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

[Howard of Effingham]

I did wonder about the cammo scheme if the RAAF had F-4C's; the delivery scheme in the early mid-sixties would be the Air Defence Grey over white the same as the USAF. But would they use the Green/Grey cammo the same as for the Mirages at that time, which would make them look a lot like RAF Phantoms. Or if the decision was taken later would they use the T.O.-114 SEA type cammo developed for the Vietnam war?


Mmm - OCD strikes!

valid question geoff!?

hmm, could i do a model of a spey powered F-4M in air defence greys and use ADC gray as the overall color and use a
genuine scheme [like the 43 and 64 sqn schemes] on modeldecal sheet #89 and still call it a whiff?

or use the wrap-around USAF 3 color camo' [euro1 and tan, green and green, etc] on a RAFG attack F-4M with a real
scheme [say the 14 sqn one] on modeldecal sheet #94 and is it real?

must find me knitting!

ciao!

trevor

[Geoff]

I have a sneaking suspision it would go something like -

Batch 1 - Air Defence Grey later repainted in Green/Grey.

Batch 2 - TO-114 SEA.

Batch 3 - Either Euro1 , or Hill Grey depending on the previous owners

lol

[dy031101]

Now I remember that the original design that would eventually lead to the F-4 was to be equipped with four 20mm M39 cannons...... how large is it in general compared to the F-4?

If F-4 is somehow enlarged from the original design, I was thinking of an intermediate version- two seater that is already in the general configuration of the F-4 but has the four 20mm cannons, probably a smaller radar (to make room for the four guns?), and Wright J65 engines......

Kinda like the relationship between F-5A and F-5E......

Or would it have been simpler to just have F-4B keeping the F3H-G nose, with the four 20mm guns and probably a smaller radar?

[Shasper]

My apologies, maybe a pictorial explanation will help. Here's a shot of the F4H:



and a shot of the F3H:


Now then, the F3H-G proposed by McAir lacked the anhedral & dihedral, intake splitter plates and for most things the 2-place cockpit, with the 20mm cannons taking up residence in the area where the fwd sparrow wells would later go.

See here for more info: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4_1.html

Hope that makes everything a bit more clearer, I couldnt find a shot of the F3H-G mockup but ik theres one in the F-4 in Action book.


Shas

[dy031101]

What are those small intakes on either sides of the nose just behind the radome?

[Shasper]

I believe (Ev can confirm or deny this) they are ram-air vents for the radar & associated electro-goodies. They provide cool air to the avionics compartment(s). The other F-4 variants should have them (or at least thru the D model for sure)

Shas

[dy031101]

I believe (Ev can confirm or deny this) they are ram-air vents for the radar & associated electro-goodies. They provide cool air to the avionics compartment(s). The other F-4 variants should have them (or at least thru the D model for sure)

What I was thinking is that if the USN decided to keep the guns, the small intakes might be relocated for a bit and maybe we'd have got a version that both has internal guns and fit on the deck lifts of British modernised armoured carriers......

[jcf]

My apologies, maybe a pictorial explanation will help. Here's a shot of the F4H:



and a shot of the F3H:


Now then, the F3H-G proposed by McAir lacked the anhedral & dihedral, intake splitter plates and for most things the 2-place cockpit, with the 20mm cannons taking up residence in the area where the fwd sparrow wells would later go.

See here for more info: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4_1.html

Hope that makes everything a bit more clearer, I couldnt find a shot of the F3H-G mockup but ik theres one in the F-4 in Action book.

Shas

Evidently that old F-4 came from Demon story is not correct.

From my post in the F-101 thread:
"According to  American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors 1945 - 1978 by Buttler the Model 98 that became the F3H-H/F-4 was
not a development from the F3H Demon series, the use of the F3H designator was sales gimmick.
The layout of the new aircraft was done following F-101A practice in terms of guns, cockpit and fuel arrangement.

So ya see, there is some 101 in the ol' F-4.  Grin

Buttler's source is an unpublished work by William E Elmore who was part of the design team and the person who came up with the basic design and layout, because of balance problems due to the required overall length, he later substituted a 60 degree delta wing.
The design was further refined by Gene Stephens, who revisited the original swept-wing layout and modified and balanced the design by shortening the tail. The Delta was the 98C and the "chopped-tail" the 98B, the 98B became the F3H-G/H."

The double designation for the Model 98B had to do with engine option:
F3H-G = J65
F3H-H = J79

The F3H-H was further developed into the Model 98R, which became the F4H-1.

Jon

[Jschmus]

AH-1/F3H-G mockup:


Sorry the image isn't bigger, but you get the idea.

[elmayerle]

I believe (Ev can confirm or deny this) they are ram-air vents for the radar & associated electro-goodies. They provide cool air to the avionics compartment(s). The other F-4 variants should have them (or at least thru the D model for sure)

Yep, you're absolutely right (well, inlets, not vents, but you've got the right idea).  You'll find similar inlets on the spine of late-model two-seat F-16s for much the same reason (I know, I've had to do some reviewing of Tech pubs revisions that covered that area).

Regarding single-seat F-4s, I'm working on a single-seat gun-nosed one using the lower profile canopy of the original F4H-1, covering over the rear cockpit below the canopy, and using it as an extra avionics bay.  Since all the goodies I have for this are in 1/48, I'll likely be using a set of 1/72 F100 nozzles from a F-15 kit to give it PW1120s, too.  If I'm feeling rather radical, I'll take it one step further with the wing from the most radical F-4EJ-Kai proposals by McDD which included a wing aerodynamically indentical to the F-15's wing.  Add a blwon windscreen and an updated, glass, cockpit and you've got quite a performer.

[Weaver]

Hmm  - I've just been having thoughts along these lines. The F-3G/H was re-cast as an attack type (AH-1) for a while, which would have made it a sort of Skyhawk-on-steroids. Tony Buttler (ref below) states that this was a purely budget/political maneuver since there was spare cash in the attack budget but not the fighter budget for a while following the purchase of the Crusader.

However, in Whiff World.......

What if the A-6 Intruder programme had fallen flat due to insurmountable avionics problems (IRL it had severe difficulties)? The USN might then have got a bout of technophobia and decided to adopt a simpler F-105-style solution. The AH-1 (F3H-H) as proposed would, in operational terms, have been a "naval F-105", so it goes ahead in original form as per the mockup below.

Had this happened, it leads to two other interesting questions:

1. What would the USN have done for it's heavy all-weather fighter requirement? F-8U Crusader III?

2. What would the USAF have done, faced with F-105 Attrition in Vietnam? Re-instate the F-105 in an upgraded, perhaps multi-role form? A "Phantomised" F-105, similar in principle to the F-101A-to-F-101B evolution would be interesting....

Modelling-wise, you could "de-evolve" a Phantom kit quite a way towards the AH-1, but there are some sticking points. However, the AH-1 would probably have changed a bit from mockup to service type, so you could Whifjitsu some of those problems away as development changes.

Wing: de-kink and de-dogtooth it, and add an extra outboard pylon.

Empennage: straighted the tailplanes. The AH-1 tail is shorter-chord and more curvaceous, resembling a Voodoo.

Engines: if you want to go for J-65s. they had shorter, plain nozzles.

Intakes: cut the splitter plates right back to the lip and re-profile. It's not exactly right but it's close.

Fuselage: fill in the Sparrow bays and add two fuselage corner pylons.

Nose: the tricky bit.... You could probably blend bits of a real F-4 canopy together to get a 3-section, single-place one of higher profile compared to the mockup and claim it as "development: after all, the A-4's original tiny canopy got expanded significantly. The nose would have to be cut short and an intermediate radome (bigger than F-4B, smaller than F-4E) found.

I've no idea if a kit is available, but if these was a kit of the F-101A, would it's nose graft straight on, perhaps with the back of the canopy lifted up a bit?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver,

Hmm  - I've just been having thoughts along these lines. The F-3G/H was re-cast as an attack type (AH-1) for a while, which would have made it a sort of Skyhawk-on-steroids. Tony Buttler (ref below) states that this was a purely budget/political maneuver since there was spare cash in the attack budget but not the fighter budget for a while following the purchase of the Crusader.

It's kind of amazing how many times the Navy has resorted to strategies like this.  Calling the XF8U-3 that instead of the XF9U-1, calling the FJ-2 the Fury that instead of F2J-1, and calling it the Fury instead instead of the Sea-Sabre (which they had considered)...

However, in Whiff World.......

What if the A-6 Intruder programme had fallen flat due to insurmountable avionics problems (IRL it had severe difficulties)? The USN might then have got a bout of technophobia and decided to adopt a simpler F-105-style solution. The AH-1 (F3H-H) as proposed would, in operational terms, have been a "naval F-105", so it goes ahead in original form as per the mockup below.

It would have been a complete catastrophe.  The F-105 had awful low speed handling -- from what I remember it's takeoff speed was something on the order of 200 kts.

Had this happened, it leads to two other interesting questions:

1. What would the USN have done for it's heavy all-weather fighter requirement? F-8U Crusader III?

It would have probably entered service.  I mean the reason it did not enter service was because of the F4H-1/F-4B.  An AH-1 kind of design would have been exclusively an attack machine and would have left the Air to Air / Interceptor field exclusively to the XF8U-3.

The air-war in Vietnam would have been different for the USN.  The Air to Air arena would have been a hell of a lot better as the Super Crusader was way more agile. 

However the air to ground missions would have had far more sorties done by the AH-1, and less by the A-4 and A-7, and little to none by the A-6.  The Phantom II could not withstand battle damage from AAA as well as planes such as the A-4, A-7, and possibly A-6 could have.  The A-6 also had a greater bomb-load too, so it wouldn't have packed the same punch as an A-6 would have also.  Not necessarily so good. 

I'm not sure how things would have went for the USAF.  I don't know if the XF8U-3 would have ended up in the USAF's inventory.  It's possible I suppose as McNamara ordered the flyoff between the F-106 and F-4 as he was impressed with the F-4's performance as an interceptor for ADC.  It should be noted that the ADC never employed the F-4 in active service -- it is possible that the same thing would have happened to the F8U-III as well.  The F4H-1 was able to be used by TAC because of it's multi-role capability, the F8U-III had no A2G capability. 

Plus I'm not even sure that McNamara's intentions were to use the F-4 in ADC and TAC from the very beginning.  If so, I don't see any reason why he would have ordered the flyoff in the first place as TAC didn't really have much interests for fighters that were not multi-role. 

2. What would the USAF have done, faced with F-105 Attrition in Vietnam? Re-instate the F-105 in an upgraded, perhaps multi-role form? A "Phantomised" F-105, similar in principle to the F-101A-to-F-101B evolution would be interesting....

To have allowed it to be an effective fighter it would have needed one of the following modifications...

1.) A more powerful J-75 variant, or a more powerful engine.  (Reason:  Increased T:W ratio improves sustained cornering performance; the F-105A didn't do so well on the vertical as well)
2.) A revised wing with lighter wing-loading.  (Reason:  It could improve sustained turning-performance with a small increase, and with a large increase would provide improved sustained turning at lower speeds which is more favorable for dogfighting -- could come with a price of reducing sustained-agility at the high-speeds it routinely flew at for it's attack runs or at the very least provide a rather rough ride)
3.) A more powerful J-75 variant or more powerful engine AND a revised wing with lighter wing loading  (Best of both worlds)

...To reduce it's loss of attrition though, one could revise the electronics to give it all-weather strike capability with or without the previously mentioned aerodynamic or engine modifications

Modelling-wise, you could "de-evolve" a Phantom kit quite a way towards the AH-1, but there are some sticking points. However, the AH-1 would probably have changed a bit from mockup to service type, so you could Whifjitsu some of those problems away as development changes.

Wing: de-kink and de-dogtooth it, and add an extra outboard pylon.

Why did the F4H-1/F-4B have the upward canted (dihedral outboard of the fold-line) wing-section?


KJ Lesnick

[Weaver]

Weaver,

Hmm  - I've just been having thoughts along these lines. The F-3G/H was re-cast as an attack type (AH-1) for a while, which would have made it a sort of Skyhawk-on-steroids. Tony Buttler (ref below) states that this was a purely budget/political maneuver since there was spare cash in the attack budget but not the fighter budget for a while following the purchase of the Crusader.

It's kind of amazing how many times the Navy has resorted to strategies like this.  Calling the XF8U-3 that instead of the XF9U-1, calling the FJ-2 the Fury that instead of F2J-1, and calling it the Fury instead instead of the Sea-Sabre (which they had considered)...

Not to mention the "lightly modifed F-18C/D" that is the F-18E/F.......

However, in Whiff World.......

What if the A-6 Intruder programme had fallen flat due to insurmountable avionics problems (IRL it had severe difficulties)? The USN might then have got a bout of technophobia and decided to adopt a simpler F-105-style solution. The AH-1 (F3H-H) as proposed would, in operational terms, have been a "naval F-105", so it goes ahead in original form as per the mockup below.

It would have been a complete catastrophe.  The F-105 had awful low speed handling -- from what I remember it's takeoff speed was something on the order of 200 kts.[/quote]

Whoa - I am most certainly NOT suggesting trying to land a Thud on a carrier!  what I mean is that the AH-1(F3H-H) provides a similar single-seat heavy strike capability to the F-105 whilst being carrier compatible.

Had this happened, it leads to two other interesting questions:

1. What would the USN have done for it's heavy all-weather fighter requirement? F-8U Crusader III?

It would have probably entered service.  I mean the reason it did not enter service was because of the F4H-1/F-4B.  An AH-1 kind of design would have been exclusively an attack machine and would have left the Air to Air / Interceptor field exclusively to the XF8U-3.

The air-war in Vietnam would have been different for the USN.  The Air to Air arena would have been a hell of a lot better as the Super Crusader was way more agile. 

The Super Crusader didn't have a gun though.....

However the air to ground missions would have had far more sorties done by the AH-1, and less by the A-4 and A-7, and little to none by the A-6.  The Phantom II could not withstand battle damage from AAA as well as planes such as the A-4, A-7, and possibly A-6 could have.  The A-6 also had a greater bomb-load too, so it wouldn't have packed the same punch as an A-6 would have also.  Not necessarily so good. 

Perhaps an attack-focussed AH-1 would pay more attention to survivability, with armour, redundant systems and the like. Had the AH-1 gone ahead, I doubt if the A-7 would have been built at all: too much cross-over with the AH-1, who's strike "envelop" would be shifted significantly from the A-6's territory to the A4's. What you might end up with is a uniform all AH-1 strike force on big carriers and all A-4s on Essexes.

2. What would the USAF have done, faced with F-105 Attrition in Vietnam? Re-instate the F-105 in an upgraded, perhaps multi-role form? A "Phantomised" F-105, similar in principle to the F-101A-to-F-101B evolution would be interesting....

To have allowed it to be an effective fighter it would have needed one of the following modifications...

1.) A more powerful J-75 variant, or a more powerful engine.  (Reason:  Increased T:W ratio improves sustained cornering performance; the F-105A didn't do so well on the vertical as well)
2.) A revised wing with lighter wing-loading.  (Reason:  It could improve sustained turning-performance with a small increase, and with a large increase would provide improved sustained turning at lower speeds which is more favorable for dogfighting -- could come with a price of reducing sustained-agility at the high-speeds it routinely flew at for it's attack runs or at the very least provide a rather rough ride)
3.) A more powerful J-75 variant or more powerful engine AND a revised wing with lighter wing loading  (Best of both worlds)

...To reduce it's loss of attrition though, one could revise the electronics to give it all-weather strike capability with or without the previously mentioned aerodynamic or engine modifications

Yeah, pretty much my thoughts too. Other things you could do are delete the bomb bay entirely and replace it with fuel, thereby reducing the need for tanks on the limited number of wing pylons, and re-instate the raised 2-seat cockpit of the abortive F-105C trainer variant, to give better visability (the view out of the back of a -G sucked).

However, another thought occured to me. Rather than trying to make a fighter out of the Thud, just re-instate it with the original wing and the bomb-bay mod as a pur attack aircraft. Then for the fighter role, produce a "Tactical-Dart" from the F-106. The Gunfighter evaluation showed that it was agile and a got it a gun instead of the Genie: all of that could have been done earlier. It would benefit from a conventional canopy/windscreen, a different radar/fire-control setup (rather than the semi-automatic data-linked ADC one) and a Sparrow/Sidewinder weapon fit.

Why did the F4H-1/F-4B have the upward canted (dihedral outboard of the fold-line) wing-section?

KJ Lesnick

They realised that they needed the dihedral (don't know why though) and it was easier to kink the outer panels which were already separate than to re-design the whole centre wing box and make the u/c longer.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver,

Not to mention the "lightly modifed F-18C/D" that is the F-18E/F.......

Good point.

Whoa - I am most certainly NOT suggesting trying to land a Thud on a carrier!  what I mean is that the AH-1(F3H-H) provides a similar single-seat heavy strike capability to the F-105 whilst being carrier compatible.

Okay, I understand what you mean

The Super Crusader didn't have a gun though.....

Actually I'm not entirely sure that's true...  The prototype did not have guns, but the production model was to have 4 x 20 mm cannons.  I doubt it would have made much of a difference though, as few of the F-8's kills in Vietnam were performed with guns (a total of 9) with the rest performed with Zuni-rockets and AIM-9 Sidewinders.  For all I know, though, I could be wrong (The F-8's gun had a high incidence of jamming, I don't know if the proposed guns for the Super-Crusader would have had as high an incidence of jamming)

Perhaps an attack-focussed AH-1 would pay more attention to survivability, with armour, redundant systems and the like.

I don't think so.  To my knowledge the F4H-1 was designed with the same survivability the AH-1 would have had...

Had the AH-1 gone ahead, I doubt if the A-7 would have been built at all: too much cross-over with the AH-1, who's strike "envelop" would be shifted significantly from the A-6's territory to the A4's. What you might end up with is a uniform all AH-1 strike force on big carriers and all A-4s on Essexes.

I honestly don't know.

Yeah, pretty much my thoughts too. Other things you could do are delete the bomb bay entirely and replace it with fuel, thereby reducing the need for tanks on the limited number of wing pylons, and re-instate the raised 2-seat cockpit of the abortive F-105C trainer variant, to give better visability (the view out of the back of a -G sucked).

Deleting the bomb-bay isn't actually a bad idea... it worked on the original design but it was virtually never used in Vietnam.

However, another thought occured to me. Rather than trying to make a fighter out of the Thud, just re-instate it with the original wing and the bomb-bay mod as a pur attack aircraft.

I think all-weather capability would be a serious thing to consider however.  The F-105 was restricted to day use only.

Then for the fighter role, produce a "Tactical-Dart" from the F-106. The Gunfighter evaluation showed that it was agile and a got it a gun instead of the Genie: all of that could have been done earlier. It would benefit from a conventional canopy/windscreen, a different radar/fire-control setup (rather than the semi-automatic data-linked ADC one) and a Sparrow/Sidewinder weapon fit.

Fitting a streamlined gun-pack to the center weapons-bay and revising the cockpit (removing the metal-braces) as done with the sharpshooter-mod is obviously a good idea.  Re-doing the fire-control system probably is do-able.  As for the Sparrow and Sidewinder mounting, I know you can actually fit an AIM-120 in the left and right weapons bays, though I don't know how if an AIM-7 is exactly the same length (it might be longer and is definitely heavier).  I don't know exactly how significant the drag-effects would amount to carrying them externally on flush-mounts.

They realised that they needed the dihedral (don't know why though) and it was easier to kink the outer panels which were already separate than to re-design the whole centre wing box and make the u/c longer.

Okay, understood. 


KJ Lesnick

[rallymodeller]

According to the sources I have on hand the Super Crusader was never to have any guns installed, nor was there really anyplace to put them. The Sparrow fit pretty much took up any space for guns -- it even displaced the nosewheel to an off-centerline position. Remember, when the Super Crusader was in the works, guns were way out of fashion. Missiles were the way to go, you know.

As to giving the Thud a larger wing: lowering the wing loading would have negated any advantages the F-105 had as a low-level high-speed bomber. One of the reasons the Thud was such a good attack aircraft was that it's wing loading was so high that it had almost no gust response at low level. Pilots transferring from the F-105 to the F-4 often complained about the Phantom's rough ride down in the weeds (sort of the same situation now with F-111 pilots who went to the F-15E). It is also worth noting that the high wing loading of the F-101 also made it a superior strike aircraft (F-101A) as well as being a very stable recon platform.

There are always tradeoffs.