F-101 (and XF-88) Voodoo

[elmayerle]

Enlarge the main wing by 20%, add J-79s, and put it in the Lousiana ANG and call it the Cajun Queen! 

Use F-4 wings with the tips "un-bent" for the new wings?

Daft question : -
Why unbend the wing tips? Is it for an aerodynamic reason or just it looks better that way?

I wsa going for the greatest wing area possible.  Besides, I'm not totally certain that the F-101 had the same stability concerns that saw the bent wing on the F-4.

[upnorth]

If you removed the outer sections of the wings and redesigned the intakes so they were completely under the fuselage rather than in the wing roots, could we possibly make a swing wing variant? I'm thinking along the same wing engineering that saw the Sukhoi Su-7 become the Su-17 and Su-22.

Basically re-engineering a fixed wing bird into a partial VG type. I'm thinking of slapping F-14 wings in and sticking some pylons on them.

[elmayerle]

If you removed the outer sections of the wings and redesigned the intakes so they were completely under the fuselage rather than in the wing roots, could we possibly make a swing wing variant? I'm thinking along the same wing engineering that saw the Sukhoi Su-7 become the Su-17 and Su-22.

Basically re-engineering a fixed wing bird into a partial VG type. I'm thinking of slapping F-14 wings in and sticking some pylons on them.

I don't know that so radical a change would be feasible, but something like the Su-17/-20/-22 wing might work.

[upnorth]

If you removed the outer sections of the wings and redesigned the intakes so they were completely under the fuselage rather than in the wing roots, could we possibly make a swing wing variant? I'm thinking along the same wing engineering that saw the Sukhoi Su-7 become the Su-17 and Su-22.

Basically re-engineering a fixed wing bird into a partial VG type. I'm thinking of slapping F-14 wings in and sticking some pylons on them.

I don't know that so radical a change would be feasible, but something like the Su-17/-20/-22 wing might work.

So what you're saying is keep the intakes and inner wing section as they are and simply make the outer sections VG?

[ChuckAnderson]

USN USMC RN AERONAVALE (Carrier-Based)

I think that it would be interesting to see F-101's in a navalised version, for use on aircraft carriers.  As they did it with F-4 Phantom II's, perhaps it could have been done with F-101's as well.

Chuck Anderson
cbakiteskites@yahoo.com
University Place, Washington

[GTX]

Chuck,

Don't forget the F-4 was originally a carrier bird.  Mind you, a naval F-101 is an interesting concept.

regards,

Greg

[ChuckAnderson]

F-101B "Wild Weasel"  Flak Suppression Variant

I always thought that it would be interesting to have a "Wild Weasel" flak suppression variant of the two-seat F-101B (in much the same way as the F-105G variant was made from the original F-105.)

Among the operators of this type could be the:
USAF, USMC, RAF, Israeli Air Force

I was also thinking that a Maritime Strike Variant would be good, in the colours of the German Navy.

Chuck Anderson
cbakiteskites@yahoo.com
University Place, Washington

[Hatchet]

F-101B "Wild Weasel"  Flak Suppression Variant

Jeez, why didn't I think of that

I'm supposed to be a Weasel nut.

[elmayerle]

All things considered, would it be reasonable for the USN to replace the rotating launch bay carrying Falcons with a gun installation like that of the F-101A/C and carrying underwing missiles ala' the F3H-2?

[Chris707]

After I made that profile, I discovered that McDonnell apparently did propose a naval variant, but no details were forthcoming. I'd go with four underwing Sparrows a la the F3H, with a pair of Mk.12 20mm internally...Sparrow was a USN project, whereas the Falcon was USAF, and the Navy would have probably preferred to use its own armament to keep China Lake's designers occupied...

Chris
------------------------------------
http://aviationheritage.blogspot.com

[jcf]

The F-101B and F4H overlapped in development and both were missile-only, so if you are staying in period with the aircraft in the fleet-defense interceptor role then I'd leave the armament as is.

But... if you are considering a two-seat strike aircraft then you may want to consider guns.

The F-101A was designed as a long range escort fighter, thus the guns, with a secondary strike role, the escort requirement went away with the end of the Korean War and strike became the primary mission. The 101B concept was pretty much always an all-weather missile carrier.

J-79s as proposed for the F-101D/E, full blowing on all wing control surfaces, full span slats on the leading edge, two 30mm cannon instead of four 20s, fuselage structure strengthened for low level use
belly and wing hardpoints.

Jon

p.s. aint' it sorta Voodoo + Demon = Phantom anyhow?

[elmayerle]

From what I've read, the Voodoo had a pretty long takeoff run and fairly small wings in comparison to the rest of the airframe.  I'd think this would make carrier ops seriously difficult, but either way I couldn't see AAMs being hung under the wings.

Mav, part of the hybrid is using a large chunk of the Demon's wings outboard of the intakes.  These add significant wing area and get takeoff and approach performance done to reasonable levels for carrier ops.

Jon, I'll agree with your last, Voodoo + Demon does come close to = Phantom.  I'm thinking of leaving the Voodoo's vertical tail, but moving the horizontal tail down so that it's like the Demon's horizontal tail.

Chris, I agree with you about the choice of missile armament, that's one reason I can easily see the Navy replacing the Falcon launch provisions with something else.

I figure the F3H-3 to take over from the F3H-2 which also had four 20mm cannon, I believe.  Since this is a Navay aircraft, I may well add some Sidewinder stations under the fuselage.

The J79 installation would be easy since it uses the long pipes of the F-101B  with J79 nozzles on the end (I've seen pics of the one single-seat F-101 fitted with J79s as a testbed for GE - some sources claim it was to evaluate zip fuels for use on the B-70).

As to the gun installation, I'm rather thinking of either one -very- similar to the F-101A/C or one similar to that of the F3H-2.

In some ways, I could see this as a stopgap measure to allow more careful development and testing before the F4H-1 comes into fleet service.

[GTX]

No drawings I'm afraid, but there is a photo:



As an aside - when I first looked at the photo and saw the J79 script on the nose, I misread it as J29 and instantly thought of a Swedish F-101 - interesting how the mind of a whiffer works. End of diversion.

J-79 voodoos were F-101E/F according to Joe Baugher.

My info is that the F-101F was the re-designated (as of 3 Feb 1961 - how's that for precise) TF-101F which was re-designated from the original TF-101B.  They were 2 seat dual control trainers.

Regards,

Greg

[elmayerle]

Thanks, Greg.  Falling into the "if I can ever find it" category, I've got a color inflight picture of this one at another stage with the big GE logo on the vertical tail.  *smile* I got it from the GE rep when I was on the B-2.  Courtesy of the same rep, I got Gerhard Neumann's autobiography at the GE employee price.  Now there's an engineer who's had a most interesting life; excaping the Nazi "draft" by finding a job in Hong Kong, then escaping ahead of the Japanese to become a mechanic with the AVG and finally coming to America where his first major program for GE Engines was the J79.

To the best of my knowledge, the F-101F was a upgraded F-101B.  I could see the J79-powered Voodoos being the F-101D/E.

[GTX]

I could see the J79-powered Voodoos being the F-101D/E.

Yes, I thought that too - the D/E designations don't appear to have been used which is interesting .

Regards,

Greg