F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom

[GTX]

Anyone want to have ago at this:



Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

Likely to be just angle issues, but yeah, what say we put a compact, rocket-powered interceptor under the F-4's pylons as a way to get at MiG-25 recce planes?  

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

Or a Phantom-Leduc Mistel?  Use the Phantom for cruise flight, and the Leduc would then seperate and light up the ramjet for high speed run?

[Weaver]

Or you could have a Phantom carrying a small, manned, delta-winged rocket plane as the latest "commercial" means of getting NASA astronauts into space......

[GTX]

Likely to be just angle issues,

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

Regards,

Greg

[Spey_Phantom]

i have ben thinking, after reading about the best F-4 upgrades over on the key publishing forum.
there are a lot of improvents on various Phantom upgrades, but how plausible would it be to combine the best features of all upgrades (python-4 from kurnas 2000, AMRAAM & Radar from the F-4F ICE, CFT's from the F-4X,...)

i have been thinking of improving the F-4X, by keeping the CFT's but with a  single peice canopy. but i was wondering, how plausible is it to fit an GE F404 or F414 engine on the spook 

[apophenia]

... but i was wondering, how plausible is it to fit an GE F404 or F414 engine on the spook 

Well the PW1120 fit into the F-4E (IDF Kurnass 2000 development airframe) so the shorter, smaller, and lighter F404 would be no problem. IIRC, the PW1120 mountings moved the engine aft to maintain balance. That might be an issue for the F404 which weighs about 2500 lbs less than the J79.

[Daryl J.]

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

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

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



Thanks again,
Daryl J.

PS:  Mods, if there's a better place for this matter, don't hesitate to move it.  

[Jeffry Fontaine]

PS:  Mods, if there's a better place for this matter, don't hesitate to move it.

Merged with the F-4 Phantom Discussion under the Hot Topics Forum.

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

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

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

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

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

Elevator dimensions aboard other carriers build during and just after WWII and Korea would have had restrictions on the overall length for the elevators situated in the flight deck with no waterfront view which is why you see the folding nose feature on some aircraft operated by the Royal Navy. 

[Daryl J.]

Perfect.   A better answer than I'd even hoped for.

Thanks muchly.


(Irish Breakfast Tea, cream, sugar, and a quiet Sunday morning),
Daryl J.

[John Howling Mouse]

wow...really gotta get me one of THESE:

http://nexus404.com/Blog/2009/07/02/motoart-f-4-phantom-ejection-seat-chair-f-4-office-chair-great-for-quick-exits/

[elmayerle]

... but i was wondering, how plausible is it to fit an GE F404 or F414 engine on the spook 

Well the PW1120 fit into the F-4E (IDF Kurnass 2000 development airframe) so the shorter, smaller, and lighter F404 would be no problem. IIRC, the PW1120 mountings moved the engine aft to maintain balance. That might be an issue for the F404 which weighs about 2500 lbs less than the J79.

Given that the F404 and F414 share the same basic envelope, I'd prefer to install the F414 since the F404 has performance closer to the early J79s in the F-4B/C.  I rather suspect some interesting weight and balance problems here, especially since the F-4 doesn't employ flight control computers to the extent later designs do, if at all.  When the USN couldn't supply upgraded flight control computers for the F110 installation on the F-14, Grumman and Ge had to redesign the afterburner section of the F110 to get the engine core to a location where it wouldn't severely impact weight and balance; you might have to do the same with the F404/414; one reason I'd go with the PW1120.  I know McAir studied the F404 as a replacement for the J79 but dropped it from consideration after the preliminary study.

[GTX]

Some real life proposals to develop a dedicated ground attack version of the Phantom (ala MiG-23 - MiG-27) - note the replacement of the radar by cannon amongst other things (the first pic also has only a single crew member).  This is part of a 1964 report I can email anyone if they're interested.




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

Regards,

Greg

[MAD]

Some real life proposals to develop a dedicated ground attack version of the Phantom (ala MiG-23 - MiG-27) - note the replacement of the radar by cannon amongst other things (the first pic also has only a single crew member).  This is part of a 1964 report I can email anyone if they're interested.




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

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

Thanks in advance

M.A.D

Regards,

Greg

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

Thanks in advance

M.A.D

[rickshaw]

Some real life proposals to develop a dedicated ground attack version of the Phantom (ala MiG-23 - MiG-27) - note the replacement of the radar by cannon amongst other things (the first pic also has only a single crew member).  This is part of a 1964 report I can email anyone if they're interested.




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

Regards,

Greg

Obviously this was pre-F-4E.  Interesting that they had plans to utilise a laser designator (I assume a designator) that early.   Which brings up an interesting question.  Anybody know a good history of the military development/utilisation of early laser systems?

[dy031101]

I'm think of an idea that...... probably shouldn't involve guns.  I mean, if the F-4E can mount a bigger radar than the F-4D/S, then of course I'd choose the F-4E as a basis, but the F-4D/S does give me an impression of having a bigger radome.

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

EDIT: Did some search in this thread...... as the starting post of this thread suggests, I might not be the only one to feel that F-4D/S has the bigger radome......