe add a rocket booster either in the tail or in belly pod?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 26, 2013, 11:40:25 PM
Booster rocket in conformal tanks?  Either one over each engine or one large or two small in a conformal belly tank.  For the conformal belly tank, I'd recommend one large one on the centerline with enough of an angle on the nozzle to keep the thrust vector near the CG.  The over-engine ones would likely need some trimming surfaces (canards) to counter the nose-down pitching moment they would generate.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on March 30, 2013, 02:54:07 PM
RF-4J

Use Hasegawa's Showtime 100 single piece canopy kit.  Right where the radome hooks on, add a 1/4-1/2 inch extension for the camera bay.   It would look a bit like a Peace Jack nose, but rounded instead of prominently beveled.    It would fool Phantom Phans I'm sure.    ;D

It's the Phantom project I hope to start after the Swedish recce machine just getting started.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Edit:  Take the project a couple steps further and hang 3 gun pods beneath and put into service with Khemed. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Old Wombat on April 01, 2013, 03:12:10 PM
Booster rocket in conformal tanks?  Either one over each engine or one large or two small in a conformal belly tank.  For the conformal belly tank, I'd recommend one large one on the centerline with enough of an angle on the nozzle to keep the thrust vector near the CG.  The over-engine ones would likely need some trimming surfaces (canards) to counter the nose-down pitching moment they would generate.

Why not go the whole Rhino (yes, I stole that) & go with both options? One rocket booster over each engine & two small boosters in a conformal belly pod. That way you don't need to worry about thrust-line variables, just about whether the pilot can remain concious with all that acceleration. ;)

Cheers!

Guy ;D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on June 10, 2013, 08:34:59 AM
Revert to the single seat attack variant.   The inboard wing pylons sport long range anti-shipping missiles beneath and a late model AIM-9 on the outboard side.   Some Sparrow alternative or guidance system carried under the fuselage.   
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on June 16, 2013, 09:29:12 AM
Was the short nose Phantom able to carry three gun pods along with the usual two wing tanks and some Sidewinders?  Another weapons possibility for the long nose version is a pair of modified Japanese ASM-2s, but in Hellenic markings or some such.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diamondback on June 16, 2013, 11:16:24 AM
Speaking of Eagle Designs and Phantom parts... are the things in the middle of this Kurnass 2000 conversion set the same as the pylon-mounted chaff dispensers on F-4E/F/G?

(http://eagledesigns.50megs.com/kurnass.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 16, 2013, 04:36:24 PM
Err...image  not showing
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diamondback on June 16, 2013, 07:57:25 PM
Funny, shows fine here... but the part page is at http://eagledesigns.50megs.com/48ck21.html (http://eagledesigns.50megs.com/48ck21.html) .
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 17, 2013, 02:23:24 AM
Speaking of Eagle Designs and Phantom parts... are the things in the middle of this Kurnass 2000 conversion set the same as the pylon-mounted chaff dispensers on F-4E/F/G?

([url]http://eagledesigns.50megs.com/kurnass.jpg[/url])


Given the description given for the conversion is "EXTERNAL IFR PROBE, NEW INSTRUMENT PANELS, ECMs, IRCMs AND UNDERFUSELAGE PYLON FOR AIM-9" they may well be.  I assume you refer to these:

(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/awa01/101-200/awa133-F4F-phantom/images/Mvc-0061.jpg)

You can see some on the rear of the pylons in this photo if you look closely:

(http://pds11.egloos.com/pds/200902/02/63/e0055563_4986e45a4f8a3.jpg)

Whether they are exactly the same type or just a similar system in a similar location is hard to tell.  Will try to do some research.

I hope this helps.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diamondback on June 17, 2013, 05:13:41 AM
Greg, that's them--a while back someone had suggested refitting those onto the pylons of an F-15 for extra countermeasures capability, and I REALLY didn't wanna have to scrap one to one-and-a-half Hasegawa Phantoms just to get 'em.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ChernayaAkula on June 17, 2013, 08:21:00 AM
Was the short nose Phantom able to carry three gun pods along with the usual two wing tanks and some Sidewinders?  <...>


If you're talking about the 20mm gun pods, then no, I don't think so. The gun pods under the wings went in place of the tanks. Weight wouldn't be that much of a problem, but I guess you'd run into a clearance issue with the undercarriage if you tried to fit them on the inner wing stations. EDIT: see a few posts below

You could, however, have a couple of 7.62mm Minigun pods. Here's one with FIFTEEN of them!  :icon_twisted: Don't know whether it was just for show or a serious load-out, though.

(http://www.8tfw.com/images/15suu11s.jpg)

"PHANTOMS Forever" (what was he thinking? The correct spelling is obviously Phantoms Phorever! ;D) by Robert F. Dorr has two pics of AFRES F-4Ds with GPU-5 30mm gun pods on the centre-lines. Wicked cool! :icon_twisted:
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on June 17, 2013, 07:44:23 PM
Jeeeeeeeez - I think that's the first thing I've ever seen that justifies the phrase "enough Dakka".....  :o
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: kitnut617 on June 17, 2013, 07:50:10 PM

You could, however, have a couple of 7.62mm Minigun pods. Here's one with FIFTEEN of them!  :icon_twisted: Don't know whether it was just for show or a serious load-out, though.


I guess where the caption says '4485 Test Sqdn. (Yes they work)' might give the clue that they were at least tested  -----   ;)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on June 17, 2013, 08:23:01 PM

You could, however, have a couple of 7.62mm Minigun pods. Here's one with FIFTEEN of them!  :icon_twisted: Don't know whether it was just for show or a serious load-out, though.


I guess where the caption says '4485 Test Sqdn. (Yes they work)' might give the clue that they were at least tested  -----   ;)

This configuration was done during a BAD day. BAD being an acroymn for Bored Armorers Day.   :o
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 18, 2013, 02:19:18 AM
I thought it was a tribute for Saint Barbara's Day...
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on June 18, 2013, 09:07:04 AM
I wonder what the combined recoil would have been?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Litvyak on June 18, 2013, 09:53:04 AM
Well you won't soon run out of ammo...
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 18, 2013, 09:53:58 AM
Another member of club shred, courtesy of the Kansas Air National Guard and a hasty search on Google:

(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/161/f4gunpods.jpg)
(Original image source is obscured in a forum called AR15.com)


Moritz, the F-4C aircraft in your image is from one of the first blocks of USAF F-4C Phantoms.  It has the F-4B type inboard stores pylons that require an adapter bar to mount any sort of ordnance since the original pylon was designed to launch the AIM-7 Sparrow AAM. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ChernayaAkula on June 18, 2013, 12:27:40 PM
^ Well, whaddayaknow! I was about to say that the above load-out only works on the ground (due to the length of the pods interfering with the retraction of the undercarriage), but I've found a pic in a thread over on ARC (LINK (http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=110154&view=findpost&p=959234)) displaying an F-4 with an SUU-23 pod with a shortened end cap to allow clearance of the undercarriage doors.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/hatchet4/scan-2.jpg)
Caption reads:
A prettily painted SUU-23/A awaits a 'William Tell' shoot strapped to the starboard inboard pylon of a Happy Hooligans F-4D at Tyndall ADWC, Florida. The pods were usually carried on a rigid centreline mounting to reduce shell dispersion, but this inner-wing arrangement was adopted when the Phantoms acquired a new Fletcher/McDD Tulsa centreline fuel tank fit. Note also the 'blunt' rear fairing to the gun pod, which ensures adequate clearance for the Phantom's main undercarriage (Mil-Slides)
From Airborne Weapons of the West by Anthony M. Thornborough.


Okay, then, Daryl! Fire away!  :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 18, 2013, 02:46:07 PM
Another member of club shred, courtesy of the Kansas Air National Guard and a hasty search on Google:

([url]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/161/f4gunpods.jpg[/url])



Wicked!!! >:D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on June 19, 2013, 01:29:51 AM
Hmm, fit those on a F-4E and still have the centerline pylon for a fuel tank (which you'll need with that much drag).  Still, 'twould make an interesting companion to my "Gunslinger" A-10 with two GAU-5's in addition to the main gun.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on June 19, 2013, 02:18:05 AM
IIRC, the 1:48 Monogram F-5E and F-4C/D kits source the SUU-23's without having to go to the Hasegawa Weapons Set.   

Thanks for all the researching!   
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 19, 2013, 02:31:09 AM
IIRC, the 1:48 Monogram F-5E and F-4C/D kits source the SUU-23's without having to go to the Hasegawa Weapons Set.   

Thanks for all the researching!

One can also buy resin 1/48 SUU-23s by themselves...or so I have heard :uuu:.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diavel on June 19, 2013, 03:05:26 AM
The old US navy/ airforce version by Airfix in 72nd scale had 2 of the suu-23's in the kit too as I have had 2 of those kits.
Chris
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ChernayaAkula on June 19, 2013, 03:23:51 AM
IIRC, the 1:48 Monogram F-5E and F-4C/D kits source the SUU-23's without having to go to the Hasegawa Weapons Set.   

Thanks for all the researching!


One can also buy resin 1/48 SUU-23s by themselves...or so I have heard :uuu:.


Yup. Wolfpack does them, in packs of two. Currently on sale at Lucky Model (LINK (http://www.luckymodel.com/scale.aspx?item_no=WP-48145)).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on June 23, 2013, 12:43:11 PM
odd thought, French "domestic content" export version of F-E; ATAR 9K50 replaces J79 and two DEFA 30mm autocannon replace the 20mm M61.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ChernayaAkula on June 23, 2013, 02:00:49 PM
^ The Israelis actually trialled a twin DEFA set-up in one of their F-4Es. There are a couple of pics in the IsraDecal book "F-4E Phantom Kurnass in IAF service".
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on June 30, 2013, 06:11:59 AM
 Modify the inboard pylons to be capable of carrying some fairly heavy duty anti shipping missiles.   Choose whatever Phantom variant you wish.  :)
D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 30, 2013, 06:21:24 AM
Like such?

(http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/ner9nzh9na92n3.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on June 30, 2013, 06:45:37 AM
Like such.  :).  Beaten to the punch again by reality.  :icon_crap: ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 01, 2013, 02:38:31 AM
Something similar (these are AGM-142s...which can be used in an Anti-shipping role I suppose):

(http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/cabatli53/40837_37844.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diamondback on July 01, 2013, 02:42:41 AM
ISTR that Rafael Popeye/AGM-142 Have Nap (HN's a license-built and USN/USAF-ized Popeye) was primarily intended as a ship-killer to replace Harpoon, with a secondary stand-off capability against land targets.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 01, 2013, 02:42:52 AM
Actually thinking about your idea a bit more...what about a Phantom loaded out with AGM-84 Harpoon missiles?  or a RN FAA one with Sea Eagles?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 01, 2013, 02:45:51 AM
ISTR that Rafael Popeye/AGM-142 Have Nap (HN's a license-built and USN/USAF-ized Popeye) was primarily intended as a ship-killer to replace Harpoon, with a secondary stand-off capability against land targets.

I seem to recall it was the other way around.  I may be wrong though.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diamondback on July 01, 2013, 02:48:48 AM
Doesn't really matter with modern seekers... whether Surf or Turf, if you can see it you can hit it, and if you can hit it you can hurt it. LOL

Re Harpoon, IF the Hasegawa Eggplane Phantom's to be believed, and I might've seen photos of it done, the Japanese may have tried the Phantom/Harpoon combo.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on July 01, 2013, 02:58:45 AM
Operators I had in mind were Canada, Norway, Finand, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Japan, Great Britain, and in a Coast Guard-like role Argentina to counter all the Squid stealing that is going on. 

Hmmm...Popeyes.   Hadn't thought of modifying those.   Can wing tanks be used?  The thought being a SUU-23 midline, wing tanks, and (altered) AGM-142s on a F-4J since one exists in the stash.   A gun nose variant would be outfitted on my shelf with the big centerline tank.   

Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diamondback on July 01, 2013, 03:04:45 AM
Daryl, you'll probably need Popeye inboard, small droptanks outboard--it's a BIG missile, which is a LOT of weight dropping off at once, and you want to watch the roll moments induced by a lot of weight moving off one wingtip unless you have it set to launch both at once. (That weight change inducing roll is why on a Prowler I was planning, an NFO on ARC advised I limit the A-6F outer pylons to about 500# of payload each.)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on July 01, 2013, 03:33:56 AM
Understood.   Sometime back an online purveyor had the Revell/Monogram F-4C/D offered for very cheap so 4 were ordered in with the thought of doing a major airframe modification to the fuselage and wing using two kits.   See the Aurora VF-84 F-3G-H Spectre on Hyperscale for a basic planform btw.   Part of the idea is to move the inboard pylons a bit towards the centerline in order to reduce the effects of unilateral weight changes.

Sea Eagles?   Hmm....might have to go clip those out of my Airfix Sea Harrier kit and put them in the FGR.2 box. 

Harpoons?   Extended length/extended range versions perchance?   
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diamondback on July 01, 2013, 03:42:21 AM
ISTR  standard models... but you could WHIF something based on a SLAM-ER with the smaller Harpoon seeker and warhead, using the space for expanded fuel tank.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 01, 2013, 05:22:13 AM
Sea Eagles?   Hmm....might have to go clip those out of my Airfix Sea Harrier kit and put them in the FGR.2 box.


Daryl.  The missile shapes you are referring to in the Airfix Harrier kit are I am sorry to say are are rather poor representations of the MARTEL ARM and quite soft on the details.  The missing air intake feature on the missile underside is one of the obvious differences between  the MARTEL ARM and Sea Eagle AShM missiles.  A decent 1:48th scale Sea Eagle can be found in one version of the Airfix Buccaneer kit. 

Harpoon shapes in 1:48th scale can be found in the Skunk Models weapons kit.  All other AGM-84 Harpoon shapes (with the exception of Verlinden and SOL resin) are missing the air intake on the underside of the missile body.  A very obvious feature even in a side view of the missile and most of the plastic model manufacturers have ignored this feature for reasons unknown.  Hasegawa got it right in their 1:72nd scale weapons set but failed in their 1:48th scale weapons set that offers the SLAM version of the Harpoon.  The Verlinden Harpoon was available in the old F-18 Hornet update set.  SOL is out of production and very rare. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on July 01, 2013, 05:58:50 AM
Good to know.   Thanks! :).  There also just happens to be that Buccaneer kit in a storage box somewhere.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on July 01, 2013, 10:07:01 AM
ELINT Phantom: start with an F-4E and shave off the gun.   Requisite pod-based monitoring gubbins, some defense capability remains.   
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on July 01, 2013, 10:25:53 AM
ELINT Phantom: start with an F-4E and shave off the gun.   Requisite pod-based monitoring gubbins, some defense capability remains.
Leave the fairing and fair the front end forward for a faired in ELINT pod.  Add a second, larger, pod on the centerline (perhaps a variant of the one flown on RAF/FAA Phantoms, but for ELINT only) and two outboard wing drop tanks.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 01, 2013, 01:03:57 PM
ELINT Phantom: start with an F-4E and shave off the gun.   Requisite pod-based monitoring gubbins, some defense capability remains.
 

In real life the RF-4C was also tasked to perform the ELINT mission when the cameras were replaced with the electronics equipment to perform that function.   The only visible difference between a camera equipped RF-4C and the RF-4C ELIINT mission aircraft was the placement of a small truncated disc antenna (about the size of a pie plate) mounted under the nose ahead of the nose gear covering one of the vertical camera ports. 

The RF-4C was also equipped with side looking radar (SLAR) antennas below the cockpit where the missile wells were located on the fighter versions. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on July 08, 2013, 07:18:21 AM
Since Academy include the long nozzles in their new F-4B kit, perhaps some alternative country could be involved in developing the updated J-79s.  Volvo perhaps and one airframe sent over for fitment/testing in full national markings.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Diamondback on July 11, 2013, 03:31:02 PM
21st Century Phantom: replace the shoulder rails with LAU-128's just like F-15, maybe fitted with ALE-58 countermeasure dispensers too. I fired off a note to Shawn Hull, and he tells me he's got plans to do '58s after he puts a few more projects to market.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on September 02, 2013, 06:51:55 AM
Getting back to the Mach 3 Phantom:  long nose or short nose?   Why?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on September 23, 2013, 07:36:19 AM
About what was the top speed the intakes of the Phantom could tolerate before there were problems?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 23, 2013, 03:42:45 PM
About what was the top speed the intakes of the Phantom could tolerate before there were problems?

Are you talking about the standard F-4s or the RF-4X?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on September 23, 2013, 08:48:27 PM
The standard intakes please.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on November 22, 2013, 03:42:59 AM
Have I remembered correctly or is my mind beginning to play tricks on me?   It seems as though there is a photograph taken from above an early Phantom prototype showing ogival wingtips.
Yes?  No?  Photoshop?
If yes, was there a reason for the change besides possible efficiency in manufacturing? 
Thanks for any help in the matter.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on November 22, 2013, 05:20:10 AM
Daryl:

You are you thinking of the F3H-G?

UP-SHIP.com:
(http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/adwg45ani.gif)

Tailspin:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/Swd9Kw1FfjI/AAAAAAAAAf8/L20pxpixMhI/s1600/Copy+of+F3H-GH+Brickman.jpg)
http://tailspintopics.blogspot.ca/2009/11/f3h-gh.html (http://tailspintopics.blogspot.ca/2009/11/f3h-gh.html)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on November 22, 2013, 11:02:07 PM
The photo was labeled F4H-1.   I found it curious because the F3H-G was quite squared off.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 23, 2013, 03:35:39 AM
Have I remembered correctly or is my mind beginning to play tricks on me?   It seems as though there is a photograph taken from above an early Phantom prototype showing ogival wingtips.


Would this be the photo you were thinking of?

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-4_19_zps89fd1916.jpg)

Edit:  From what I have been able to discover in my research is that this is a photo from the first flight of the XF4H-1.  Maybe the rounded wing tips were only on that aircraft?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 23, 2013, 03:38:22 AM
I must admit that I have always liked the look of the original F4H-1 canopy.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8167/7142608823_312cde7b1e_o.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/6996520976_c6105775db_o.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on November 23, 2013, 05:41:33 AM
That's the one.  Thank-you!
But in looking at it more closely, the wingtip appears to be squared off and painted.   :icon_nif:
 ;D ;D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 23, 2013, 05:43:21 AM
You may be right.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 23, 2013, 08:54:49 AM
From by Tommy H. Thomason:

"The wingtips on the first Phantom were painted red, with the inside edge curved between the leading edge and the aft outboard corner of the wing tip. Red appears dark in a gray-scale photo and in this instance gives the impression that the wing tip is curved when it is really not."
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on November 23, 2013, 12:25:18 PM
But it should be done to a thin wing Phantom kit methinks.   Just like I think a square-windscreen Skyhawk should have squared off flying surfaces, not just the vertical stab.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on November 23, 2013, 04:21:17 PM
I've thought that the original F4H-1 canopy would be perfect for a developed F-4T, a proposed single-seat F-4E for the FRG and others.  put a sealing plate across the aft "hole" sills and use that area for avionics, much like the similar area on the single-seat F-15's is used.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on November 23, 2013, 06:20:57 PM
I quite like the small radome on this one:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/6996520976_c6105775db_o.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 24, 2013, 02:56:33 AM
I've thought that the original F4H-1 canopy would be perfect for a developed F-4T, a proposed single-seat F-4E for the FRG and others.  put a sealing plate across the aft "hole" sills and use that area for avionics, much like the similar area on the single-seat F-15's is used.

You and me both!   Or perhaps as the basis fora STOVL/ESTOL version where the rear cockpit is replaced with lift engines.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 24, 2013, 03:08:03 AM
I quite like the small radome on this one:



I like both for different reasons.  This might be useful too (from Tommy Thomason's excellent blog! (http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com.au)):

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9AScJqLUNzQ/ULEqVztY96I/AAAAAAAADNU/c3nwwbejI8A/s1600/F-4+Forward+Fuselage+comparison+Rough.jpg)

This is an overlay of McDonnell drawings of the forward fuselage.  Note that the radomes are located on the same center line (boresight). The top of the larger radome is slightly flattened at the parting line with the forward fuselage. (Note also that the parting line of the larger radome is not perpendicular to the radome center line like the smaller one is.) The flattening of the top of the radome was probably done to minimize the reduction in over-the-nose visibility with the new nose.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on November 24, 2013, 11:28:48 AM
I've thought that the original F4H-1 canopy would be perfect for a developed F-4T, a proposed single-seat F-4E for the FRG and others.  put a sealing plate across the aft "hole" sills and use that area for avionics, much like the similar area on the single-seat F-15's is used.

You and me both!   Or perhaps as the basis fora STOVL/ESTOL version where the rear cockpit is replaced with lift engines.
I've got a couple of the Falcon conversion sets that includes the F4H-1 and I intend to use those canopies for a single-seat "gunfighter".  Might also add the "blown" frameless windscreen that was tested on some late F-4's.

One of them might even get modified to incorporate both flying boom and probe and drogue refueling capability on one airframe.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on December 21, 2013, 01:25:13 AM
Information regarding the proposed single seat Phantom attack aircraft is sought.   18 months of searching has produced only one or two sentences saying it was put forth as an idea.   Nothing more.


Yep, I'd love to do a Spey engined and a thin wing version of just such.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 21, 2013, 02:52:54 AM
Are you referring to this?

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/Model98GAInternalArrangement.gif)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on December 21, 2013, 03:41:08 AM
Similar to the F-105 Combat Martin with GIB being "Colonel Computer".
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: uncle les on December 21, 2013, 06:02:41 AM
The RF4X on the right looks a bit whiffy...   (1/32 Phantoms having a conflab)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/292234_3991154459520_966464262_n.jpg?oh=3d1c78fa8a1e298fcde944aa92e5a5e8&oe=555224AB&__gda__=1431004044_9023a778ae8e5b5fce28ac468b088d5b)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on December 21, 2013, 06:23:59 AM
Information regarding the proposed single seat Phantom attack aircraft is sought.   18 months of searching has produced only one or two sentences saying it was put forth as an idea.   Nothing more.
If memory serves me correctly, that was what was originally offered to the FRG under teh F-4T designation.  The decided to go with a two-seater and ended with what we know of in their service.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: uncle les on December 21, 2013, 06:31:08 AM
I saw this in an Aerophile mag many years ago and thought I must have it in 1/32
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa244/ersatzfleug/rf4x_zps8360cb35.jpg)


and while we're at it - here's a couple I did in 1/48..   and they need a dust !

The original F4F concept according to Flight Mag back in the day
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa244/ersatzfleug/phantdust_zpsa26e4d4e.jpg)

and as already covered earlier in this thread - the swing wing proposal
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa244/ersatzfleug/f4cc_zps4c0badfc.jpg)

Photography will improve once I get my camera back !
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 21, 2013, 07:05:14 AM
The RF4X on the right looks a bit whiffy...   

It is, as they never built a real one, only half a mockup, the other side was a standard RF-4C that McD used as a buck.

The three 'service' F4-ESs that the IAF had didn't have the conformal tanks and used the LOROP camera in the nose. I've had an F4-ES in build for EVER, and I really MUST finish it!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: mrvr6 on December 21, 2013, 07:40:45 AM
The RF4X on the right looks a bit whiffy...   (1/32 Phantoms having a conflab)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/292234_3991154459520_966464262_n.jpg)

32 scale you say?
thats 1 hell of a table in that case  ;D

ps very nice collection  :-*
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: uncle les on December 21, 2013, 09:11:31 AM
The RF4X on the right looks a bit whiffy...   
I've had an F4-ES in build for EVER, and I really MUST finish it!

Yes - you must !  ( ..been there, read the book, seen the film, eaten the pie !!! )
32 scale you say?
thats 1 hell of a table in that case  ;D

Yes, it is a hell of a table ! - that's our outdoor 6 seater..   and yes those manscale Phantoms do take up a bit of room - here's my helper inspecting a couple on the kitchen table..
(https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/582088_3946888512899_549777068_n.jpg?oh=de2271e71b0e1e00f49d1e3f9f032875&oe=555277A1)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Vuk on December 21, 2013, 05:15:40 PM
Hey, I once got one of those... the four-leg variant I ment!

The angel and the devil in the same package!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Litvyak on December 21, 2013, 08:50:01 PM
Phantoms and kitties - that's like, heaven right there! :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 21, 2013, 08:51:48 PM
Phantoms and kitties - that's like, heaven right there! :)

Until one tries to take a bite out of the other.........
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 21, 2013, 09:29:35 PM
My wife's cat has a death wish. Shortly after sending a 1/72 Grumman Panther tumbling to the floor it decided to (try to) ambush our Anatolian Shepherd before clawing my leather laptop bag and then as my wife restrained me from throwing something at it the stupid thing took a swipe at her. >:(
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: mrvr6 on December 21, 2013, 10:34:17 PM
My wife's cat has a death wish. Shortly after sending a 1/72 Grumman Panther tumbling to the floor it decided to (try to) ambush our Anatolian Shepherd before clawing my leather laptop bag and then as my wife restrained me from throwing something at it the stupid thing took a swipe at her. >:(

sounds like you need a dog!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 22, 2013, 04:07:44 AM
Cat's make tough judges!  Anything they don't approve of instantly is thrown to the flood…or stood on!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on December 22, 2013, 04:45:40 AM
Greg, that well could be the one.   

What is more in mind is a true single cockpit, short nose variant perhaps more in line with the F3H-G than the production Phantom.   
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 22, 2013, 06:33:40 AM
My wife's cat has a death wish. Shortly after sending a 1/72 Grumman Panther tumbling to the floor it decided to (try to) ambush our Anatolian Shepherd before clawing my leather laptop bag and then as my wife restrained me from throwing something at it the stupid thing took a swipe at her. >:(

sounds like you need a dog!

Got two dogs but both are guardian breeds and will not deal with the cat as they see it as part of the pack.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on February 19, 2014, 11:16:49 AM
The ordnance is a MA-31 taget drone, which is a version of the Kh-31 anti-ship/anti-radiation missile......

The next step is therefore: what do I need to do to put a Kh-31 under an F-4N/S/E/G?  ;D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: taiidantomcat on February 19, 2014, 12:35:36 PM
Talk about an interesting picture  :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on February 19, 2014, 12:54:33 PM
Greg, that well could be the one.   

What is more in mind is a true single cockpit, short nose variant perhaps more in line with the F3H-G than the production Phantom.
F4H-1 conversion plus a modified F3H-2 canopy?  Somewhere here I've got a couple of Falcon's F4H-1 conversions and I mainly want the canopy and fairing for my F-4T effort.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 06, 2014, 07:59:29 AM
An essential for any true Phantom II fanatic:

(http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/uploads/monthly_04_2008/post-58-1208891410.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: uncle les on June 06, 2014, 09:39:03 AM
I recognise him....  ;)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/t1.0-9/581566_10200187509672705_670514173_n.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on June 10, 2014, 12:35:56 PM
And the kit is.........? 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 10, 2014, 03:30:26 PM
And the kit is.........?


http://www.monstersinmotion.com/cart/spaceships-vehicles-item-listt-c-13_194/phantom4-mk-ii-spook-fighter-bomber-model-kit-p-12067 (http://www.monstersinmotion.com/cart/spaceships-vehicles-item-listt-c-13_194/phantom4-mk-ii-spook-fighter-bomber-model-kit-p-12067)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on June 18, 2014, 06:05:44 AM
Thanks. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 18, 2014, 11:33:30 AM
With regards to a comment I made in the Antarki Models Peru thread in New Model Kit News/Reviews, does any one have a Mirage F.1 exhaust nozzle and a Phantom II in the same scale?  If so, can you please do a fit check to see how well the ATAR 9K nozzle would replace the J79 nozzle?  I'm thinking France would want as "French" as possible F-4 if they bought it and this would be one way (much as I can see French OV-10s with Astazou engines in place of T76s).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on September 18, 2014, 04:54:10 PM
[/outrageous French accent]
Sacre bleu!  Monsieur Dassault would go to an early grave!
[/outrageous French accent]

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dams301 on September 18, 2014, 05:00:37 PM
Hi,

Something like that ?

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5584/15253126206_4b4eb844b8_b.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5570/15276123405_05d86cba84_b.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5575/15276123945_53f4614c7f_b.jpg)

Exhaust from Haseg Mirage F-1 and RF-4 from Revell both in 1/72 ;)

Atar 9 and J-79 are similar size, but Atar is longest than J-79 (see Kfir vs the Nesher). No idea if you can put one in a Phantom (but nozzle fit perfectly)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 18, 2014, 08:26:05 PM
Yes, that's exactly the data I was looking for.  I'm thinking of a late-1960's derivative of the F-4E with ATAR 9K engines and the gatling replaced by twin DEFA 30mm cannon.  It might also have USN-style retractable refueling probe built in at the factory in place of the boom receptacle and will carry French weaponry as much as possible (see that mentioned thread for some ideas).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 18, 2014, 08:27:49 PM
[/outrageous French accent]
Sacre bleu!  Monsieur Dassault would go to an early grave!
[/outrageous French accent]

 ;D ;D
Well, if he can't produce a truly adequate replacement for the F-100, then he shouldn't complain if they go elsewhere; just because this happens to boost Breguet instead of Avions Dassault is purely coincidental. ;D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dams301 on September 18, 2014, 08:37:54 PM
Yes, that's exactly the data I was looking for.  I'm thinking of a late-1960's derivative of the F-4E with ATAR 9K engines and the gatling replaced by twin EFA 30mm cannon.  It might also have USN-style retractable refueling probe built in at the factory in place of the boom receptacle and will carry French weaponry as much as possible (see that mentioned thread for some ideas).
Great idea. I had a similar one but I change my plan for this RF-4E :P

Avions Dassault
Just a little precision. Dassault had many name in the past :
- GAMD : Générale Aéronautique Marcel Dassault
- AMD-BA : Avion Marcel Dassault-Bréguet Aviation
- Dassault Aviation (the current name)
 ;)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Litvyak on September 18, 2014, 08:44:13 PM
Wow I love that!! :D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 18, 2014, 08:48:47 PM
Yes, that's exactly the data I was looking for.  I'm thinking of a late-1960's derivative of the F-4E with ATAR 9K engines and the gatling replaced by twin EFA 30mm cannon.  It might also have USN-style retractable refueling probe built in at the factory in place of the boom receptacle and will carry French weaponry as much as possible (see that mentioned thread for some ideas).
Great idea. I had a similar one but I change my plan for this RF-4E :P

Avions Dassault
Just a little precision. Dassault had many name in the past :
- GAMD : Générale Aéronautique Marcel Dassault
- AMD-BA : Avion Marcel Dassault-Bréguet Aviation
- Dassault Aviation (the current name)
 ;)
Yeah, I know.  I've had many dealings with their sister company, Systemes Dassault, over the years.  For that matter, Marcel Dassault didn't take that name until after WW II, before then he was known as Marcel Bloch; the name change being a tribute to his brother.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dams301 on September 18, 2014, 09:02:14 PM
Dassault Systemes you meant ?  :P (ok ok, just kidding  ;D)

The precision wasn't only a reply of your post, but a "general knowledge" for whom didn't know it  ;)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on September 18, 2014, 10:24:17 PM
The burner can piece of a Hasegawa Mirage F.1C is a bit too big around for fitting into a Fujimi F-4S.

But......


It seems to be that it has more to do with Hasegawa choosing to include a bit of the aft fuselage on the part.  Modifying it smoothly would be a bit of a trick.   

Somewhere I have a Heller F.1 variant and two generations of Hasegawa Phantoms in 1/72, in 1/48 the Italeri F.1 and Monogram + Hasegawa F-4's but they are in storage somewhere.   I'll check them once located.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 19, 2014, 12:24:59 AM
Dassault Systemes you meant ?  :P (ok ok, just kidding  ;D)

The precision wasn't only a reply of your post, but a "general knowledge" for whom didn't know it  ;)
*chuckle* It comes up as I wrote it when I'm opening some of the PDM software (ENOVIA if you're that interested).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on September 19, 2014, 08:24:58 AM
High Planes do a Atar 9 exhaust nozzle in resin for Mirage IIIs which is very nicely moulded and a reasonable price too. (http://www.hpmhobbies.com/high-planes-dassault-mirage-iiie-o-atar-9c-exhaust-pipe-accessories-1-72/)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 23, 2014, 06:53:11 AM
Well, apparently in March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets. This engine was picked because it powered the Dassault Mirage IIIO fighters that were already being flown by the RAAF. However, the RAAF opted instead for the General Dynamics F-111C.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 23, 2014, 06:54:31 AM
One that JP did a while back:

(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/F-4aeronavale2.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 23, 2014, 09:58:35 AM
Well, I'm thinking more of an air force tactical aircraft camo'd for operations in Chad - taking prompts from similarly painted Mirage F.1s.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 28, 2014, 11:46:02 AM
The burner can piece of a Hasegawa Mirage F.1C is a bit too big around for fitting into a Fujimi F-4S.

But......


It seems to be that it has more to do with Hasegawa choosing to include a bit of the aft fuselage on the part.  Modifying it smoothly would be a bit of a trick.   

Somewhere I have a Heller F.1 variant and two generations of Hasegawa Phantoms in 1/72, in 1/48 the Italeri F.1 and Monogram + Hasegawa F-4's but they are in storage somewhere.   I'll check them once located.
I've got 1/72 Fujimi and Hasegawa F-4E/F's readily available in the "ready-stash" and two Hasegawa Mirage F.1Cs coming, so I can do a suitable fit check.  I'll need to look at the best way of modeling the twin-30mm. DEFA replacement for the Vulcan but that's a detail.  I wonder, would basic F-4D retain the US radar or would the radar (and radome) from the Mirage F.1C be used?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on September 28, 2014, 12:37:36 PM
The Mirage F.1 radome was chosen for aerodynamic, rather than electronic reasons.  When it was originally designed, it used the radome from the Mirage III.

(http://imageshack.com/a/img537/9755/CHttdr.jpg)

I modelled it here:

(http://imageshack.com/a/img845/4291/g8gn.jpg)

I believe it would be a better "fit" than the Pinocchio nose that ended up on the F.1 in real life.   
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 28, 2014, 10:14:35 PM
Hmm, have to see how a Mirage III radome looks on a F-4E, then, or just stay with the standard F-4E radome..
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on September 29, 2014, 11:33:18 AM
Well, apparently in March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets. This engine was picked because it powered the Dassault Mirage IIIO fighters that were already being flown by the RAAF. However, the RAAF opted instead for the General Dynamics F-111C.

So assuming Australia adopted the Avon powered Mirage we could have been offered an Avon powered F-4C.  Imagine the flow on effects this could have had with the RN and  RAF had it gone ahead.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 02, 2014, 04:24:04 AM
Interesting idea...
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on October 03, 2014, 09:05:52 AM
I checked the exhaust nozzle and tailpipe for Hasegawa's 1/72 Mirage F.1C against their 1/72 F-4EJ and it seems to fit fine.  So I'll start planning on my French attack bird.

Now I need to take notes from the Israeli trial fit of two 30mm DEFA guns and figure how to cleanly model it.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on January 26, 2015, 05:48:34 AM
How about a very simple, almost was, whiff.  Australia buys the 23 surviving F-4Es they leased while waiting for the delayed F-111C fleet.  A number serials and a late 80s early 90s low vis grey scheme, maybe 2 or 3 Sqn or even 4 Sqn and perhaps RF-4C / E, or F-4G versions could have found their way into the RAAF during the 80s as well.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 01, 2015, 05:31:44 AM
Some details if you are interested in doing a swing version:

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/600/d2t0.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 01, 2015, 05:39:52 AM
How about a very simple, almost was, whiff.  Australia buys the 23 surviving F-4Es they leased while waiting for the delayed F-111C fleet.  A number serials and a late 80s early 90s low vis grey scheme, maybe 2 or 3 Sqn or even 4 Sqn and perhaps RF-4C / E, or F-4G versions could have found their way into the RAAF during the 80s as well.

Maybe re-establish an old RAAF Sqn such as 7 SQN?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: mrvr6 on February 01, 2015, 04:31:14 PM
Some details if you are interested in doing a swing version:

([url]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/600/d2t0.jpg[/url])


keep the anhedral ala jaguar :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on February 01, 2015, 08:43:11 PM
How about a very simple, almost was, whiff.  Australia buys the 23 surviving F-4Es they leased while waiting for the delayed F-111C fleet.  A number serials and a late 80s early 90s low vis grey scheme, maybe 2 or 3 Sqn or even 4 Sqn and perhaps RF-4C / E, or F-4G versions could have found their way into the RAAF during the 80s as well.

Maybe re-establish an old RAAF Sqn such as 7 SQN?

Yes, pretty much what I was thinking but I was also keeping in mind something I read that stated for the Phantoms to be retained a squadron of Mirages would have to be disbanded to provide the necessary man power once 1 and  6 Sqn had finished transitioning to the F-111.  Doesn't matter which squadrons they used the question is would there be one or two of them and would the RAAF acquire additional aircraft, perhaps for reconnaissance and SEAD.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 06, 2015, 04:20:10 AM
A number of people have discussed the RAAF keeping their F-4Es in the early '70s when the F-111s started arriving.  Indeed, the RAAF considered retaining the Phantoms in a close air support role for the Army.  Alas, they were returned due to the costs which would have included disbanding one of the Mirage III squadrons.

As an alternative scenario, what if the RAAF did win the argument and accepted disbanding one of the Mirage III squadrons.  However, instead of using the F-4Es in the close air support role or even in a fighter role, what if they were all converted into F-4Gs (as most of the RAAF ones were in real life after return to the US).  This would then give the RAAF a specialised SEAD capability - something they did not have (and indeed, still do not have).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on April 06, 2015, 08:05:39 PM
Definite possibility, although ironically shortly after the Phantoms were returned 76 Sqn was disbanded to save money and, as I understand it, to stretch out the Mirage IIIs service life through providing a larger pool of airframes to balance out the remaining life of the fleet. 

Possible scenarios I have thought of include the Phantoms re-equip one of the Mirage squadrons (3 Sqn for symmetries sake), or F-4E Phantoms replace Canberras in 2 Sqn while still in Vietnam completely separate to the pre-F-111 lease, maybe 4 Sqn is reformed to take the Phantoms made surplus after the F-111s are delivered.  It could be that the Phantoms are retained / acquired as a deliberate strategy to put off procuring a Mirage replacement.

Another possibility I thought of was DOA was all about the air sea gap, sea and air power, now assuming one or more of the above options has occurred and the Phantom is already in service, additional Phantoms could have been acquired to police the air sea gap and replace the RAN FAAs Skyhawks as the RAAF was now committed to providing fleet air defence.  Maybe there could even be justification for a squadron of RF-4C/E to be stationed in Victoria to monitor Tasmanian dam construction. ;D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 14, 2015, 04:43:55 PM
Random idea:  Taiwanese F-4 Phantom II in similar scheme to their S-2Ts:

(http://www.taiwanairpower.org/images/s2/2214.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Old Wombat on May 14, 2015, 05:41:10 PM
That's a really nice scheme! :))
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on May 14, 2015, 09:45:08 PM
Yes that would look cool on a whole range of aircraft.

I just had a thought, how about an ASW Phantom?  Podded sonar buoy launcher, MAD boom (either podded or extending from the aft fuselage etc.) torpedoes and depth charges.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 15, 2015, 10:15:21 AM
Yes that would look cool on a whole range of aircraft.

I just had a thought, how about an ASW Phantom?  Podded sonar buoy launcher, MAD boom (either podded or extending from the aft fuselage etc.) torpedoes and depth charges.
use a MAD "bomb" like ASW helicopters do (Seasprite and MH-60B for example) in a pod similar to the buddy refueling pod but with the winch handling the MAD detector rather than a drogue.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on May 15, 2015, 06:37:33 PM
Random thought: in a whiff world where New Zealand is willing and able to spend more money on defence, how about they take the Aussie Phantoms as their whole air force when the RAAF get their F-111s? Either they never buy the Skyhawks and Strikemasters in the first place or they buy the former but then sell them on.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on May 15, 2015, 07:29:46 PM
Random thought II: Australia buys Phantoms, either as well as or instead of the F-111s, then converts it's Mirages to J-79 power to extend their lives and get common logistics. Kangaroo-Kfir anyone?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on May 15, 2015, 07:39:31 PM
Random Thought III: Specific ground attack weapons that fit in a Phantom's Sparrow bays. 8" diameter, 12' long and 510lbs weight (maybe more?) is plenty for some interesting dumb or smart weapons. My immediate though was for a cluster bomb consisting of 12 x 8" diameter, 8" long submunitions plus nose cone and tail fins/retarder 'chute. Another possibility would be an anti-runway "dibber" bomb similar to the Matra Durandal (which is only slightly too wide to fit).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on May 15, 2015, 09:36:26 PM
Random thought: in a whiff world where New Zealand is willing and able to spend more money on defence, how about they take the Aussie Phantoms as their whole air force when the RAAF get their F-111s? Either they never buy the Skyhawks and Strikemasters in the first place or they buy the former but then sell them on.

Was it in here someone posted something about the RNZAF selecting the C-130 over the C-141 (which in many ways would have been the better option due to NZs geographic location), specifically because they couldn't afford both Starlifters and Phantoms?  Basically the F-4 Phantom (I believe it was the C or D) was perhaps the single most important capability requirement for the NZDF in the 60s, meaning they sacrificed other capabilities to free up funding for the Phantom, had to opt for fewer, cheaper, slower, smaller, etc. for other capabilities so they could afford F-4s to re-equip their air combat force.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 16, 2015, 04:10:28 AM
Random thought II: Australia buys Phantoms, either as well as or instead of the F-111s, then converts it's Mirages to J-79 power to extend their lives and get common logistics. Kangaroo-Kfir anyone?


Like this perhaps:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Greater%20Australia/F-4RAAFARDU.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Greater%20Australia/MirageRAAFTimor1.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Greater%20Australia/MirageRAAFTimor2.jpg)

From here:  Greater Australia (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3.0)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 16, 2015, 04:25:00 AM
Random thought: in a whiff world where New Zealand is willing and able to spend more money on defence, how about they take the Aussie Phantoms as their whole air force when the RAAF get their F-111s? Either they never buy the Skyhawks and Strikemasters in the first place or they buy the former but then sell them on.


Not quite J-79 Phantoms but close enough:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/Gekko_1/nz1.jpg)

Something that Richard and I collaborated upon a while back.  More here (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1192.45)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on May 16, 2015, 06:11:30 AM
Nice one Greg!  :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on May 17, 2015, 10:22:18 AM
Ya!  :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 23, 2015, 08:16:07 AM
I thought this had been posted but can't seem to find:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/RF-4X_3_zpsuyuvawer.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-4X03_zps3dbfsi8v.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on September 07, 2015, 08:05:59 PM
Delta Phantom: mixing 1/72 F-4 with 1/48 Mirage

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/pha_mirage-1.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/pha_mirage-1.jpg.html)

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/pha_mirage-2.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/pha_mirage-2.jpg.html)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on September 20, 2015, 02:37:38 AM
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F4-F16.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F4-F16.jpeg.html)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: taiidantomcat on September 20, 2015, 12:05:55 PM
I thought this had been posted but can't seem to find:

([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/RF-4X_3_zpsuyuvawer.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-4X03_zps3dbfsi8v.jpg[/url])


Love those intakes!!

Nice work on the line drawings YSI! :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on September 20, 2015, 02:50:39 PM
^^^^^
I do love those intakes too.  ;)  :) . In fact, this new design with bigger engines would need bigger intakes.  ;)

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F4-F15.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F4-F15.jpeg.html)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on October 01, 2015, 10:20:47 AM
How about Indonesia takes over the F-4Es Australia leased pending the delivery of the F-111?  They would have served into the 90s easily meaning lots of different schemes over the years.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on October 31, 2015, 07:45:31 AM
(http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%20IF%202010/WHAT%20IF%20ALBUM%20A/RAF%20F-4M-GA%20PHANTOM%20FG3.03_zps46o18wh9.jpg)

(http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%20IF%202010/WHAT%20IF%20ALBUM%20A/RAF%20F-4M-GA%20PHANTOM%20FG3.02_zps0yrydewe.jpg)

(http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%20IF%202010/WHAT%20IF%20ALBUM%20A/RAF%20F-4M-GA%20PHANTOM%20FG3.01_zpsipa2aegx.jpg)

RAF F-4M-GA PHANTOM FG.3

Spinner's Notes: An exciting new release today - a single seat Spey Phantom! This was created by 'Sundowner' who, apart from being a superb skinner, has also done a Spey F-4E and a Spey RF-4. No input from me here - just the screenshots.

Source: Spinner's Strike Fighters
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 09, 2016, 05:27:53 AM
Interesting photo showing a RAAF F-4E with what appears to be 6 AIM-7 missiles:

(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/raaf-f-4e-phantom-ii-69-7211d.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: kitnut617 on January 09, 2016, 08:21:10 AM
Random thought: in a whiff world where New Zealand is willing and able to spend more money on defence, how about they take the Aussie Phantoms as their whole air force when the RAAF get their F-111s? Either they never buy the Skyhawks and Strikemasters in the first place or they buy the former but then sell them on.


Not quite J-79 Phantoms but close enough:

([url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/Gekko_1/nz1.jpg[/url])

Something that Richard and I collaborated upon a while back.  More here ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1192.45[/url])


I built this one many years ago, never got around to the decals but you've given me some ideas
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: KiwiZac on January 14, 2016, 09:48:42 AM
And not long ago I built one myself based on that profile:
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a388/ZacYates/just%20models/AD5DD088-64FC-43E8-AE69-0BC08CD7B669_zpstyhxmura.jpg) (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/ZacYates/media/just%20models/AD5DD088-64FC-43E8-AE69-0BC08CD7B669_zpstyhxmura.jpg.html)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 20, 2016, 03:13:41 AM
Random idea:  Italian F-4E in this scheme:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Lockheed_F-104G_Starfighter,_Italy_-_Air_Force_JP6991877.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 30, 2016, 05:31:01 AM
Interesting info and lots of photos of RAAF F-4Es (http://www.angelfire.com/extreme/raafphantoms/RAAFF4E.htm)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on January 30, 2016, 11:54:22 AM
Interesting info and lots of photos of RAAF F-4Es ([url]http://www.angelfire.com/extreme/raafphantoms/RAAFF4E.htm[/url])


Nice!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on January 30, 2016, 06:27:17 PM
Very nice thankyou.

Phantoms really were a missed opportunity, proposed as replacement for the Sabre, Canberra, for the RAN FAA, before finally being acquired as an interim solution prior to the delivery of the F-111 but then being returned even though there was provision to keep them.  The reason given was the expense of buying the required support equipment and the fact that the F-111 was entering service would require the disbandment of one of the Mirage squadrons to provide the necessary manpower.  Ironically No.76 Sqn was disbanded two months after the last Phantoms returned to the US demonstrating that the real reason was entirely financial.

As far as whiffs go there are so many believable ways to get various version of the Phantom into ADF service the most obvious being retaining the leased aircraft after the delivery of the F-111.  The question is what role, strike, as they had been employed, but progressively moving into multirole, or as fighters, bolstering the Mirage force.  What would be interesting is if, following the cancellation of the RF-111, the RAAF was able to convince the government to acquire RF-4C or E, perhaps to re-equip No.2 Sqn.  A further move could be to convert some of the retained F-4Es into Gs or buy and get the RAAF into SEAD role in the 70s / 80s.

To me the ultimate progression would have been, retain the Phantoms, perhaps re-equipping on of the Mirage squadrons, then acquiring RF-4C and F-4G to replace No.2 Sqn Canberras in the late 70s, forming them into a Phantom wing that could have provided useful service into the 90s, perhaps even into the early 2000s.  This Phantom force could have permitted the Mirage replacement to be slowed and other options to be considered, i.e. if the Phantoms were strike roled then a more air superiority oriented option could have been considered, but if the Phantoms had taken a more long range BVR air defence role then the new fighter could even have been a light weight or tactical fighter type.

Without a doubt retaining the Phantoms would have transformed the RAAF for a generation (and just think of the low vis schemes of the 90s)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on January 31, 2016, 01:40:28 AM
If you're buying F-4E and F-4G aircraft, you'd probably also be buying RF-4E aircraft and having lots of common equipment.  If you're wanting to upgrade in the 1990s, I could see following the original Israeli idea of using PW1120's or you could go with F404's (makes later F-18 or Gripen purchase easier if you're already using the engines).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 31, 2016, 02:13:07 AM
and just think of the low vis schemes of the 90s


You were saying...

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Greater%20Australia/F-4RAAFTimor1.jpg)

and if the RAN got in on it (with a new carrier to match), perhaps we could see this:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Greater%20Australia/F-4RANEarly.jpg)

And let's not forget the classic:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Greater%20Australia/F-4RAAFARDU.jpg)

All from here (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3.0).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on January 31, 2016, 02:26:58 AM
Interesting photo showing a RAAF F-4E with what appears to be 6 AIM-7 missiles:

(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/raaf-f-4e-phantom-ii-69-7211d.jpg)
The original F-4E prototype was based on the RF-4C which might explain the Navy style missile launch pylons for the AIM-7 Sparrow on this aircraft. 






*edit for grammatical error.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on January 31, 2016, 07:48:31 PM
If you're buying F-4E and F-4G aircraft, you'd probably also be buying RF-4E aircraft and having lots of common equipment.  If you're wanting to upgrade in the 1990s, I could see following the original Israeli idea of using PW1120's or you could go with F404's (makes later F-18 or Gripen purchase easier if you're already using the engines).

My understanding was later RF-4Cs were actually F-4Es completed with all the latest USAF spec RF-4 gear, not all of which was made available in the export oriented RF-4E.  I could be wrong but I definitely recall reading something along those lines, the reason I was suggesting the C for Australia is I envisaged it at being bought straight off the line from USAF slots.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on April 11, 2016, 04:24:29 AM
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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 12, 2016, 01:57:58 AM
You can actually get decals for that one in both 1/72 and 1/48 - they come from Model Alliance:

(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/1YYAAOSw9N1VhwtD/s-l1600.jpg)(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/9AAAAOSwMmBVhwtH/s-l1600.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on April 12, 2016, 07:31:50 AM
Oh nice one! If you had a spare set of tail markings left over from the kit decal sheet, 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, use those markings, then watch everybody assume that the markings are the whiff..... >:D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 29, 2016, 05:44:32 AM
I don't think those has been posted so far:

(https://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/f-4-phoenix-1_zps9725b0f4.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on May 29, 2016, 07:01:55 AM
Seems an odd sort of thing to do. Size/weight wise, an F-4 could carry a Phoenix on any of it's wing pylons.

That'd be an interesting whiff: F-14 gets cancelled and the F-4 is upgraded to carry AIM-54 and AWG-9. You might imagine them getting the extra power to carry all that by fitting TF-30s in a similar installation to the F-4K/M's Speys.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 29, 2016, 07:49:57 AM
I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 29, 2016, 11:47:28 AM
I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4
Yeah, like a new center and aft fuselage to take the rather larger engine.  Look up the differences in diameter between the TF30, the J79, and the Spey variant in the F-4K/M.  I could see P&W and GE vying to provide a more powerful and efficient replacement for the J79 that was interchangeable in fit and form (an enlarged YJ101 (basically a F404) from GE and a low-bypass turbofan/leaky turbojet version of the JTF22 core (basically the PW1120) from P&W would be likely candidates as well as P&W developing their earlier JTF16 technology demonstrator engine that paved the way for the JTF20 (P&W's B-1 engine entry) and JTF22 (F100 and F401 engines).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ChernayaAkula on May 29, 2016, 02:09:01 PM
AIM-54s on a Phantom.... How about using the conformal fuel tank suggested below with some recesses for semi-conformal carriage of a pair of Phoenixes under the belly. Less draggy and still carrying a decent amount of fuel.

I believe it was for fuel only...specifically 1,100 US gal (4,230 L).
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-4.jpg[/url])


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!) (http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1974/1974mo.htm), 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."
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on May 29, 2016, 02:54:28 PM
I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4

Okay then, fit it with an afterburning TF-41. The point is to leverage the work done on the UK F-4s to get a quick'n'dirty Phantom with more power. If the F-14 had been cancelled in about 1970, then most of the other options wouldn't have been mature enough.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on May 29, 2016, 07:13:13 PM
What about the Avon sized engine proposed for a non rocket SR.177 for the Luftwaffe, the RR RB-133, as described at Secret Projects.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1186.0/all.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1186.0/all.html)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 29, 2016, 09:54:49 PM
I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4

Okay then, fit it with an afterburning TF-41. The point is to leverage the work done on the UK F-4s to get a quick'n'dirty Phantom with more power. If the F-14 had been cancelled in about 1970, then most of the other options wouldn't have been mature enough.
Thing is, while the TF41 is a variant of the Spey, it's a different model than that used for RAF/FAA usages and has a diameter similar to the TF30.  Now, an afterburning TF41, based on 1967 testing as reported in AW&ST would give you 27,000 lbt per engine in full burner; two of those could make for quite a hot bird.

I will note that the JTF16 engine was running in 1966 and could have been used as the basis for a new Phantom engine.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on May 29, 2016, 11:59:56 PM
I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4

Okay then, fit it with an afterburning TF-41. The point is to leverage the work done on the UK F-4s to get a quick'n'dirty Phantom with more power. If the F-14 had been cancelled in about 1970, then most of the other options wouldn't have been mature enough.
Thing is, while the TF41 is a variant of the Spey, it's a different model than that used for RAF/FAA usages and has a diameter similar to the TF30.  Now, an afterburning TF41, based on 1967 testing as reported in AW&ST would give you 27,000 lbt per engine in full burner; two of those could make for quite a hot bird.

I will note that the JTF16 engine was running in 1966 and could have been used as the basis for a new Phantom engine.

So if a TF-41 is a Spey with a bigger fan, then make a TF-41 variant with a Spey fan, i.e. a Spey. Already in production in the UK and large chunks of it already being put together by Allison in the US.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 30, 2016, 11:20:18 PM
Not just a bigger fan, but a bigger core, too, as another stage of compressor was added (as also appeared in later civil Speys and it's Tay derivative).  I believe the bypass ratio stays the same, just the core gets larger.  Now I do understand that McDD did look at F-4 variants with TF30's (I believe the old Aerofax Minigraph on the F-4E mentions them in passing) and replacing those with TF41's would be nice.  For that matter, Allison was proposing the afterburning TF41 as an alternative to either the TF30 or F401 for export F-14's (considering that, on test, it matched the F401 in thrust, even if it didn't have as low a fuel consumption, that would be a reasonable swap).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on May 31, 2016, 09:57:46 AM
AIM-54s on a Phantom.... How about using the conformal fuel tank suggested below with some recesses for semi-conformal carriage of a pair of Phoenixes under the belly. Less draggy and still carrying a decent amount of fuel.

I believe it was for fuel only...specifically 1,100 US gal (4,230 L).
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-4.jpg[/url])


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!) ([url]http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1974/1974mo.htm[/url]), 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."


Funny I was looking through my F-4 book a few days ago and thought it would be cool to build the F-4 "Super" Phantom.

Did anyone make a 1/72 conversion kit? If no what would be the best medium(s) to build the fore and aft fairings and the central tank? Standard Sheet Polystyrene stock?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on June 20, 2016, 12:18:58 PM
You could always make 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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on June 20, 2016, 02:35:32 PM
Now just imagine that loadout with fire and forget MM wave radar and / or laser guidance kits fitted to the rockets?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on June 20, 2016, 08:06:34 PM
Still a bit tricky in the 51mm Microcell calibre used by the RN, but yeah, ten pods full of 70mm APKWS would be errr, potent.   >:D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on June 20, 2016, 08:11:46 PM
With miniaturisation 51mm may not be far off, maybe we could see a return of retractable rocket packs on combat aircraft.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: apophenia on June 21, 2016, 02:13:34 AM
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!) ([url]http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1974/1974mo.htm[/url]), 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.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 21, 2016, 03:15:45 AM
With miniaturisation 51mm may not be far off, maybe we could see a return of retractable rocket packs on combat aircraft.

Interesting idea - mind you, when you start talking about miniaturised audience systems you are more into the realm of mini-missiles rather than the old un-guided shotgun style rockets.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on June 21, 2016, 02:08:54 PM
Depends entirely who is in the audience, Russians for instance call guided missiles "rockets" don't they? ;)

That would be the ultimate upgrade as far as I am concerned, retractable packs for guided rockets/missiles to replace WVR missiles and perhaps even guns and intermediate range missiles for air to air and air to ground applications, leaving only extended range missiles and larger air to ground ordinance for weapons bays and hard points.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on June 21, 2016, 06:29:17 PM
I doubt whether FFARs would be modifiable into viable AAMs without changing them out of all recognition and making them incompatible with compact standard FFAR launchers in the process. The 'guided rocket' weapons are intended to do the minimum neccessary, for the minimum price, to improve the lamentable accuracy of unguided rockets to the point where fewer need to be used to hit the target. Essentially, they're looking for gun levels of accuracy from a rocket. There's a world of difference however, between making something that can hit a stationary target on the ground from a diving plane and something that can hit a fast, maneuvering aircraft that's miles way.

To my mind, the best use for cheap guided rockets is as a 'recoilless GAU-8', giving a strike aircraft the ability to bolt on a reasonably accurate WVR air-to-ground system with lots of stored kills without having to deal with the design compromises of a huge internal gun or the problems of accuracy and alignment that come with a traditional gun pod.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on July 14, 2016, 11:59:12 AM
You could always make Freightdog's day by modelling this loadout:

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

From here: https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/744106651137998849
Query, the outboard hardpoints are each carrying just rocket pods or a pair of the combined rocket pod/fuel tank stores?  the later possibility could make for interesting stores for an AdlA or Aeronavale Phantom II.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kelmola on July 14, 2016, 04:37:23 PM
Query, the outboard hardpoints are each carrying just rocket pods or a pair of the combined rocket pod/fuel tank stores?  the later possibility could make for interesting stores for an AdlA or Aeronavale Phantom II.
Was the British equivalent of TER "wet"? The outboard harpoints themselves were of course, but I've never heard of drop tanks being carried on a multiple-release rack on a 'Toom or any other plane for that matter... though of course, it could be possible to include the necessary valves and connections to the rack. Except that it adds weight and complexity, unless of course the intention is precisely to regularly carry multiples of rocket/fuel pods (several small "pure" fuel tanks instead of one big one don't really make sense, unless it's WW3 and you are so short on everything you're relying on scrap WW2 drop tanks).

Actually, if you are limited by hardpoints rather than the maximum weight, that kind of solution would actually make perfect sense. Why carry only fuel or rockets if you can carry both?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on July 15, 2016, 03:31:13 AM
The reason I asked is that there are double racks for the rocket pod/fuel tank combo, though they are over-wing on the Lightning.  Still, looking at single rocket pod/fuel tank combos on the outboard pylons of French Phantoms with a twin-DEFA gun fit replacing the M61 in the nose and ATAR 9K's replacing the J79's.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on July 15, 2016, 11:13:52 PM
Mmmm....rumor has it Hasegawa is re releasing their UK Phantoms.   With those big intakes  some RF-4X variants may just have to happen!   :)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on July 17, 2016, 06:37:23 AM
The reason I asked is that there are double racks for the rocket pod/fuel tank combo, though they are over-wing on the Lightning.  Still, looking at single rocket pod/fuel tank combos on the outboard pylons of French Phantoms with a twin-DEFA gun fit replacing the M61 in the nose and ATAR 9K's replacing the J79's.

The Lightning overwing load used a custom adaptor, not a TER though. The setup on the phantom was 'show only' so I suspect they were just regular rocket pods.

Note that the JL-100 combined fuel/rocket pod used 68mm SNEB rockets with two rings of tubes, while the pods in the F-4K pic are Microcell 2" (51mm) pods with three rings of tubes. I've never seen a JL-100 variant with 51mm tubes, nor would I expect to since they're a French store and the 2" RPs are British. Having said that, I see no reason in principle why a JL-100-style pod couldn't be made up with 2" tubes. I think the diameters of the two pods are pretty similar.

BTW, the reason that the RN used the 2" RPs while the RAF went to 68mm SNEBs was that the latter wern't sufficiently hardened against RFI problems for the shipboard environment. When RAF Harriers went to the Falklands, they had to be quickly cleared to fire Navy 2" RPs for that reason.

Another solution to the gun 'problem' with British/French Phantoms would be to adopt the Vulcan II cannon developed just after the 20mm Vulcan but never put into production. This used the ADEN/DEFA 30x113mm ammo and was roughly the same size as the 20mm weapon. Since the US had no interest in it, you could probably licence-produce it in the UK and/or France.

If the French Phantoms were to be used from their carriers, then ATAR-9Ks would be a very poor choice since their thrust and thrust/weight ratio were significantly worse than the J-79. If anything, they'd probably have to adopt the UK Spey fit for the same reasons: safe take-off from weaker catapults than the US ones and faster response to a throttle slam in the event of a go-around.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on July 17, 2016, 09:47:50 AM
Hmm, I've got several JL-100's coming, have to see what I can put together using 2" RP launchers for British use.

I'm thinking the French would want as much French content as possible and so would go with the ATAR's and DEFA installations.  Not sure if they'd be carrier birds or land-operated (thinking more likely AdlA operation to replace their F-100's).

On the other hand, that Vulcan II sound like it could be good for Anglo-French production for French F-4E's and British gun-nose F-4M2 (F-4P?) Spey-powered Phantoms.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on July 17, 2016, 10:05:43 AM
The French really didn't have an engine that was competitive with the J-79 though. Even their large Mirage variants of the 1960s that didn't go into service depended on US turbofans.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on July 17, 2016, 10:47:46 AM
Oh, I know and agree, it's just that I can't see the French of the 60's wanting to use an American engine if they could possibly avoid it, even at the expense of a hit in performance.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on July 18, 2016, 03:51:16 PM
The French were not, however, adverse to using or optioning British engines when it served them, maybe an evolved Avon could have been an option.  Then again they did use the TF30 on the Mirage F2 and G so would the use of the J79 be such an issue?

Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on July 19, 2016, 06:10:46 AM
I don't know, though I reckon that an evolved Avon would be better received than a J79.  I suspect the derivatives of the same technology and core as the TF30 were used because P&W had a 10% share of SNECMA at the time.  In any case, my model will use ATAR 9K's with the J79's going into a pair of Mirage F's.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 19, 2016, 08:00:02 AM
Remember that in March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets so there is a basis for a French one.  Moreover, given the higher thrust (dry and augmented) of the 9K vs the original 9C the performance shouldn't be too bad.  One might also address any performance issues with some weight reduction activities.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on July 19, 2016, 08:03:29 PM
Remember that in March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets so there is a basis for a French one.  Moreover, given the higher thrust (dry and augmented) of the 9K vs the original 9C the performance shouldn't be too bad.  One might also address any performance issues with some weight reduction activities.

That's interesting: a French Phantom might be similar to the 'lightweight' Luftwaffe F-4Fs.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on July 19, 2016, 09:30:35 PM
I tried to reply to this earlier but hit tech issues that seem to have gone now.

I recall that the Atar Phantom was as offered as a potential Canberra replacement.  Now here’s a double barrel what if, Australia selects the Avon for their Mirage IIIEO fleet and as result McDonnell offers the same engine in the Phantom.

Triple Barrel:
Having determined that there was no realistic way Phantoms were going to be operated from Hermes or Victorious, let alone Centaur, combined with some concerning wind tunnel results on the drag associated with the Spey conversion of the Phantom, the RN, in conjunction with RR suggest an enhanced Avon variant instead.

End result the Avon Phantom ends up serving with Australia (F-4D/E/G RF-C), the UK (F-4M&K) and is also eventually adopted by France (a version of the K)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 20, 2016, 02:49:05 AM
Looking quickly at the stats, a RR Avon engined Phantom might work.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on July 20, 2016, 05:36:19 PM
I tried to reply to this earlier but hit tech issues that seem to have gone now.

I recall that the Atar Phantom was as offered as a potential Canberra replacement.  Now here’s a double barrel what if, Australia selects the Avon for their Mirage IIIEO fleet and as result McDonnell offers the same engine in the Phantom.

Triple Barrel:
Having determined that there was no realistic way Phantoms were going to be operated from Hermes or Victorious, let alone Centaur, combined with some concerning wind tunnel results on the drag associated with the Spey conversion of the Phantom, the RN, in conjunction with RR suggest an enhanced Avon variant instead.

End result the Avon Phantom ends up serving with Australia (F-4D/E/G RF-C), the UK (F-4M&K) and is also eventually adopted by France (a version of the K)


I don't think that would work for the RN. The whole point of adopting the Spey in the fisrt place was to get more low-speed thrust for take-off and go-arounds. The Avon could only barely get into J-79 territory on thrust and would still have been heavier, so if you can't have Spey's you're better off with regular J-79s for carrier work.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on July 20, 2016, 05:38:14 PM
Slightly off-topic: if the RAAF adopted a standardish Phantom, maybe instead of the F-111, you could plausibly have them convert their Mirages to a 'Kfir-ish' standard with J-79s for compatibility.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on July 20, 2016, 08:26:24 PM
I tried to reply to this earlier but hit tech issues that seem to have gone now.

I recall that the Atar Phantom was as offered as a potential Canberra replacement.  Now here’s a double barrel what if, Australia selects the Avon for their Mirage IIIEO fleet and as result McDonnell offers the same engine in the Phantom.

Triple Barrel:
Having determined that there was no realistic way Phantoms were going to be operated from Hermes or Victorious, let alone Centaur, combined with some concerning wind tunnel results on the drag associated with the Spey conversion of the Phantom, the RN, in conjunction with RR suggest an enhanced Avon variant instead.

End result the Avon Phantom ends up serving with Australia (F-4D/E/G RF-C), the UK (F-4M&K) and is also eventually adopted by France (a version of the K)


I don't think that would work for the RN. The whole point of adopting the Spey in the fisrt place was to get more low-speed thrust for take-off and go-arounds. The Avon could only barely get into J-79 territory on thrust and would still have been heavier, so if you can't have Spey's you're better off with regular J-79s for carrier work.

Hence why I specified the RN decided not to use the Phantoms from their smaller carriers, the extra thrust was primarily for the small carriers as standard Bs and Js could launch and recover from Eagle and Ark. Besides, as far as I am aware, all, including the later Avons, were actually smaller and lighter than the J-79.

What would have been really interesting is the RB106, a 21000lb+ engine designed as a drop in replacement for the Avon.  There's your improved FAA Phantom or even enhanced USAF versions with the proposed licence built Westinghouse version.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 21, 2016, 03:10:26 AM
Slightly off-topic: if the RAAF adopted a standardish Phantom, maybe instead of the F-111, you could plausibly have them convert their Mirages to a 'Kfir-ish' standard with J-79s for compatibility.


Crazy talk!! ;)

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Greater%20Australia/MirageRAAFTimor1.jpg)

From here (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3.0)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: KiwiZac on July 21, 2016, 05:20:19 AM
Jesus, how many times have I told you lot to stop giving me ideas!!! Now I need to get an Italeri Kfir and a bloody Mirage, great!  :-*
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 21, 2016, 04:58:40 AM
^Nice profile!  :)

Maybe add a fuselage plug for additional fuel?  Something not too large that would upset c/g but just enough to give it a bit more time in the air. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: taiidantomcat on July 21, 2016, 05:11:33 AM
Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that!?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Weaver on July 21, 2016, 05:39:35 AM

Hence why I specified the RN decided not to use the Phantoms from their smaller carriers, the extra thrust was primarily for the small carriers as standard Bs and Js could launch and recover from Eagle and Ark. Besides, as far as I am aware, all, including the later Avons, were actually smaller and lighter than the J-79.

Yes, you're right: I'm getting mixed up. There is some aspect in which the J-79 is superior to the Avon though: fuel consumption maybe?

Quote
What would have been really interesting is the RB106, a 21000lb+ engine designed as a drop in replacement for the Avon.  There's your improved FAA Phantom or even enhanced USAF versions with the proposed licence built Westinghouse version.

Yes it's a real pity that one was cancelled isn't it?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on July 21, 2016, 10:47:34 AM
J79 is likely more efficient than the Avon as it was the first production turbojet with variable stator vanes to optimize compressor performance over a wider range of conditions than fixed stator vanes would permit.  Indeed, the prototype engines that lead to it had the name of VSXE - Variable Stator Experimental Engine.  This is a different and more compact approach to an efficient engine than the twin-spool approach P&W pioneered; but both yield better efficiencies than a single-spool engine with fixed stators (like the Avon and ATAR 9).

I'm not certain the US government would trust an engine built by Westinghouse after the debacle that was the J40.  I'd reckon it more likely that a US version of the RB.106 would be produced by Allison rather than Westinghouse or, after the headaches of the J67, Curtiss-Wright.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on July 21, 2016, 07:30:19 PM
Real world apparently Westinghouse were looking to manufacture the RB106 under licence before Duncan (Tool) Sandys cancelled the projects as there being no future fighters, there was no need for a future fighter engine.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 22, 2016, 03:09:23 AM
Jesus, how many times have I told you lot to stop giving me ideas!!! Now I need to get an Italeri Kfir and a bloody Mirage, great!  :-*

^Nice profile!  :)

Maybe add a fuselage plug for additional fuel?  Something not too large that would upset c/g but just enough to give it a bit more time in the air. 


Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that!?

Read the story for more inspiration...
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on July 22, 2016, 06:53:27 AM
Jesus, how many times have I told you lot to stop giving me ideas!!! Now I need to get an Italeri Kfir and a bloody Mirage, great!  :-*
Already have the Italieri Kfir and have their Mirage IIIE on order.  This could be fun!  I need to have a suitable navalized F-4E to go with them.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: jcf on July 22, 2016, 08:12:40 AM
Real world apparently Westinghouse were looking to manufacture the RB106 under licence before Duncan (Tool) Sandys cancelled the projects as there being no future fighters, there was no need for a future fighter engine.

Sandys didn't cancel anything, that was done by the Ministry of Supply under Aubrey Jones. The MoS, not the MoD
controlled R&D and procurement, and is the likely source of the R&D section of the '57 DWP and which was in turn, like
the DWP itself, a reflection of prior trends, and policies, that were already in process long before the DWP.

The British aerospace industry was a mess by 1957 with more manufacturers and projects than the exchequer could
support, the crash was going to come and it was not a matter of if, it was a matter of when.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on July 22, 2016, 10:34:24 AM
I was still overall an ill-conceived policy of slash and burn with no thought given to supporting projects that would deliver not just defence capability but profitable exports and commercial applications.  Sandys was one of the main players in the mess no matter the actual minister signing off, too busy apparently enjoying a wild night life than doing his job.

With no requirement for the result of the R&D there is no requirement for the R&D.  With no local requirement there is also no critical mass to generate exports or commercial interest, for example, no Stratotanker, would there have been a 707?  Had the V1000 continued would the VC7 have been a success?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: jcf on July 22, 2016, 11:35:50 AM
Well, that response demonstrates that you know nothing about Duncan Sandys or the realities of the UK aerospace industry in the period.

BTW the 707 and the 717(KC-135) both originated from the 367-80 and Boeing always intended an airliner development, the two
were, and are, inextricably linked.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on July 22, 2016, 12:31:51 PM
Well, that response demonstrates that you know nothing about Duncan Sandys or the realities of the UK aerospace industry in the period.

BTW the 707 and the 717(KC-135) both originated from the 367-80 and Boeing always intended an airliner development, the two
were, and are, inextricably linked.

:P
My sincere apologies I shall kowtow to your infinite knowledge and immediately forget everything I have read or learned that disagrees with your opinion.

Here we go again, while I appreciate your knowledge I do not appreciate your attitude as, intended or not, it does often come across as condescending and dismissive which gets my back up, particularly when I am dropping in here to kill time waiting for the pain killers that make my life bearable to kick in. 

That's my excuse for having a short fuse at times, what's yours? 

I come in here for pleasure, to admire the talent of others and to discuss topics of interest, not to be lectured in an manner I have never tolerated from anyone, as I have always found those who take a tone such as yours are more interested in the debate, winning the point and putting others "in their place" than actually discussing, sharing and learning. 

Try taking a less aggressive and condescending tack and you will find most, including myself will say things like "thankyou, I didn't realise that, I will look into it further as I find it interesting, etc.etc."  You are a moderator and should be facilitating the smooth running of the site for the enjoyment of all, not picking fights and initiating all to frequent bouts of one-upmanship every time you feel the urge to put those you see as inferior into what you see as their place.

Now I will sit back and await the inevitable PM asking me to pull my head in as the comments are deleted while you act superior and offended.  Enjoy your rivet counting, my oxycodone has kicked in and I am going to have a nap.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on July 22, 2016, 12:33:52 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/10/sarahhall (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/10/sarahhall)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: jcf on July 22, 2016, 12:37:15 PM
Here's a good dissertation on the subject if you're interested that puts things in context, along with the role of the MoS:
https://www.academia.edu/5873191/Duncan_Sandys_and_the_1957_Defence_White_Paper (https://www.academia.edu/5873191/Duncan_Sandys_and_the_1957_Defence_White_Paper)

You'll need to join Academia in order to download, it's painless.  ;D

Yep, chronic pain sucks, along with chronic insomnia, depression and anxiety. I'm on a cocktail that has variable results that
tends to make me irritable.
 :-\  :icon_beer:

I also have a lifelong habit of questioning all perceived truths and shibboleths, and what I've found over the years is that nothing
is ever as simple as 'the common knowledge' would proclaim.

Regards.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: jcf on July 22, 2016, 12:44:29 PM
https://youtu.be/UrgpZ0fUixs

 ;D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on July 22, 2016, 01:53:31 PM
Here's a good dissertation on the subject if you're interested that puts things in context, along with the role of the MoS:
https://www.academia.edu/5873191/Duncan_Sandys_and_the_1957_Defence_White_Paper (https://www.academia.edu/5873191/Duncan_Sandys_and_the_1957_Defence_White_Paper)

You'll need to join Academia in order to download, it's painless.  ;D

Yep, chronic pain sucks, along with chronic insomnia, depression and anxiety. I'm on a cocktail that has variable results that
tends to make me irritable.
 :-\  :icon_beer:

I also have a lifelong habit of questioning all perceived truths and shibboleths, and what I've found over the years is that nothing
is ever as simple as 'the common knowledge' would proclaim.

Regards.

I've cut down to one main one, the pain is more but the fatigue is less, which is a price worth paying.  Prickliness is part of my nature but usually better controlled.

I know it wasn't just Sandys as there had been many others involved in what was in hindsight one of the most illogical periods of British history.  I understand the shortage of money, debt levels, even mismanagement within British industry, it actually reminds me of the last several years in the UK actually, where, in hindsight, every major decision seems to have been poorly conceived and executed. 

My background is engineering, predominantly R&D and product development but also quality, configuration, certification and continuous improvement.  This has resulted a lot of time digging back into the wheres, whys and hows, of the current/then situation and the number of times I have found smoking guns, where it was known and senior management, even government were told why they should / should not take a course of action.  The number of times the predictions were spot on was alarming, yet when things went pear shaped the smoking guns would disappear from everywhere except records retained for future development so as to protect the guilty. 

This is where I am coming from, the filter / bias that shapes my views of many decision makers, I have seen how things work over the last 20-30 years.  It has introduced a level of cynicism for the official version that tends to white wash events and especially for more recent rehabilitation of divisive characters from the past and the demonization of others.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 23, 2016, 02:39:00 AM
(http://larvatusprodeo.net/files/2013/02/keep-calm-and-stay-on-topic.png)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on July 30, 2016, 11:36:36 AM
Spey Phantom.  Peace Jack Recce nose.
Sweden.  In splinter wrap around.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Geoff on August 01, 2016, 02:13:09 AM
Italian F-4 Frecce Tricolari

Phantoms at the back
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Zaskar24 on August 01, 2016, 08:41:14 AM
62-12200 was the only canard Rhino.  Looks hot IMHO.  Been wanting to model this machine for awhile but she's quite the mash up.  Thin, fixed slat wings, no front missile bays, I forget what else.
([url]http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/f4e/fbw_phantom.jpg[/url])
([url]http://afbase.com/files/attach/images/667/422/186/YRF-4_02.jpg[/url])

'
Dragging this one up from the front page. Any thoughts on what to use for the canards on this?  Thinking about slapping some onto a F-4EJ Kai to make a Super variant. Also going with the cans from GE F414's for more power at better fuel economy.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on August 01, 2016, 10:04:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: CiTrus90 on August 01, 2016, 11:58:28 PM
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:
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/602b/vvua8fgjm5m1qei4g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/vvua8fgjm5m1qei/F-4E_Frecce_Tricolori_-_small.jpg)
The Phantom for the PHrecce Tricolori ;)

Regards.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Zaskar24 on August 02, 2016, 06:00:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on December 25, 2016, 12:39:53 AM
Since the Phantom is no more:

F3G-H, Spey engines, ASAT capable.  Swedish Splinter.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 28, 2017, 04:23:14 AM
Old school - F-4 with AIM-4 missiles:

(http://olive-drab.com/images/id_aviation_weapons_aim4_03_700.jpg)
(http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=5994&t=1)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on May 28, 2017, 07:22:54 AM
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!) ([url]http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1974/1974mo.htm[/url]), 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
Title: Pentagon's 'Emergency Phantom II Air Combat Improvement Program'
Post by: M.A.D on May 28, 2017, 09:01:28 PM
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
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kelmola on May 29, 2017, 05:22:34 AM
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...  :P 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.)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 29, 2017, 05:40:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kelmola on May 29, 2017, 07:38:50 AM
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).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 29, 2017, 11:00:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on May 29, 2017, 05:33:35 PM
Old school - F-4 with AIM-4 missiles:

([url]http://olive-drab.com/images/id_aviation_weapons_aim4_03_700.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=5994&t=1[/url])


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

M.A.D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kelmola on May 29, 2017, 06:23:20 PM
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)?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 29, 2017, 11:44:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on July 23, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
Weird Pherrys scheme 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?  8)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on July 23, 2017, 09:33:29 AM
Phantastique mon phrère du phantôme!!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 30, 2017, 02:18:58 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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on September 01, 2017, 01:18:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on October 23, 2017, 06:56:20 PM
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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 29, 2017, 12:40:11 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on November 03, 2017, 01:18:15 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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on November 05, 2017, 12:48:07 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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: jcf on November 08, 2017, 02:46:44 AM
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.

(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/sud-est_grognard2.gif)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on November 08, 2017, 03:35:22 AM
([url]http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/sud-est_grognard2.gif[/url])

Holy Crap! That's as ugly as sin, ain't it?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on November 08, 2017, 11:41:21 AM
José: Love your designs!  ;) :smiley:
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on November 09, 2017, 12:51:35 AM
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!  ;D

Paul

Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: perttime on November 09, 2017, 02:55:45 AM
Has anyone tried to put the Viggen wing on a Phantom? The canards probably wouldn't fit, so a conventional tail would most likely be retained.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-4E_Phantom_II.svg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Viggen.svg
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kelmola on November 09, 2017, 03:36:39 AM
Has anyone tried to put the Viggen wing on a Phantom? The canards probably wouldn't fit, so a conventional tail would most likely be retained.
Ummm, about that...
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--JulBQWpv--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/nlvm7p41nntotawyq8iz.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: perttime on November 09, 2017, 09:59:59 PM
Has anyone tried to put the Viggen wing on a Phantom? The canards probably wouldn't fit, so a conventional tail would most likely be retained.
Ummm, about that...

I was thinking the large canards from the Viggen would be a little on the large side - at least to look right. I don't think the Viggen wing would be easy to put in the rear of a Phantom, so it would have to  go where the usual Phantom wing is.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: perttime on November 10, 2017, 03:17:10 AM
The Viggen wing might be a little on the small side for the Phantom?

Picture based on SVG files found on Wikimedia. Tried to scale them about right (That Phantom is BIG)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 10, 2017, 07:05:00 AM
Looks good
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kelmola on November 10, 2017, 08:27:50 PM
The Viggen wing might be a little on the small side for the Phantom?
All the more reason to have the canards ginormous vortex generators too ;) Plus you would have to keep the conventional tail too to have enough of pitch authority. Don't think that Viggen canards would look too big since the wing already looks small. (Unless you go scale-o-rama and put 1/48 Viggen wing on a 1/72 'Toom).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: perttime on November 11, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
Viggen canards on the Phantom intakes almost turn it into a biplane.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: uncle les on November 22, 2017, 09:31:02 AM
I posted images of this before but they vanished in the great photobucket debacle of '17 !
(https://scontent.fsyd4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23844603_10214805343029403_5130849053633462936_n.jpg?oh=fd0988d8bc137268f61a91089042f9ff&oe=5A9F0CBA)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on November 22, 2017, 11:22:59 AM
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.

([url]http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/sud-est_grognard2.gif[/url])


Like these?

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F111_f4_03.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F111_f4_03.jpg.html)

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/F111_f4_02.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/F111_f4_02.jpg.html)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on November 22, 2017, 11:36:40 AM
You might need to move the upper intake forward a bit to get a reasonable "S"-duct to the center engine.  Too short a distance and, while you can fabricate sheet metal to make the duct, you're going to get flow distortions from the tight bends that will cause engine performance problems.  My thought would be to move it forward to just behind the refueling receptacle.  Too, you might want to consider a F-107 style intake to better handle maneuvering airflows.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 28, 2018, 02:54:44 AM
Random inspiration:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VdKpiG0iwnI/UPIwlCL-bpI/AAAAAAAAB5I/EUYCSpRJ8IY/s1600/New%20guinea%20colour.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on January 28, 2018, 11:13:56 AM
^^^^^
Beautiful camo scheme.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 01, 2018, 07:37:05 PM
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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 02, 2018, 12:31:00 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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 02, 2018, 02:43:08 PM
Nice work Carlos!  I have had plans to do just that to an F-4E on my list of what-if projects for a long time.  The only real challenge is where to place the wing pylons as the current location is going to challenge the space taken up by the main landing gear. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 02, 2018, 05:43:37 PM
Good point !

Well, in this case you can take advance of not bend marginal area. Even you can use the design of F-15 prototype and some other studies in order to have an additional AAM rail.

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/WRK/F-15A_proto.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/WRK/F-15A_proto.jpg.html)

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/WRK/F-15XX_01.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/WRK/F-15XX_01.jpeg.html)
Title: F-4EJ XKai: ysi_maniac's second idea for Second Korean War GB
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 14, 2018, 01:12:03 PM
(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)

My current ideas about this modernization project:
- F-15 wings
- I think it is convinient to use F-15's tail plane for a matter of compatibility. Less canted than F-4's
- Minor tail fin mod, for aesthetic purposes
- A new less framed canopy, a little raised which allows to raise ejection seats
- Use of F-15 ejection seats?

What do you think?
Would you delete any of these mods?
Would you add any other mod?

Title: Re: F-4EJ XKai: ysi_maniac's second idea for Second Korean War GB
Post by: finsrin on February 14, 2018, 01:55:21 PM
F-15 mods to F-4 fit so well.  Ideal for a kit-bash. :smiley:
Title: Re: F-4EJ XKai: ysi_maniac's second idea for Second Korean War GB
Post by: elmayerle on February 15, 2018, 03:21:47 AM
Some of the last F-4s produced had frameless "blown" windscreens, so this isn't too far out at all.
Title: Re: F-4EJ XKai: ysi_maniac's second idea for Second Korean War GB
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 15, 2018, 03:36:39 PM
^^^^^
Hi Evan, what do you think about using F-15 tail plane or F-15 ejection seats?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 15, 2018, 11:02:18 PM
(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-4EJ XKai: ysi_maniac's second idea for Second Korean War GB
Post by: elmayerle on February 16, 2018, 02:25:04 AM
I don't see a problem with the first, offhand, and the second would likely introduce a better seat to the aircraft.

I have a thought for a single-seat variant going back to the original low canopy profile, fitting a blown windscreen, and using the F-15 wing, likely with the extra wingtip rails for Sidewinders and the like.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 17, 2018, 08:42:06 AM
With ramp intakes

(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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Daryl J. on February 22, 2018, 06:37:26 AM
F3H-G/H
Spey engines
Anti-shipping missiles
Extra Fuel.
Sidewinders.
Royal Norwegian AF.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 25, 2018, 12:37:21 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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on July 07, 2018, 07:18:56 AM
F-4B as featured in the backstory of Japanese anime "Battle Fairy Yukikaze".  The premise is that, after beating back an alien invasion of Earth, an United Nations counter-attack pushed the enemy back to the other side of the alien venue of attack, a planet named "Faery" by the Humans, and used re-activated military surplus (MiG-21, F-4, F-106, etc.) to build up their fleets.

Strange choice- the FAF (Faery/Fairy Air Force) does eventually operate aerial aircraft carriers, but (I think) not during the timeframe where they were still flying their first gen. aircraft.  Wouldn't the F-4E have been more easily-available?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 01, 2018, 11:57:02 PM
My understanding is that the origins of the F-4K RR Spey powered Phantom, apart from political requirements to use UK systems, was so they could be operated from the UKs smaller carriers, specifically Victorious and Hermes, through until their planed retirements in the 1970s. 

Does anyone know if this was actually viable?  I recall reading somewhere that it wasn't but could Hermes have been upgraded successfully operate F-4K?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on December 11, 2018, 06:53:37 AM
Nothing exciting here
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kerick on December 11, 2018, 09:50:49 AM
How about LEX leading edge extensions? You would have to shorten the leading edge slats.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 12, 2018, 02:11:23 AM
Nothing exciting here


Interesting.  Maybe do one in similar scheme to their F-104s:

(http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/60/pics/115_2.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 12, 2018, 08:42:06 PM
Anyone know if the F-4K could have operated from Hermes or Victorious?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on December 12, 2018, 11:29:24 PM
Anyone know if the F-4K could have operated from Hermes or Victorious?
Parsing the Wiki articles on the F-4K, Hermes, Ark Royal and Victorious, it appears that the Hermes was too small and her cats and arresting gear too low-powered to operate F-4Ks effectively. It might have been strictly possible, but the low-powered gear meant taking off with severely reduced fuel loads which greatly affected (halved) operational range.

It states that Victorious was the smallest of the carriers believed to be capable of operating the F-4Ks properly.

Now, if you posit a refit on Hermes with better cats and wires, then maybe, but she was quite a bit shorter than the Ark and even if the aircraft could be handled by the machinery, the deck and hanger space would have been severely curtailed limiting the numbers of aircraft carried significantly.

Victorious was 50 feet longer than Hermes and only 20 odd feet shorter than the Ark. Notwithstanding, her air wing was significantly smaller than the Ark with Victorious being about 80% of the displacement of the Ark and her air wing suffering accordingly. sea Vixens and Phantoms take up about the same amount of hanger space with the Vixen maybe being a bit bulkier due tot the twin boom arrangement, so the air wing on Victorious would likely have been the same as that with Vixens, so 7 Buccs, 10 Phantoms, 5 Gannets and 8 helos.

HTH

Paul
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 14, 2018, 03:21:51 PM
Thanks Paul, good analysis.

My suspicion was that the F-4K was always intended as a one for one replacement for the Sea Vixen on all in service RN carriers, bar Centaur, from the mid 60s with or without the introduction of the CVA-01 design and that the reason it didn't happen were political. 

The official line was that the Phantom was too large for any RN carrier but Ark most modernisation and that the original plans were unrealistic.  The fact Eagle cross decked USN Phantoms disproves this, as does the RAN enquiries into operating F-4Js from an Essex (or possibly even a modernised Centaur) and I wondered then if the claims that the F-4K was incapable of doing precisely what it was designed to do (i.e. the extra thrust, extended nose wheel etc.) were nothing more than disinformation to justify a political / financial decision to run down the carrier fleet. 

I imagine the last thing politicians wanted was for a future government to be able to easily reverse their decision on a carrier replacement in a decade or so because Phantoms were successfully operating from modernised Eagle, Ark, Victorious and Hermes.  The UK does seem to employ a scorched earth process upon cancelling defence projects, where the US has large reserve fleets and aircraft bone yards etc. since the 50s the UK has pretty much sold, destroyed or made unusable any platform to ensure it can not be brought back into service following the decision to retire / cancel has been made.

This makes for an interesting wiff, potentially not only could Victorious and Hermes been upgraded to operate Phantom, but so could Centaur.  Ark and Eagle could have been strike carriers with Bucaneers as well as Phantoms while the smaller ships could have been CVS with upgraded Gannets serving along side Phantoms into the 80s.  All of this could possibly have been at a lower overall cost than the acquisition of the Invincibles, conversion of the Tigers, purchase of additional Sea Kings, and increasing the number of Seadart armed air defence ships.  A very different RN could have began intoducing a class of smaller (than Ark/ Eagle, larger than Hermes) CTOL carrier in the 80s, designed specifically to operate Phantom and then convert to a navalised Tornado (or F/A-18 for the cynical) and maybe even a Gannet replacement.  Air defence ships would have been fewer in number but more capable, i.e. additional improved Bristols and the Type 43 and with the air umbrela and strike capability provided by the carriers the Type 23 Frigates could have been smaller, cheaper and less sophisticated.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on December 15, 2018, 12:27:32 AM
Looking at the various mid-60s Brit carriers, I think that operating the F-4Ks off them really wasn't going to work on the Centaur or Hermes, Centaur is shorter and smaller than even Hermes and, while physically possible, it makes no sense to operate them at 1/2 fuel capacity. No, I would agree with the Brit Navy/govt on this and say that the Ark, Eagle and Victorious would have been the only truly capable Phantom platforms by 1969. Centaur and Hermes are just too small.

Paul
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 15, 2018, 05:47:09 AM
I wonder about a hybrid Phantom using the standard J79s but with the extended extended nosewheel oleo of the FG.1?  Maybe based upon the F-4J.  This might provide a basis for variants to be used on the smaller USN carriers.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 15, 2018, 05:48:29 AM
BTW, time for just an inspiring photo:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Phantom_FG1_of_892_NAS_is_launched_from_USS_Independence_%28CV-62%29%2C_November_1975.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 15, 2018, 08:42:15 PM
The blast on the deck is exactly why the extended nose gear would not have been a good idea in the Essex class, even the rebuilds, with their wooden decks.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on December 18, 2018, 01:14:22 AM
I wonder about a hybrid Phantom using the standard J79s but with the extended extended nosewheel oleo of the FG.1?  Maybe based upon the F-4J.  This might provide a basis for variants to be used on the smaller USN carriers.
The J-79 versions would have had over 4000 lb less thrust at take-off. Not what I'd want for a smaller ship with less powerful catapults. And, for operating these planes, it was the cat capacity that determined what aircraft could be used. The higher capacity cats required too much steam and would have been very difficult to back-fit to older carriers. This was, I'm pretty sure, the reason that the USN never operated Phantoms off the Essexes. The stated reason was "too heavy" and this is very likely due to the catapult issues more than, say, deck strength as they did operate A-3s, which were, technically heavier, but needed less speed at lift off than the F-4s. The energy required is proportional to the square of the speed attained but only directly proportional to any additional mass, so an extra 30-40 kts lift-off speed was a heck of a lot more energy required from the catapults even if that faster aircraft was a little less all-up weight than the slower plane.

Paul
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 18, 2018, 01:25:58 AM
My suggestion was not one based upon technical practicality but rather whiffery.  A basic kit/pixel bash to confuse people. ;)

Potential back story being that this was trialed/developed to allow F-4s to operate off smaller carriers but whilst allowing USN to keep commonality of engines.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 18, 2018, 01:31:52 AM
BTW, if one reads the official RAN report looking into the possibility of acquiring an Essex class in the early-mid 1960s, one sees that it also recommended requiring with 28 F-4B Phantoms.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 18, 2018, 07:30:43 AM
BTW, if one reads the official RAN report looking into the possibility of acquiring an Essex class in the early-mid 1960s, one sees that it also recommended requiring with 28 F-4B Phantoms.

Yes, AGRA dug that report out several years ago, its a great read.  The Phantom was apparently intended operate from smaller carriers fitted with appropriate cats and traps, I suppose the issue was the number of aircraft that could be accommodated on said smaller carriers.  I imagine the extended nose gear and higher thrust Speys helped with shorter cats on the steel decked British ships but would have been an issue on the wooden decked Essex.  No problem, the Essex is longer and has more powerful machinery than most British ships so can have longer more powerful cats, therefore doesn't need the higher angle of attack on launch.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on December 18, 2018, 11:47:52 PM
BTW, if one reads the official RAN report looking into the possibility of acquiring an Essex class in the early-mid 1960s, one sees that it also recommended requiring with 28 F-4B Phantoms.

Yes, AGRA dug that report out several years ago, its a great read.  The Phantom was apparently intended operate from smaller carriers fitted with appropriate cats and traps, I suppose the issue was the number of aircraft that could be accommodated on said smaller carriers.  I imagine the extended nose gear and higher thrust Speys helped with shorter cats on the steel decked British ships but would have been an issue on the wooden decked Essex.  No problem, the Essex is longer and has more powerful machinery than most British ships so can have longer more powerful cats, therefore doesn't need the higher angle of attack on launch.
The Essexes would have needed a major refit to install more powerful cats and a steel deck. Even assuming that the armoured portion was not moved up to the flight deck and stayed at the hangar deck, the extra top weight would probably have meant either hull shape changes to increase buoyancy, increased draft, for the same reason or reduced equipment to retain the old displacement.

Of course, where it might not have been worth undertaking such a large refit for the USN, for the Aussies, as their only  carrier and flagship of the fleet, it might have been worthwhile. The refit would have had to include the cat steam plumbing being completely replaced and enlarged for greater power plus new and significantly more robust trap machinery, plus a new steel deck and water cooled jet blast deflectors, at the very least, but also probably also an updated electronics fit and maybe even the addition of something like the Sea Sparrow box launchers on the stern that many Yank carriers carried or even Sea Cat quad launchers.

Such a carrier model would make a pretty cool WHIF all by itself!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 19, 2018, 05:06:01 PM
One of the proposals was for a new build Essex for Australia, now that would have been interesting.

Updated with the latest equipment, armoured flight deck etc. such a ship could have been justified as a co development of a new CVS to operate Vikings and Hawkeyes, in addition to a small number of F-4 (and later F-111B/F-14).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on January 15, 2019, 11:38:35 PM
Top & Middle: I have a similar idea in my head except based on a F-4K.

The original page HERE (https://twitter.com/item87177).

==================================================

Bottom: A short-nose EF-4 is likely to look more like this.

Original story HERE (https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/2013/10/usaf-f-4-wild-weasel-before-f-4g.html).

Question: does the ALQ-99 have capability overlap with the APR-38?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 16, 2019, 01:51:17 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: kitnut617 on January 16, 2019, 03:37:29 AM
Something I came across over on the SPF. it has been mentioned here way back at the start of the thread but not this particular breakdown
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on March 12, 2019, 01:33:57 PM
Interesting.  Maybe do one in similar scheme to their F-104s......

As a matter of fact, from MD's own promotional material:

(The actual colours would more likely be SEA camo, but the introduction of the F-4E would have meant early retirement for the Starfighters, and it wouldn't have been inconceivable that some of the Phantoms would have inherit suitable camouflage from the F-104s......)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on March 30, 2019, 10:18:36 AM
Just a thought for the Phantom FG.1.  The RN contracts with MATRA for a variation of their JL-100 with the front end being the standard RN 2" rocket pod instead of the SNEB pods used on the standard JL-100.  'Twould make for an interesting loadout on the outboard stores stations.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 20, 2019, 04:52:17 AM
F-4 gun nose (F-4E/F-4F/F-4EJ etc.) updated to carry the LANTIRN pods in the forward missile wells.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ChernayaAkula on June 20, 2019, 08:23:29 PM
That's a neat idea, Jeff.  :smiley: Sort of a Strike Eagle light.
Would have made sense for a lot of nations flying the Phantom.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 20, 2019, 10:45:37 PM
I suppose I could have made it less inclusive by suggesting any Phantom type.  Actually no reason to not consider LANTIRN being mounted on any Phantom that has the space available for the equipment.  F-4J/F-4S, RF-4B/RF-4C, RF-4E could all benefit from something like the LANTIRN but the RF-4B/RF-4C would need an alternative location for the pods since there are no missile wells.  So perhaps the inboard wing stores pylons could be considered a practical location for the LANTIRN on the reconnaissance Phantoms. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: kitnut617 on June 21, 2019, 01:03:52 AM
So why not give it it's own pylon, just as they did on the F-15
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM
Where will it fit?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 21, 2019, 02:02:34 AM
Whilst not a LANTRIN pod per se, the broadly similar Rafael LITENING III post is carried by some Hellenic F-4s:

(https://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/wp-content/gallery/andravida-117cw/01530_5_AND_060515.jpg)
(http://users.skynet.be/fa200934/TLP%202005-2/slides/0324%20045%20F-4E%2001529.jpg)
(http://users.skynet.be/fa200934/TLP%202005-2/slides/0324%20012%20F-4E%20ALD.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: kitnut617 on June 21, 2019, 04:31:42 AM
Where will it fit?

Same sort of position as the F-15E's, under the air intakes. Mind you, I think I would put it closer to the bottom outside corner of the intake.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on October 04, 2019, 11:28:51 PM
Page 19 of this pdf has a photo of a USN Phantom doing a touch and go on HMS Hermes.
http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/pdf-docs/hermes14.pdf (http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/pdf-docs/hermes14.pdf)

Interesting, very interesting, and apparently touch and goes were also conducted on Victorious.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Vuk on October 05, 2019, 06:26:30 PM
Gentlemen, I present you the work of Goran Sudar, artist and modeller from Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Yugoslav Air Force F-4C Phantom II

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156696748708494&set=a.112145508493&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156696748708494&set=a.112145508493&type=3&theater)

Goran is also journalist and my facebook friend. Couple years ago we were both at SimmersPaintShop forum. I asked him if he would join here, but although it seems to me that he liked the idea, I still don't see him here. Therefore, I post his Phantom... At his facebook page, you supposed to see his work in much higher resolution...
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 06, 2019, 02:55:37 AM
Looking good.  Please continue to ask him to join us here.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 06, 2019, 02:58:13 AM
Higher resolution version:

(https://scontent.fbne6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71109033_10156696748718494_6459349406926766080_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_oc=AQmVobemL11IzOWa_PIFS5pINYOwENt3Oxfjq-ALkbdGu9S2n18z14MO656wv6bRFWE&_nc_ht=scontent.fbne6-1.fna&oh=51b47b428468a8b1ab7a010e9790fb81&oe=5E217804)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 06, 2019, 03:37:59 AM
A different scenario for the RAAF having Phantoms:

In December 1960 the Australian Govt ordered the Mirage III.  The first RAAF aircraft, numbered A3-1, flew at Bordeaux on 14 March 1963 and was handed over to the RAAF on 9 April the same year.  The first Australian-assembled aircraft (A3-3 to A3-50) delivered to No 2 Operational Conversion Unit (2OCU) at Williamtown in 1964 followed by No 75 Squadron becoming the first operational unit to equip in 1965. 

Roughly concurrent to this, further more, in March of 1962, the US Defense Department announced that land-based versions of the Phantom (in the form of the F-110A and RF-110A respectively - later to be the F-4C and RF-4C) were to be the standard tactical fighter and tactical reconnaissance aircraft of the USAF.

Finally, as part of its search for a replacement for its English Electric Canberra bombers, in mid-1963 a team travelled to the United States to evaluate the General Dynamics F-111, North American A-5 Vigilante and F-4C Phantom II strike aircraft. While in the United States, the team also inspected the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, which was considered necessary to support these aircraft. In its final report, the team rejected the F-4C on the grounds that the aircraft lacked the range, performance at low altitude and reconnaissance capability that the RAAF required. The F-111 was considered to be the most suitable aircraft of those considered, but the team proposed that the RAAF acquire 36 Vigilantes as they also met the force's requirements and could be delivered within a shorter time frame.  Eventually this recommendation was rejected and the RAAF eventually ordered and received F-111s.

Now, what if through the magic of whiffer, we mix all this up and get something like the following scenario:

In December 1960 the Australian Govt ordered the Mirage III.  However whilst in development, the Australian Govt keeps its options open with a team of RAAF officers also looking at options for a English Electric Canberra replacement.  In mid 1962, following the evaluation of two Navy F4H-1s and the subsequent announcement that land-based versions of the Phantom were to be the standard tactical fighter and tactical reconnaissance aircraft of the USAF and a recommendation by the RAAF that by joining in on the USAF buy the RAAF could go for an all Spectre (as the F-110 was called then) fleet and get not only get a better platform for a primary fighter but also a common replacement for the Canberra replacement.  To address the perceived range issue, a squadron of KC-135s would also be acquired.  The Mirage buy is curtailed and the aircraft sold back to Dassault to use in trials.  The resulting F-4C/RF-4C Phantoms (new designations in line with US practice) get the A8- designator and enter service in 1965.  GAF/CAC jointly produce them under license.  They are later upgraded in line with US practice a number of times and serve through to the early 1980s when they are replaced by...


Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Vuk on October 06, 2019, 05:15:57 AM
Looking good.  Please continue to ask him to join us here.
I will do my best...

If you look closely, pilot of Goran's Phantom is colonel Suad Hamzić. Not a fictional, but actual person... a former Yugoslav Air Force fighter/reconnaissance pilot, later a Yugoslav military attache in Turkey, and Goran's personal friend. During his career, 1963 - 1993, he flew many types, including F-86E/D Sabre, several versions of MiG-21, and he was also testing Northrop RF-5E in USA in 1980, when Yugoslavia considered acquiring the type. There is no english version, but there are some photos of Hamzić tests here...

https://tangosix.rs/2016/11/02/ispitivanje-prototipa-aviona-rf-5e-u-sad-1980-godine/

Unfortunately, Hamzić passed away this year in May, so Goran's artwork is also a tribute to his friend...

edit: I correct mistake I made... ''North American RF-5''  :-[
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: apophenia on October 06, 2019, 06:08:26 AM
A different scenario for the RAAF having Phantoms ...

I like the idea of an 'AF-110 Spectre'. For a variation on the theme, what about sticking with a mixed fleet of single-engined Mirage fighters and twin-engined Phantom interceptor/recce aircraft?

I'm thinking that the original Australian Mirage III order is switched into a 'Mirage VI' purchase. The latter (recycling a 1958 project designation) are GAF-built Mirage IIIOs with GE J79 engines in place of the French Atar.

Alternatively, the GAF 'Mirage VI' could have followed the CAC Avon Sabre pattern more closely. That is, a British-engined Mirage for the RAAF. In fact, I think I'll run with that ...

The RAAF plans for locally-built Mirages powered by a Rolls-Royce RB.168 Spey turbofan. French-built Mirage IIIs are received as interim equipment with a 'buy-back' agreement with Dassault for these airframes as GAF-built Mirage VIs become available.

The Mirage VIO(F)s are all interceptors. The planned Mirage VIO(A) attack aircraft have been put on hold pending the outcome of investigating replacements for the A84 Canberra. GAF proposed two schemes involving the RB.168 Spey turbofan. One was the rebuilding of Canberras with RB.168 Mk.101 engines. The second was the license-building of the Blackburn Buccaneer S.2 powered by the same engine type. Secretary of the Department of Defence Ted Hicks, CBE, approved the 'Super Canberra'.

The 'Super Canberra' programme never proceded beyond the engine-conversion testbed phase. Indeed, senior levels of the RAAF had opposed this programme from the outset. In 1963, Air Marshal Val Hancock, KBE, CB, DFC, set off on a multi-continent junket to assess more advanced Canberra replacement options. He returned with high praise for the USAF's F-4C (F-110 as was) but recommended the unbuilt TFX project as the ideal candidate. Secretary Hicks rejected the TFX on grounds of cost and unproven performance. He and AIRMSHL Hancock compromised on the F-110 ... but also to be powered by RB.168 Spey turbofans.

The RAAF 'Spey Phantom' would emerge as a hybrid, combining the powerplant of the RN F-4K with the avionics and weapons of the USAF F-4C. In RAAF service, these aircraft were referred to as Phantom II(F) interceptors - first operated by No. 1 Sqn RAAF - and Phantom II(RA) recce-attack aircraft - first with No. 6 Sqn RAAF. A small number of Phantom II(D) dual-control trainers were also used by No. 6 Sqn.

Ironically, the RAAF's Phantom II(RA) and Canberras of No. 2 Sqn would operated side-by-side from Phan Rang Air Base in Vietnam (as well as alongside the F-4Cs of 391st TFS and USAF B-57 Canberras of the USAF's 8th and 13th TBS). The RAAF's  Phantom II(F)s and Mirages stayed home to defend the continent.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 06, 2019, 09:14:21 AM
I think the only way a combined Mirage/Phantom solution works for the RAAF is with a much bigger RAAF and budget.  Besides, one would probably argue that a RAAF Phantom solution trumps over a Mirage or partial Mirage fleet in terms of capability.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on October 06, 2019, 10:53:12 PM
Stretching the old memory here but I read an article in the early 90s in a late 60s early 70s issue of flight magazine that outlined then Defence Minister (later PM) Malcom Frazer's negotiations with the US over the much delayed F-111.  Of particular interest was the planned cancellation of the F-111 order in favour of the F-4, RF-4 and KC-135.

If I recall correctly the numbers were:

36 F-4E in 3 Sqns
6 RF-4 in 1 Sqn / Flt
12 KC-135 in 1 Sqn

This is what was seen as required to replace the proposed F-111 capability.

Other options included the USAF taking Australia's Cs (converting them back to As) with new build D's (or F's) being delivered to the RAAF in their place.

Then there was the RAN proposal to replace Melbourne with a modernised Essex class carrier equipped with F-4J, Tracker and Tracer (other platforms considered were the CVA-01, a modernised Centaur and even a new build Essex).  Add to this Australia was offered Hermes (in CTOL config) the RAN as a hot transfer in 1967/8, and my pervious post about Phantoms conducting touch and goes, i.e. she could have been upgraded to operate them.  Victorious became available in 69 and Eagle was even mentioned as a possibility for transfer to Australia in the early 70s (in fact a FAA type told me Eagle, Vic and Hermes are all considered for transfer to the RAN in the 70s to replace Melbourne and support the Two Ocean Navy policy).

Holistically the Phantom could have fit very well, not just with the RAAF as a Sabre replacement, but also the Canberra, and the FAA Sea Venom, with local production exceeding 150 aircraft.  100 replacing the Sabre, 40-50 replacing the Canberra, and 20-40 (depending on the number of carriers) replacing the Sea Venom

Now my scenario, A
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 07, 2019, 02:51:36 AM
Then there was the RAN proposal to replace Melbourne with a modernised Essex class carrier equipped with F-4J, Tracker and Tracer (other platforms considered were the CVA-01, a modernised Centaur and even a new build Essex).  Add to this Australia was offered Hermes (in CTOL config) the RAN as a hot transfer in 1967/8, and my pervious post about Phantoms conducting touch and goes, i.e. she could have been upgraded to operate them.  Victorious became available in 69 and Eagle was even mentioned as a possibility for transfer to Australia in the early 70s (in fact a FAA type told me Eagle, Vic and Hermes are all considered for transfer to the RAN in the 70s to replace Melbourne and support the Two Ocean Navy policy).

As I think has been discussed elsewhere, an Essex class would only be able to operate the F-4 with significant modifications. 

Another option that might have been considered would be for the RAN to somehow acquire a Midway Class - say USS Coral Sea - maybe in the early 1970s (though this will have necessitated a bigger RAN as well).  This is already Phantom capable. Perhaps back in 1964 when then Minister for Defence Senator Shane Paltridge rejected a proposal from the Navy to purchase an Essex-class aircraft carrier from the United States Navy, the then Minister for the Navy, Senator John Gorton (and former fighter pilot himself) decided he didn't like losing.  A few years later (January 1968) upon becoming Prime Minister, he decides, with the support of then Minister for the Army (and soon to be Minister of Defence) Malcom Fraser, maybe he pushes one again for an enlarged, more capable Navy with HMAS Melbourne being finally pensioned off - maybe sold to someone else (whole other whiff story there).  The US, keen to keep Australia a close partner, especially with the war in Vietnam, offers the USS Coral Sea at a heavy discount.  With GAF/CAC production of F-4Cs/RF-4Cs winding down, a follow on order of say, 24 somewhat in line with USN F-4N configuration.  Later in the 1970s/early 1980s all are upgraded or replaced.

Holistically the Phantom could have fit very well, not just with the RAAF as a Sabre replacement, but also the Canberra, and the FAA Sea Venom, with local production exceeding 150 aircraft.  100 replacing the Sabre, 40-50 replacing the Canberra, and 20-40 (depending on the number of carriers) replacing the Sea Venom

Looking at real world numbers, in the rough era involved, as a basis:

Mirage IIIO/D   116
F-111C             24
A-4G                20
TOTAL:           160

Thus a production run for an Australian F-4C/RF-4C fleet of say 140 plus say another 24 F-4N for the RAN is not that far removed.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on October 07, 2019, 06:54:00 PM
The Essex was confirmed to be able to operate F-4B/J in the report recommending acquisition of a modernised Essex to the CoA.  Ironically they would have had more issues with the F-4K as the extended nose wheel saw them damage steel decked Forrestal's during trials.

My pet whiff that I have most of the kits for and have been planning for years is that desperate to acquire newbuild carriers the RN offers Hermes, Victorious and the Tigers for sale to fund them.  This coincides with opposition attacks on the Australian government defence policy in the light of Indonesian threats against Malaysia during the early 60s, as well as their extensive acquisition of soviet equipment that was believed (probably more a political wedge than real) to be more capable and even a threat to Australia.

Real world, Australia ordered two modified Charles F Adams Class DDGs from the US and planned to fit Tartar to their Battle (2) and Daring (3) Class Destroyers (cancelled) before ordering a third CFA (fourth proposed but not ordered).  Plans to re-role the Carrier Melbourne as an ASW Helicopter Carrier were rescinded in 1963 and fixed wing operations continued with Trackers and Skyhawks being ordered. F-111 was ordered to replace Canberra and the first four Oberon Class Submarines were ordered.

Whiff world, Australia buys the three Tigers, Hermes and Victorious from the UK in the early 60s.  Initially two Tigers and one carrier maintained in commission while the third Tiger is converted to a Tartar CAG with a Mk-13 installed in B position and the carrier upgraded to operate Phantom, Tracker and Tracer.  When they return to service the remaining carrier and Tigers rotate through the same upgrades. Melbourne becomes a helicopter carrier, Sydney an LPH, the Darings are converted to DDGs, the Battles to radar pickets with Seacat, additional River Class DEs (Type 12 Frigates) are ordered, as are the Oberon Class submarines.

F-4K Phantom is ordered for the carriers, then also as a Canberra replacement, then instead of follow-on batches of Mirage III, justifying local production and the types eventual replacement of the initial Mirage IIIs in the mid 70s.  NZ joins the Phantom procurement, acquiring 24.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on October 08, 2019, 01:27:12 PM
Going to need a significant, no make that a major source for cash and manpower for that to happen.  Australia was in the midst of a high employment period - one of the reasons why conscription was introduced.  Either you have service in the service(s) or you have development of the civilian economy.  We would need a shed load of 10 pound poms or we would need to open the immigration doors to loads more Southern Europeans or we'd need to end the White Australia Policy at least 10-15 years earlier than actually happened and accept Asians.   

Conscription was limited to the Army.  In order to get a significant number of naval ratings (which all these big ships would require) it would need conscription to cover the Navy as well.  The RAAF would have liked some Conscripts as well, I expect.  So, suddenly you have an extremely unpopular policy covering all three services instead of just one.   The Army paid the price for accepting conscripts, becoming extremely unpopular for at least 20 years afterwards.

Then there is the problem of where the dosh to pay for this is going to come from.   Australia in the 1960s was still limited by the amount of money which was available to it for defence purposes.  Big ships cost money.  Big ships needing big changes need even more money.   The Korean War wool boom was well and truly over by 1960.  The Defence Forces needed new equipment - hence the decision to purchase the F-111s, the Caribou, the M113 and the DDGs all in 1964 (the Mirages was decided in what, 1959?).   All those cost a shed load of dosh.   Now, unless we see a major new discovery of some mineral wealth that the world wants to buy off of us, say in the mid-1950s (in order to have it online by the mid-1960s) this would not happen.    In the mid-1960s, social security costs were starting to increase - despite the Conservatives trying to keep a lid on it.  Do we accept lower social security payments?

As in anything, we all have a wish list of kit that we believe we should have purchased, that we could have purchased but no one seems to consider the backstory, the ways and the means that this could have been possible... 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on October 08, 2019, 08:30:30 PM
The reason so many equipment decisions were made in 63/4 is because obsolescence was a major political issue due to years of under investment, project deferments and cancelations.

The reason for conscription was because the government was concerned Australia may be drawn into an armed conflict between Indonesia and the Netherlands over West Papua / Irian Jaya.

The arguments that Australia didn't have the money or the manpower don't hold water when you look at what ended up being spent and how much the army was expanded. An ongoing whiff of mine is the Australian government actually listens to advice, consistently invests a reasonable amount on defence and applies a degree of vision in regards to developing industry as well as capability.

The Phantom was a contender for the Sabre replacement, the Canberra replacement, and what the RAN desired to replace the Sea Venom with, as well as obviously, the interim type selected following delays in delivery of the F-111.  It was seen as the only alternative if the F-111 purchase was cancelled, hell even New Zealand seriously looked at acquiring Phantoms.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 09, 2019, 02:40:11 AM
Going to need a significant, no make that a major source for cash and manpower for that to happen...


Agreed.  Part of the reason why in my Great Australia (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3.0) story, I started with "Following the end of the Second World War, the Australian government instigated a massive program of immigration..." ;)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: kitnut617 on October 09, 2019, 04:56:59 AM
All those cost a shed load of dosh.   Now, unless we see a major new discovery of some mineral wealth that the world wants to buy off of us, say in the mid-1950s (in order to have it online by the mid-1960s) this would not happen.

Well you did, and you're still sitting on it ---- oil
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on October 09, 2019, 09:57:30 AM
All those cost a shed load of dosh.   Now, unless we see a major new discovery of some mineral wealth that the world wants to buy off of us, say in the mid-1950s (in order to have it online by the mid-1960s) this would not happen.

Well you did, and you're still sitting on it ---- oil

In part yes.  Oil was first discovered in Australia ~1890.  It wasn't really developed as an industry until the late 1960s.  Problem is, the oil we have is not very good for refining into dieso/petrol.  It has heavy suphides present and that causes "knock" quite badly.   While we do refine a bit of it, it is more economic to use the by-products first - natural gas and LPG and import refined products (dieso/petrol)  from overseas.   This has caused a significant problem in that we have shut down most of our refineries and have little in the way of fuel reserves available to us.  The Government has been severely criticised for this and for good reason.

I'll further refine my comment.  What we need is some new mineral discovery and a market to sell it in easily and with great demand.   Iron Ore was discovered in the late 1950s but Japan was the only major player which bought it until China came on line in the late 1990s and then demand skyrocketed.   What we would need is for China to get rid of Maoism earlier. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on October 09, 2019, 10:16:27 AM
The reason so many equipment decisions were made in 63/4 is because obsolescence was a major political issue due to years of under investment, project deferments and cancelations.

The reason for conscription was because the government was concerned Australia may be drawn into an armed conflict between Indonesia and the Netherlands over West Papua / Irian Jaya.

Except the question of West New Guinea was settled at least 12-18 months before Conscription was introduced in 1965.   The Dutch had given it up, under Indonesian and US pressure to the UN and the UN in turn had handed it over to Indonesia.  We had to acquiesce because we lacked the manpower and the backing we wanted from Washington.    Konfrontasi was a much greater danger but the British joined with us in Borneo.  Vietnam occurred at the same time.  Suddenly the three Battalions of the regular army weren't sufficient for all three deployments (Malaya/Singapore, Borneo and Vietnam) and so new Battalions had to be created, quickly, hence Conscription.

Quote
The arguments that Australia didn't have the money or the manpower don't hold water when you look at what ended up being spent and how much the army was expanded. An ongoing whiff of mine is the Australian government actually listens to advice, consistently invests a reasonable amount on defence and applies a degree of vision in regards to developing industry as well as capability.

The Army's expansion was over a period of four years (1965-68).   It was pretty piecemeal with soldiers deploying to SVN initially with ex-WWII equipment (weapons/webbing/radios/etc.).   While money eventually came on line, the Army was pretty much at the bottom of the rungs of the ladder for expenditure.   While the Government did listen to what the advisors, advised, the problem was as you pointed out, obsolescence.  The Sabres, the Dakotas, the Canberras, the ships, the artillery pieces, the APCs, etc. all needed replacing/procuring and that cost money.   Money that Treasury wasn't willing to part with.    Indeed, the internecine warfare between the Government mandarins made Vietnam look like a picnic at times.   It was vicious and no prisoners were taken.

Quote
The Phantom was a contender for the Sabre replacement, the Canberra replacement, and what the RAN desired to replace the Sea Venom with, as well as obviously, the interim type selected following delays in delivery of the F-111.  It was seen as the only alternative if the F-111 purchase was cancelled, hell even New Zealand seriously looked at acquiring Phantoms.

I agree, the Phantom was a missed opportunity.  It could have fulfilled all our needs quite well.   It would have ultimately saved money as well because of the scale of numbers we would have procured.  If the Kiwis had come on board it would have been even better.   The F-111 was a good plane but it was late arriving and too specialised in what it did.   The Phantom could do all things for all people.   However, it was an expensive (at least initially) purchase.   The RAN would have needed a new carrier.   Government was reluctant to spend that sort of money.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Old Wombat on October 09, 2019, 11:52:45 AM
If they'd bought a new carrier then, maybe we'd still have one now (a proper carrier, that is). :icon_crap:
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on October 09, 2019, 12:34:38 PM
If they'd bought a new carrier then, maybe we'd still have one now (a proper carrier, that is). :icon_crap:

The US were very keen to supply us (as well and the UK and Canada) with an Essex in at least CVS configuration and the Brits offered us Hermes in 68, with Victorious and Eagle also being available following the decision to get out of the carrier game.  The ships were on offer for next to bugger all, I believe possibly for less than it cost to refit Melbourne to operate Skyhawks and Trackers and improve her air-conditioning. They required more crew than Melbourne but less than Melbourne and Sydney (as a troop transport) combined.

The argument about money is flawed as Australia has consistently gone for the cheaper option while wearing rose tinted glasses, causing delays, capability gaps, followed by costly mitigation.  The number of times a fully costed, risk assessed and engineered option has been knocked back in favour of something that promises the world but never delivers the promised capability is quite shocking.  Even the F-111 buy was a cost cutting exercise, buy 24 (plus 6 recce) high end airframes for two squadrons instead of 36+ perfectly good enough airframes in three squadrons, supported by tankers.  I could be wrong but I believe the F-111 ended up costing more than the Phantom fall back option would have.

Imagine 150 Phantoms replacing Canberra, Sea Venom, supplementing, then replacing Mirage. Not cheap but what would the savings have been on the support systems side of things?  Phantom was much more capable than Mirage or Skyhawk, and good enough that the RAAF wanted to keep the leased Es, even after the F-111 arrived.  Phantom would have needed tankers to match the F-111s range but we ended up converting 707s anyway, so the KC-135 would not have been a significant extra cost anyway. Had we gone for Spey Phantoms, or B/J/N/S the 707 with hose and drogue would have been perfectly adequate anyway.

I'm not pulling this stuff out of a random orifice, it was proposed and rejected, with the options selected instead delivering less capability, while still costing a significant amount up front, then even more down the track as the reality of sustainability, obsolescence and capability short falls hit.  Modernised Melbourne was barely capable of operating Skyhawks and required the cannibalisation of retired carriers (Bonaventure and Essexs) to keep her operational, a Squadron of Mirages had to be disbanded to sustain the shrinking fleet and even then there was a period of years in the late 70s early 80s where neither their guns or air to air missiles were operable.  Then there were the F-111s teething issues that took years to sort out. None of these would have occurred had the Phantom been acquired and Melbourne replaced in the 60s.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on October 10, 2019, 02:39:43 PM
If they'd bought a new carrier then, maybe we'd still have one now (a proper carrier, that is). :icon_crap:

Can't disagree with that.  The loss of the carrier element to the fleet has severely limited what the RAN can do.  While an ex-USN carrier would perhaps, in the long run been a sensible purchase there was also the HMS VICTORIOUS and/or EAGLE available in the late 1960s.   EAGLE was capable of operating Phantoms, if it had water cooled blast deflectors installed on it's decks (it never did, whereas ARK ROYAL, her sister ship did).   What EAGLE lacked also was up-to-date Radars.   Both could be relatively easily fixed.   VICTORIOUS would have required significant rework to be able to operate Phantoms.

ESSEX class carriers were more than likely more easily supported because of their source.   Both ESSEX and EAGLE had roughly comparable complements of approximately 3,000 men (including officers).    MELBOURNE had a complement of only 1,350 men.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on October 10, 2019, 03:39:37 PM
If they'd bought a new carrier then, maybe we'd still have one now (a proper carrier, that is). :icon_crap:

The US were very keep to supply us with an Essex in at least CVS configuration and the Brits offered us Hermes in 68, with Victorious and Eagle also being available following the decision to get out of the carrier game.  The ships were on offer for next to bugger all, I believe possibly for less than it cost to refit Melbourne to operate Skyhawks and Trackers and improve her air-conditioning. They required more crew than Melbourne but less than Melbourne and Sydney (as a troop transport) combined.

Not quite.  An ESSEX class or an EAGLE required approximately 3,000 men.  A MELBOURNE 1,350 men.   You could have had one ESSEX or EAGLE for two smaller carriers as far as manpower requirements, approximately.  An ESSEX or an EAGLE would have been more expensive to run than MELBOURNE or SYDNEY.    SYDNEY in particular had essentially a skeleton crew, without air Ops or air complement.   I am unsure of costs.   EAGLE would have been cheaper to purchase than an ESSEX I suspect but more expensive to maintain.

Quote
The argument about money is flawed as Australia has consistently gone for the cheaper option while wearing rose tinted glasses, causing delays, capability gaps, followed by costly mitigation.  The number of times a fully costed, risk assessed and engineered option has been knocked back in favour of something that promises the world but never delivers the promised capability is quite shocking.  Even the F-111 buy was a cost cutting exercise, buy 24 (plus 6 recce) high end airframes for two squadrons instead of 36+ perfectly good enough airframes in three squadrons, supported by tankers.  I could be wrong but I believe the F-111 ended up costing more than the Phantom fall back option would have.

Hindsight is wonderful.   The RAAF wanted an up-to-date replacement for the Canberra and the F-111 was the only game in town that fulfilled that, in their opinion.   The Buccaneer was too naval, the Mirage IV was not yet available.   The problem was the F-111 was reaching too far with it's variable geometry wing.   Treasury wanted value for money.   The F-111 appear to offer that.   Both the RAAF and Treasury were betrayed by the technology.

Quote
Imagine 150 Phantoms replacing Canberra, Sea Venom, supplementing, then replacing Mirage. Not cheap but what would the savings have been on the support systems side of things?  Phantom was much more capable than Mirage or Skyhawk, and good enough that the RAAF wanted to keep the leased Es, even after the F-111 arrived.  Phantom would have needed tankers to match the F-111s range but we ended up converting 707s anyway, so the KC-135 would not have been a significant extra cost anyway. Had we gone for Spey Phantoms, or B/J/N/S the 707 with hose and drogue would have been perfectly adequate anyway.

Problem was numbers of 707s.  There simply weren't that many. The RAAF ended up with the last discards form QANTAS.   The RAAF ended up with three airframes, hardly enough to sustain even a flight on a long distance mission.   What we needed were about a dozen or more airframes.  That would have meant purchasing them, something the Treasury wasn't interested in doing.

Quote
I'm not pulling this stuff out of a random orifice, it was proposed and rejected, with the options selected instead delivering less capability, while still costing a significant amount up front, then even more down the track as the reality of sustainability, obsolescence and capability short falls hit.  Modernised Melbourne was barely capable of operating Skyhawks and required the cannibalisation of retired carriers (Bonaventure and Essexs) to keep her operational, a Squadron of Mirages had to be disbanded to sustain the shrinking fleet and even then there was a period of years in the late 70s early 80s where neither their guns or air to air missiles were operable.  Then there were the F-111s teething issues that took years to sort out. None of these would have occurred had the Phantom been acquired and Melbourne replaced in the 60s.

No one is suggesting that you're pulling it out of your bum, mate.   Yes, it was proposed but the rejection occurred on what were considered by Treasure to be good reasons.  Look, Treasury were a bunch of bastards and are still a bunch of bastards.  They didn't believe the Leopards were a good purchase and kept trying to retire them early, so much so that Army lied in Senate estimate committee hearings to downplay how much it cost to keep and maintain them.   What the RAAF and the RAN needed was a good enough reason to get it past Treasury and they failed on that, each and every time the proposed something.    It would have been much easier to shoot all the Treasury officials and have a coup.  ;)

Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Old Wombat on October 10, 2019, 04:02:57 PM
It would have been much easier to shoot all the Treasury officials and have a coup.  ;)

Sounds like a "Plan"! 8) ;)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ScranJ51 on October 16, 2019, 02:27:57 PM
Shot Treasury and have a Coup?


Yup, I'm IN!!!!!!!!


 ;)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 10, 2019, 03:09:22 AM
Some old inspiration from Richard:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/Gekko_1/Newguineacolour_zpsba27fbc6.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on November 10, 2019, 04:05:19 PM
Reading David Shackletons "The Impact of the Charles F. Adams Class Guided Missile Destroyers on the Royal Australian Navy" the RAN CN tour of the UK and US he was specifically banned from discussing aircraft carriers and was to look at guided missile destroyers only.  In his meeting with Arleigh Bourke the US CNS offered Australia an Essex straight up, completely unsolicited.

https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/sea_power_series_impact_of_charles_f_adams_class_on_ran.pdf#page=9 (https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/sea_power_series_impact_of_charles_f_adams_class_on_ran.pdf#page=9)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on November 10, 2019, 06:22:52 PM

In part yes.  Oil was first discovered in Australia ~1890.  It wasn't really developed as an industry until the late 1960s.  Problem is, the oil we have is not very good for refining into dieso/petrol.  It has heavy suphides present and that causes "knock" quite badly.   While we do refine a bit of it, it is more economic to use the by-products first - natural gas and LPG and import refined products (dieso/petrol)  from overseas.   This has caused a significant problem in that we have shut down most of our refineries and have little in the way of fuel reserves available to us.  The Government has been severely criticised for this and for good reason.

I'll further refine my comment.  What we need is some new mineral discovery and a market to sell it in easily and with great demand.   Iron Ore was discovered in the late 1950s but Japan was the only major player which bought it until China came on line in the late 1990s and then demand skyrocketed.   What we would need is for China to get rid of Maoism earlier.

Wow, thanks Rickshaw, I found this snippet of factual history very interesting!!

M.A.D
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kerick on November 11, 2019, 01:54:40 AM
Export koala bears and crocs!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on March 22, 2020, 04:51:48 AM
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/90140634_10158354780757386_7405056357457461248_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=ca434c&_nc_ohc=l_YTj8qFSdAAX9qicBJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=47063f5f8d8b2cfea891073cf2238715&oe=5E9A9EF4)

F-4x4K
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on March 22, 2020, 07:52:44 AM
FWIW War Thunder has just released the F-4E in their latest update.  Armed with AIM-9J Sidewinders and Gatling Gun plus flares but no AIM-7 Sparrow AAM (yet).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 21, 2020, 03:54:39 PM
Phantom New Generation

(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/Phantom-NG.jpg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Phantom-NG.jpg.html)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 21, 2020, 03:57:50 PM
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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on May 21, 2020, 05:40:47 PM
How about a proper small carrier Phantom, even more powerful than Spey (or a more powerful Spey), high lift devices, maybe blown flaps.  USN wants it to keep the remaining Essex Class CVAs effective into the 80s, RN want it to fly off not only Eagle and Ark but also Vic and Hermes as well as a reconstructed Centaur.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on May 22, 2020, 10:20:24 PM
How about a proper small carrier Phantom, even more powerful than Spey (or a more powerful Spey), high lift devices, maybe blown flaps.  USN wants it to keep the remaining Essex Class CVAs effective into the 80s, RN want it to fly off not only Eagle and Ark but also Vic and Hermes as well as a reconstructed Centaur.
I think one of the reasons the smaller carriers could not manage the F4 was simply the mass versus the catapult capacity. Even lowering the take-off speed by adding more power or blown flaps, etc., is't going to change the fact that the Lead Sled was, in fact, lead. And adding capacity to catapults is not an easy thing to do it relates to the available steam from the engines and the length of track for the catapult, neither of which is terribly variable once the carrier is built, even with a major rebuild.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 23, 2020, 03:25:09 AM
I wonder if a catapult combined with JATO/RATO pods would work?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on May 23, 2020, 01:01:35 PM
I wonder if a catapult combined with JATO/RATO pods would work?

Nope, it couldn't work.  As soon as you applied the RATO/JATO the catapult would stop working as the weight would be taken by the RATO/JATO. 
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on May 23, 2020, 02:42:06 PM
More powerful, lengthened catapults and the high lift devices handling the recovery side of things.  Yes there are limits to how long a cat a ship can take but if a long enough, powerful enough cat can be fitted the biggest issue is recovery.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 24, 2020, 03:46:55 AM
I wonder if a catapult combined with JATO/RATO pods would work?

Nope, it couldn't work.  As soon as you applied the RATO/JATO the catapult would stop working as the weight would be taken by the RATO/JATO.

It could possibly work if the JATO/RATO were triggered the moment the ca't stopped.  Think of it as a virtual extension to the cat'.    Not saying it would be elegant but...

Another option might be to just go the JATO/RATO option and ignore the cat' altogether.  Some inspiration:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/2a/75/922a75e451ab2b54b4629ebf53016333.jpg)(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h2830POdmbs/WX9HzeOPDPI/AAAAAAAAKws/9vVPPkjtSa4967NJqvdwFe6pKT5ZA1yDgCLcBGAs/s1600/A3D%2BJATO%2BTakeoff%2BCropped.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Rickshaw on May 24, 2020, 07:09:01 PM
I wonder if a catapult combined with JATO/RATO pods would work?

Nope, it couldn't work.  As soon as you applied the RATO/JATO the catapult would stop working as the weight would be taken by the RATO/JATO.

It could possibly work if the JATO/RATO were triggered the moment the ca't stopped.  Think of it as a virtual extension to the cat'.    Not saying it would be elegant but...

Another option might be to just go the JATO/RATO option and ignore the cat' altogether.  Some inspiration:

Physically that would work.  However, whereas the limit on OPTEMPO was the number of catapult slings carried by the carrier, the OPTEMPO would then be limited by the number of RATA/JATO units carried.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 25, 2020, 06:50:15 AM
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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 26, 2020, 02:05:07 AM
The bottom one for me.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on May 26, 2020, 02:11:12 AM
I unfortunately have to agree with Greg on the last one.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on May 28, 2020, 04:04:01 AM
I wonder if a catapult combined with JATO/RATO pods would work?

Nope, it couldn't work.  As soon as you applied the RATO/JATO the catapult would stop working as the weight would be taken by the RATO/JATO.
If the RATO system was sufficient to launch the aircraft on it's own, you don't need the cats, but then as Rickshaw says, you're then limited by how many RATOS you are carrying, which wouldn't be that many as they are pretty big.

If the RATO system is only part of the capability, then they would share that with the cats and both systems are needed for take-off. Of course, if you have a failure of _either_ system, the pilots are going swimming, which is a bad system design if you don't absolutely need to do it. And you still have the logistics issue of how many RATOS you have.

Paul
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on May 28, 2020, 04:08:37 AM
More powerful, lengthened catapults and the high lift devices handling the recovery side of things.  Yes there are limits to how long a cat a ship can take but if a long enough, powerful enough cat can be fitted the biggest issue is recovery.
Yes, longer cats is the answer, but it's an answer with an awfully big price tag as its related to how much steam the ship can maintain as well as how much room the Cat and all the piping take within the ship. It's not a small thing and it was, if I remember correctly, one of the reasons that the Essexs were not cleared for using Phantoms and flew F-8s as their fast movers until they were withdrawn rather upgrading to carry F-4s.

Paul
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 28, 2020, 04:15:19 AM
Hmmm...RATO packs in rear two Sparrow points?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on May 29, 2020, 06:50:29 AM
I wonder if a catapult combined with JATO/RATO pods would work?


You know, when I first learnt about the Soviet/Russian aircraft carrier Riga; launched as (http://Leonid Brezhnev), embarked on sea trials as Tbilisi, and finally named (http://Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov) (now that was exhausting 😉), knowing that it was designed around a ski-jump operations, lacking catapults... I always wondered to myself whether the Soviets/Russians would utilise just such an arrangement! Especially when one appreciates that the likes of the already large and heavy Flanker would have to be restricted in fuel and weapons load to achieve its take off - regardless of its outstanding thrust-to-weight ratio.

MAD
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on May 29, 2020, 07:04:10 AM
If they'd bought a new carrier then, maybe we'd still have one now (a proper carrier, that is). :icon_crap:

The US were very keep to supply us with an Essex in at least CVS configuration and the Brits offered us Hermes in 68, with Victorious and Eagle also being available following the decision to get out of the carrier game.  The ships were on offer for next to bugger all, I believe possibly for less than it cost to refit Melbourne to operate Skyhawks and Trackers and improve her air-conditioning. They required more crew than Melbourne but less than Melbourne and Sydney (as a troop transport) combined.

Not quite.  An ESSEX class or an EAGLE required approximately 3,000 men.  A MELBOURNE 1,350 men.   You could have had one ESSEX or EAGLE for two smaller carriers as far as manpower requirements, approximately.  An ESSEX or an EAGLE would have been more expensive to run than MELBOURNE or SYDNEY.    SYDNEY in particular had essentially a skeleton crew, without air Ops or air complement.   I am unsure of costs.   EAGLE would have been cheaper to purchase than an ESSEX I suspect but more expensive to maintain.

Quote
The argument about money is flawed as Australia has consistently gone for the cheaper option while wearing rose tinted glasses, causing delays, capability gaps, followed by costly mitigation.  The number of times a fully costed, risk assessed and engineered option has been knocked back in favour of something that promises the world but never delivers the promised capability is quite shocking.  Even the F-111 buy was a cost cutting exercise, buy 24 (plus 6 recce) high end airframes for two squadrons instead of 36+ perfectly good enough airframes in three squadrons, supported by tankers.  I could be wrong but I believe the F-111 ended up costing more than the Phantom fall back option would have.

Hindsight is wonderful.   The RAAF wanted an up-to-date replacement for the Canberra and the F-111 was the only game in town that fulfilled that, in their opinion.   The Buccaneer was too naval, the Mirage IV was not yet available.   The problem was the F-111 was reaching too far with it's variable geometry wing.   Treasury wanted value for money.   The F-111 appear to offer that.   Both the RAAF and Treasury were betrayed by the technology.

Quote
Imagine 150 Phantoms replacing Canberra, Sea Venom, supplementing, then replacing Mirage. Not cheap but what would the savings have been on the support systems side of things?  Phantom was much more capable than Mirage or Skyhawk, and good enough that the RAAF wanted to keep the leased Es, even after the F-111 arrived.  Phantom would have needed tankers to match the F-111s range but we ended up converting 707s anyway, so the KC-135 would not have been a significant extra cost anyway. Had we gone for Spey Phantoms, or B/J/N/S the 707 with hose and drogue would have been perfectly adequate anyway.

Problem was numbers of 707s.  There simply weren't that many. The RAAF ended up with the last discards form QANTAS.   The RAAF ended up with three airframes, hardly enough to sustain even a flight on a long distance mission.   What we needed were about a dozen or more airframes.  That would have meant purchasing them, something the Treasury wasn't interested in doing.

Quote
I'm not pulling this stuff out of a random orifice, it was proposed and rejected, with the options selected instead delivering less capability, while still costing a significant amount up front, then even more down the track as the reality of sustainability, obsolescence and capability short falls hit.  Modernised Melbourne was barely capable of operating Skyhawks and required the cannibalisation of retired carriers (Bonaventure and Essexs) to keep her operational, a Squadron of Mirages had to be disbanded to sustain the shrinking fleet and even then there was a period of years in the late 70s early 80s where neither their guns or air to air missiles were operable.  Then there were the F-111s teething issues that took years to sort out. None of these would have occurred had the Phantom been acquired and Melbourne replaced in the 60s.

No one is suggesting that you're pulling it out of your bum, mate.   Yes, it was proposed but the rejection occurred on what were considered by Treasure to be good reasons.  Look, Treasury were a bunch of bastards and are still a bunch of bastards.  They didn't believe the Leopards were a good purchase and kept trying to retire them early, so much so that Army lied in Senate estimate committee hearings to downplay how much it cost to keep and maintain them.   What the RAAF and the RAN needed was a good enough reason to get it past Treasury and they failed on that, each and every time the proposed something.    It would have been much easier to shoot all the Treasury officials and have a coup.  ;)

Sorry to detract off topic, but after years of contemplation and maturity, my blinding effectionet for the F-111, I've settled comfortably on the notion that Australia/RAAF should have gone with its original findings and selection of a 'Canberra Replacement' - the North American A-5B/RA-5B Vigilante! In terms of cost, the number of platforms (36 vs 24) and it's real and practical 'in-service operational date of 1966'.
On top of this, with the money saved with a Vigilante purchase, the same fact finding tour actually looked at the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker....
As in my Alternative ADF ORBAT, the RAAF gets its Vigilante's and KC-135's...in 1974 F-111E's are purchased to replace Vigilante, while the KC-135 continue a long and productive career continue supporting the RAAF in its entirety - AWACS, transport and Maritime Patrol, etc and not just the F-111's - watering down geo-political issues with you know who!


MAD
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 30, 2020, 03:13:47 AM
I wonder if a catapult combined with JATO/RATO pods would work?


You know, when I first learnt about the Soviet/Russian aircraft carrier Riga; launched as ([url]http://Leonid[/url] Brezhnev), embarked on sea trials as Tbilisi, and finally named ([url]http://Admiral[/url] Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov) (now that was exhausting 😉), knowing that it was designed around a ski-jump operations, lacking catapults... I always wondered to myself whether the Soviets/Russians would utilise just such an arrangement! Especially when one appreciates that the likes of the already large and heavy Flanker would have to be restricted in fuel and weapons load to achieve its take off - regardless of its outstanding thrust-to-weight ratio.

MAD



Interesting idea.  Imagine if a Ski-jump arrangement was introduced earlier for use with something such as the Phantom on the Essex class.  Hmmm...
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on May 30, 2020, 04:25:25 PM
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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 31, 2020, 10:43:17 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)
Nice!!  How about a dedicated recce-Phantom for the RAF with an RF-4E nose on an other wise FGR.2 airframe?  Combined with the standard recce pod, you could gather quite a lot of data.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on June 02, 2020, 08:51:21 AM
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: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on July 05, 2020, 03:29:35 PM
Recommendation requested: of all the radars that have been employed by the F-4E (APG-65GY, APG-66J, EL/M-2032, etc.), which one is the most suitable for use on the Phantoms operating as, say, part of a network of early-warning platforms?  Which one offers the best precision against aerial targets?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 03, 2020, 03:38:32 AM
Proposed RNZAF F-4 with fern leaf roundels:

(https://www.airforcemuseum.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1996-172.1_p1_web.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on September 03, 2020, 06:44:11 PM
Proposed RNZAF F-4 with fern leaf roundels:

(https://www.airforcemuseum.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1996-172.1_p1_web.jpg)
It's funny, with its twin-engines, two-crew and four Sparrow missiles, I always envisagef the F-4 Phantom II being what Canada always needed as far as an air defence intercepter...

MAD
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 03, 2020, 09:10:13 PM
Proposed RNZAF F-4 with fern leaf roundels:

(https://www.airforcemuseum.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1996-172.1_p1_web.jpg)
It's funny, with its twin-engines, two-crew and four Sparrow missiles, I always envisagef the F-4 Phantom II being what Canada always needed as far as an air defence intercepter...

MAD
I believe that proposal was made more than once.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 04, 2020, 01:54:30 AM
It was considered by Canada at least for the replacement for the Sabre Mk.6.  The RCAF apparently preferred the Phantom as the Sabre replacement, but this was rejected fairly early on, probably due to its high cost.

Apparently the next preference was the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger (jut to give you another whiff idea) though eventually they went with the F-104 Starfighter.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 26, 2020, 02:35:16 AM
Some Kiwi Inspiration:

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_03/img00006.JPG.2fb887a8604dd8606d2bda622cbe99b1.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_03/img00015.JPG.852675db2cd78b4cf9cc37150e73f435.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_03/img00023.JPG.28148428a0896e841fdeadd1fab8ad50.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_08_2015/post-59028-0-35155000-1440545944.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_08_2015/post-59028-0-20698300-1440545817.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_08_2015/post-59028-0-47603500-1440545920.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_08_2015/post-59028-0-74430300-1440545928.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 26, 2020, 03:02:12 AM
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%2520ALBUM%2520A/ADLA%2520F-4M%2520PHANTOM.02_zpsn6rlivos.jpg&key=2b0437dc343243af3cc9f3ef3d64842b306dd1fc66578c433d9e1126db417b2f)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 26, 2020, 03:12:38 AM
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2016/post-79989-0-22651000-1454929996.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2016/post-79989-0-02980900-1454929989.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 27, 2020, 02:18:00 AM
Makings for a different Falklands War:

(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%2520ALBUM%2520B/COAN%2520F-4B%2520PHANTOM.01_zpswx3vzbfu.jpg&key=aa0bdb1e358cd5e905de25c9316487dc71c0c23e8eb2b64b416b0a59e5f1ae03)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 27, 2020, 03:58:41 AM
Might have to make up some Hagar decals...

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_06_2012/post-29981-0-56612500-1339541459.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_06_2012/post-29981-0-79982800-1339535614.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_06_2012/post-29981-0-39589500-1339535618.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_06_2012/post-29981-0-46805400-1339579714.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on September 27, 2020, 06:50:00 AM
Makings for a different Falklands War:

(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%2520ALBUM%2520B/COAN%2520F-4B%2520PHANTOM.01_zpswx3vzbfu.jpg&key=aa0bdb1e358cd5e905de25c9316487dc71c0c23e8eb2b64b416b0a59e5f1ae03)
Can you swap out the Bullpups for Martin Pescador anti-ship missiles?  They would require the same size guidance pod the Bullpups used.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 28, 2020, 03:27:16 AM
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%25202011/CFANF-4NPHANTOM03.jpg&key=a7080db370e8388ea3b1b5153b19a0560fcb06a5968808516e6e10a6b041b9a9)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 29, 2020, 03:18:08 AM
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%25202011/FLYGVAPNETRF-4MSPHANTOM04_zpsef4e8f1b.jpg&key=3dc507fdb3fc3d53656afdc7fa217595f8c9be70f265d08fb092104d6f2a20df)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 29, 2020, 03:44:57 AM
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202013/NEIAFF-4EPHANTOM01_zps3a002890.jpg&key=b8980bf867c354b0bee6d983c2f04529346cf07d31f178df5c54b2f854c8612b)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 30, 2020, 03:47:41 AM
Oh yeah!!!

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-841-0-32758300-1387799053.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on October 02, 2020, 07:16:57 AM
How about a RNZN FAA Phantom?

NZ decides the replace its cruisers with carriers, its airforce becomes their FAA and their Army becomes their marines, they invest every defence dollar (or pound depending on the year) in a strong single service the RNZN and its carriers!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 05, 2020, 03:07:35 AM
Real World Proposal:

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_02/z.jpg.ba93de648247ecf4cfc85c1895a06052.jpg)

Rendered:

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_02/2.JPG.3ff1b1d543745d83130e660b9bdeed55.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_02/7.JPG.5a5636175549b4e959637207f3683252.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2019_02/9.JPG.6606713d0728b9cedd6deb2ba39e8916.JPG)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 11, 2020, 01:50:02 AM
Who's in?

https://www.platinumfighters.com/inventory-2/1959-mcdonnell-f4h-1f-phantom-ii (https://www.platinumfighters.com/inventory-2/1959-mcdonnell-f4h-1f-phantom-ii)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on November 11, 2020, 04:06:58 AM
For a single-crew Phantom II, how about going to the original low-profile canopy of the F4H-1?  The canopy lines were revised for the F4H-1F to give a better view and more room to the GIB.  This is not a concern for a single-seat version.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: tankmodeler on November 11, 2020, 05:35:10 AM
That's a lot of airplane for no BVR missile capability.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: jcf on November 11, 2020, 05:56:43 AM
Oh yeah!!!

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-841-0-32758300-1387799053.jpg)

Amusing, but the V-tail is way too small.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on November 11, 2020, 08:58:25 AM
I have to agree with Jon, that V-tail is way too small.  Perhaps use half of a F-101 horizontal tail for each leg of the V?  That's just a first thought, it may yet need larger surfaces than that.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kelmola on November 12, 2020, 06:45:09 PM
That's a lot of airplane for no BVR missile capability.
Well, the F-4F was a stopgap solution to begin with due to the delays in the Tornado program, and as the version of the Tornado the Luftwaffe was considering did not include BVR capability they did not want to pay for that in an interim aircraft either. MDD was probably anxious to cut the costs (and thus sales price) anyway in order not to have Luftwaffe buy eg. Viggen (of course, Luftwaffe did not need to tell them that they did not want another single-engined aircraft, no matter how cheap) or Jaguar instead.

That does not of course explain the other half of the order, which was used in dedicated air-to-air role, but as it was supposed to supplant the attrition of the F-104 force, the capability was replaced like-for-like.

The cynic would say that this was how the acquisition was sold to the politicians, as in a few years Maverick capability was (re-)added and in less than ten years the Luftwaffe would initiate the ICE program which actually modernized the F-4F's beyond any US Phantoms (APG-65 radar, the same as F/A-18, and AMRAAM capability, among many other improvements).
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 11, 2021, 01:46:16 AM
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_2021_05/img00018.JPG.89d7bbf56e15ffdadd194c8a1459a138.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_2021_05/img00019.JPG.eba70dd57d286b8641d8a33fcd02f586.JPG)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 11, 2021, 02:08:43 AM
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_07_2017/e12adf4cf1880dae03bd077cb52cbb8a-f4vs-usn.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_07_2017/5aa001591511624ce36a1f8ab2196a80-f4vs-rn.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on December 12, 2021, 03:10:48 PM
Super swept Phantom

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-4E_swept_3v.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/749c4f20-6086-49b3-84f8-09f54963a173)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on December 12, 2021, 03:42:04 PM
USN and USMC Hybrid F-4K to operate off life extended Essex Class carriers in the CVS and a new CVA(M) configuration.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on January 05, 2022, 08:02:03 PM
Study for a single engine F-4 Phantom.

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Study_sglEng_F4.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/1c4f8034-6494-4dcf-b7d0-8676948f9cec)

Engine does not have to be necessarily Volvo RM8. I think more in an upscaled version of EJ200
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on April 13, 2022, 03:03:39 AM
Model of F-4E for ROCAF.

Source HERE (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2122949207872640&id=100004727437955)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 15, 2022, 03:26:40 AM
(https://i-com.cdn.gaijin.net/monthly_2020_12/425732656_F-4EGPU-5A1.jpg.f8d5ebb1d53169b238fad3ab832077f1.jpg)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kerick on April 15, 2022, 10:37:14 AM
(https://i-com.cdn.gaijin.net/monthly_2020_12/425732656_F-4EGPU-5A1.jpg.f8d5ebb1d53169b238fad3ab832077f1.jpg)

Roll in on one of rootin tootin Putin’s convoys and play can opener.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 05, 2022, 03:15:14 PM
T-tailed Phantom with a british touch. ;)

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/PhantomBuccaneer(1).png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/4a86748e-3af9-4d7b-a254-02ebee2849f1)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 16, 2022, 11:22:30 AM
German recce Phantom made up with some Alpha Jet bits. Tail fin need some schatch. ;)

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/RF-4E_beauty(1).png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/552828e8-e190-4915-bec0-ac949d7875e4)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on August 26, 2022, 04:02:03 AM
New video trailer from DCS for the OG Rhino: F-4 (F-110) Phantom
DCS (Digital Combat Simulations) > Legends Never Die > F-4E Announcement Trailer (https://youtu.be/rQuBI70CbNI)





***edit to correct html.--jjf
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: KiwiZac on August 27, 2022, 07:24:47 AM
New video trailer from DCS for the OG Rhino: F-4 (F-110) Phantom
DCS (Digital Combat Simulations) > Legends Never Die > F-4E Announcement Trailer (https://youtu.be/rQuBI70CbNI)
*from January, for anyone else who thought it seemed familiar!
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on September 09, 2022, 12:07:41 PM
Another IAI speculative product for Argentina to rebuild Air Force: Scaleoramed Phantom.

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F4_cheetah.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/dd138959-6b78-4cea-b4ec-5d30d85bc5fa")
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 27, 2023, 03:20:46 AM
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/Image_27-1-2023_at_5.03_am.jpeg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/Image_27-1-2023_at_5.02_am_(1).jpeg)

CFBVs
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on February 25, 2023, 09:17:11 PM
Did FAA Phantoms ever cross deck to the Clemenceus?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 26, 2023, 02:42:28 AM
Did FAA Phantoms ever cross deck to the Clemenceus?

Not that I am aware of
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on March 03, 2023, 06:09:45 AM
Did FAA Phantoms ever cross deck to the Clemenceus?

Not that I am aware of

Would they be able? I do not think so. ???
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Kelmola on March 03, 2023, 05:52:39 PM
The Clems were too small size-wise for the F-4, also the catapults did not have enough power. Even the F-8 had to be specifically modified to be able to operate from them (higher maximum incidence of the variable-incidence wing, blown flaps, greater flap and slat angles).

Charles de Gaulle is however fully cross-compatible - the catapults are actually American, though lower-powered than on American carriers, so Superbugs would have to take off at less than maximum take-off weight. Normally this would not even be an issue - since bringback weight is far less than take-off weight and smart weapons are expensive (ie. unused ordnance cannot be dumped into sea en masse as was common with iron bombs), planes routinely sortie with the minimum necessary loadout even in combat operations.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on March 22, 2023, 01:47:24 PM
Phrenchiphied Phantom

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F4-alt.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F4-alt.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on April 21, 2023, 05:23:50 PM
With the Mirages essentially being light combatants, perhaps a French version of the F-4E as a heavy fighter?  ATAR 9K50s replacing J79s, the twin DEFA installation the Israelis trialed instead of the M61m either a probe plugged into the flying boom receptacle to use probe and drogue refueling or a switch to the retractible probe USN Pahmtoms used.  Radar coule either remain SU-source or Thompson-CSF could develop a version of an existing radar to fit.  On the outboard hardpoints, Matra JL100 combined rocket pod and feul tank units, centerline using Matra's combined fuel tank and MER installation with other French hardware on the inboard stores pylons.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 22, 2023, 02:41:07 AM
With the Mirages essentially being light combatants, perhaps a French version of the F-4E as a heavy fighter?  ATAR 9K50s replacing J79s, the twin DEFA installation the Israelis trialed instead of the M61m either a probe plugged into the flying boom receptacle to use probe and drogue refueling or a switch to the retractible probe USN Pahmtoms used.  Radar coule either remain SU-source or Thompson-CSF could develop a version of an existing radar to fit.  On the outboard hardpoints, Matra JL100 combined rocket pod and feul tank units, centerline using Matra's combined fuel tank and MER installation with other French hardware on the inboard stores pylons.

Not that far fetched.  In March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the RAAF in a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets. This engine was picked because it powered the Dassault Mirage IIIO fighters that were already being flown by the RAAF.

And once again for inspiration:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/F-4aeronavale2.webp)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on April 22, 2023, 03:53:32 AM
With the Mirages essentially being light combatants, perhaps a French version of the F-4E as a heavy fighter?  ATAR 9K50s replacing J79s, the twin DEFA installation the Israelis trialed instead of the M61m either a probe plugged into the flying boom receptacle to use probe and drogue refueling or a switch to the retractible probe USN Pahmtoms used.  Radar coule either remain SU-source or Thompson-CSF could develop a version of an existing radar to fit.  On the outboard hardpoints, Matra JL100 combined rocket pod and feul tank units, centerline using Matra's combined fuel tank and MER installation with other French hardware on the inboard stores pylons.

Not that far fetched.  In March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the RAAF in a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets. This engine was picked because it powered the Dassault Mirage IIIO fighters that were already being flown by the RAAF.

And once again for inspiration:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/F-4aeronavale2.webp)
I think I have most of the bits and pieces to build that one.  On the flip side, that would also give me a couple J79-powered Mirage F.1's.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: dy031101 on April 22, 2023, 02:44:14 PM
 :icon_beer:
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on May 01, 2023, 06:29:45 PM
With the Mirages essentially being light combatants, perhaps a French version of the F-4E as a heavy fighter?  ATAR 9K50s replacing J79s, the twin DEFA installation the Israelis trialed instead of the M61m either a probe plugged into the flying boom receptacle to use probe and drogue refueling or a switch to the retractible probe USN Pahmtoms used.  Radar coule either remain SU-source or Thompson-CSF could develop a version of an existing radar to fit.  On the outboard hardpoints, Matra JL100 combined rocket pod and feul tank units, centerline using Matra's combined fuel tank and MER installation with other French hardware on the inboard stores pylons.

Not that far fetched.  In March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the RAAF in a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets. This engine was picked because it powered the Dassault Mirage IIIO fighters that were already being flown by the RAAF.

And once again for inspiration:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/F-4aeronavale2.webp)

Could you imagine how woeful the Atar 9 Phantom would be for deck operations?
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: elmayerle on May 02, 2023, 07:01:51 AM
With the Mirages essentially being light combatants, perhaps a French version of the F-4E as a heavy fighter?  ATAR 9K50s replacing J79s, the twin DEFA installation the Israelis trialed instead of the M61m either a probe plugged into the flying boom receptacle to use probe and drogue refueling or a switch to the retractible probe USN Pahmtoms used.  Radar coule either remain SU-source or Thompson-CSF could develop a version of an existing radar to fit.  On the outboard hardpoints, Matra JL100 combined rocket pod and feul tank units, centerline using Matra's combined fuel tank and MER installation with other French hardware on the inboard stores pylons.

Not that far fetched.  In March of 1963, McDonnell had tried to interest the RAAF in a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets. This engine was picked because it powered the Dassault Mirage IIIO fighters that were already being flown by the RAAF.

And once again for inspiration:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/F-4aeronavale2.webp)

Could you imagine how woeful the Atar 9 Phantom would be for deck operations?
My take was the ATAR 9K50 Phantom for land-based AdA use rather than Aeronavale use.  You'd need the extra power of J79s for shipboard operation.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on May 02, 2023, 01:07:45 PM

Real world, Australia ordered two modified Charles F Adams Class DDGs from the US and planned to fit Tartar to their Battle (2) and Daring (3) Class Destroyers (cancelled) before ordering a third CFA (fourth proposed but not ordered). 

I may have asked this before, but has anyone seen or got real-world drawings and or artistic profiles of the said  Battle and Daring Class Destroyers equipped with Tartar launchers?

MAD
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jonesthetank on May 02, 2023, 05:51:58 PM
Rough and ready Shipbucket mash up.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52864490688_a1bfcd7eb6_c.jpg)

The Tartar launcher magazine is roughly the same depth as the Mk6 4.5 inch turret, so I've just swapped them over and added the SPG-51 in place of the rear WM20.

I have no doubt that it wouldn't have been that simple in real life!

Mark

Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Old Wombat on May 02, 2023, 11:13:57 PM
Um, Jonesy, what part of that is an F-4 Phantom? ???



[Note: M.A.D's quote comes from a much longer, F-4 oriented post by Volkodav.]
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Jonesthetank on May 03, 2023, 12:21:40 AM
Sorry - Obviously wasn't thinking straight when I posted  :o :-\

Can we move my response to somewhere more fiting?

Or i can add some F4 wings on the side of the Daring, and perhaps the F4E gun nose............
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on May 03, 2023, 09:10:00 AM
My apologies Old Wombat- my bad.
Thank you for the cool profile Mark and my apologies for getting you in the shit mate for your kind gesture.

MAD
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Old Wombat on May 03, 2023, 11:25:26 AM
Who said he's in the shit? ???

I just thought it would be polite to point out that the post was not really on topic for this thread. :smiley:

It would be more appropriate somewhere on this board: https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=23.0 (https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=23.0)



As I'm not a Mod I can't move it for you, though. ;)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: M.A.D on May 03, 2023, 04:19:23 PM
Who said he's in the shit? ???

I was figuratively speaking Old Wombat

MAD
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: Volkodav on May 27, 2023, 09:51:03 PM
As per usual it's my fault.  I mentioned the proposed DDG conversion of the Daring and Battles in my earlier post about the RAN plans for a new carrier and Phantoms in 1960s
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 02, 2023, 02:33:30 AM
Another random idea:  Indian Air Force or Indian Navy F-4s???

(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2023_05/img00006.thumb.JPG.f855609d6feaf85f71bfa52030ddb9fd.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2023_05/img00007.thumb.JPG.c90d2e49e6aababd3d6a0cbf426365a0.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2023_05/img00008.thumb.JPG.f5df45338bcb5a5abce966c51227e2ed.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2023_05/img00009.thumb.JPG.3985943f03e78ddc19141d9f642c73e6.JPG)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on December 03, 2023, 02:49:37 PM
Phantom Dagger

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-4-102.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-4-102.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: finsrin on December 03, 2023, 04:15:32 PM
Most excellent  :smiley:
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on December 13, 2023, 12:43:26 PM
;D ;D ;D ;D

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-4-117.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-4-117.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: finsrin on December 13, 2023, 04:30:54 PM
Enhanced stealth Phantom.   :smiley:  A kitbash challenge.
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: The Big Gimper on December 13, 2023, 07:49:14 PM
I sooooooooooo like this!!!!!  :-*
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ChernayaAkula on December 16, 2023, 06:25:39 AM
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/H1K_Y4okzHoAAAAd/awesome-yes.gif)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on December 28, 2023, 01:23:35 AM
Phantomskhoi

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F4-Su17.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F4-Su17.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on January 06, 2024, 09:13:08 AM
2 ways to merge Typhoon and Phantom

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Eurofighter-F4.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Eurofighter-F4.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
Title: Re: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration
Post by: ysi_maniac on January 13, 2024, 02:17:13 PM
Just brutal!  8)

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/StyledA10.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/StyledA10.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)