Register here

Author Topic: Advanced Phantom Projects  (Read 71363 times)

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Advanced Phantom Projects
« on: May 17, 2007, 05:20:59 am »
Greetings:
Who would like to tell me how many swing-wing vertions of F-4 PhantomII has existed? Would you please take trouble to show me those drawing?
Thanks in advance
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Online hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22578
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2007, 09:50:28 am »
Hi,

The F-4 (FVS) which was derivative of the F-4J.

Offline canisd

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • Wolf's Shipyard
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2007, 11:40:25 am »
I found this last year over at the "What-If" Modelers Forum

"If you want to have dinner with the Devil, make sure to bring a long spoon!"

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2007, 01:33:53 am »
Greetings:
Who would like to tell me how many swing-wing vertions of F-4 PhantomII has existed? Would you please take trouble to show me those drawing?
Thanks in advance

Joe Baugher's pages indicate that there were two VG versions of the Phantom considered - the F-4J(FV)S derived from the F-4J, for the USN; and the F-4M(FV)S derived from the F-4M, for the RAF. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_33.html

Looking at the bigger engine section in your picture, it looks like that is the F-4M(FV)S for the RAF.

Hope that helps.

Starviking

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2007, 02:04:23 am »
I have this plan of the F-4M derived VG Phantom on my hard-drive. It's lo-res, but readable.

Starviking

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2094
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2007, 02:27:44 am »
This plan also could be find on the Key Publishing board  ;)
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2007, 03:31:50 am »
This plan also could be find on the Key Publishing board  ;)

Thanks for that Archibald, I can hardly ever remember where I get my pics from. :'(

Starviking

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2007, 06:09:25 am »
There was an article on Air Enthusiast a looooooong time ago.


Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2007, 10:29:59 am »
For the record: Air Enthusiast No.30 ( 1986) - pages:34 & 35

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2007, 01:46:42 pm »
Quote
Phantom FV Challenging F-111B

THE MCDONNELL PHANTOM development studied as an alternative to the GD/ Grumman F-111B for the US Navy is understood to be designated the Phantom FV. A Navy-funded project study has been under way at St Louis for some months, reflecting official doubts about the prospects of the F-111B intercepter ever reaching fleet service in the face of severe difficulties with its Phoenix missile system, and on the score of excessive weight. The Phantom FV has increased wing area and is projected around the -10 development of the J79 engine. This powers the new F-4J Phantom now proceeding along the early stages of the St Louis assembly line in parallel with the first YF-4Ks for Britain. The -10 has about 9001b more static sea-level thrust that J79s in current production Phantoms. Another major innovation projected for the FV is a discriminatory multi-shot fire-control system (see Sensor, December 16) with a capacity to lock on to as many as six targets simultaneously. The most threatening target at any one time is selected automatically for attack and the process continues in a descending order of threat.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1965/1965%20-%203108.html

Quote
STRETCHED PHANTOM ENTERS LISTS

A STRETCHED MCDONNELL PHANTOM, with potentially an even greater proportion of British equipment and components than the present F-4Ks and Ms ordered by Britain, has been submitted by McDonnell as an eleventh-hour contender in the TSR.2 replacement battle. Following the virtual elimination of the Buccaneer S.2* from serious consideration for the RAFs primary strike/recce role, the choice now lies between the all-American F-111 and the partly-anglicised Spey-Mirage and Spey-Phantom FV, with the Air Staff doggedly sticking to its preference for the first-named type. Both MoD (Air) and MoA press officers hastened last week to deny that the stretched Phantom was being seriously considered. The Air Department, in its pressing for the F-111, could hardly say otherwise, but evidence suggests that the proposal is far from dead elsewhere. The Phantom FV (first mentioned in Flight for December 30) began life as a $1 million (£357,000) USN-funded feasibility / preliminary design study which is due for completion in August this year and for which extra funds are expected imminently. Intended essentially as an alternative to the problematical,over-weight F-111B, the Phantom FV would be about 20,000lb lighter. It would have an improved -10 version of the J79 engine and a larger wing area than present Phantoms, and be equipped for the air-superiority fighter role with Sparrow missiles, in place of the F-111B's Phoenix. It would have significant increases in ferry range (and CAP endurance), speed and payload over existing F-4 versions. The Phantom FV could be rolled out in the summer of 1968 if the present study is followed by a development contract. The essential changes to present USN Phantom versions, through which the Phantom FV is evolved, are equally applicable to the anglicised F-4Ks and Ms, for the RN and RAF respectively. The fuselage is little changed in the stretched version; having already been substantially redesigned in the case of the K and M to accommodate the Spey 25R, the K/M fuselage structure would carry over into a British version of the FV. The powerplant would be the RB.168-27R, a projected development of the current engine in which changes are made mainly to the afterburner and nozzle with, possibly, an extra compressor stage being added for increased mass flow. The thrust is little changed over the -25R but the s.f.c. is significantly improved.

The Spey-powered Phantom FV could carry the advanced air-to-ground radar, head-up display, terrain-following and map-matching systems developed for the Buccaneer S.2*, together with the inertial-navigation system, the navigation computer and the weapons-release computer which are going into the F-4M. (There would be ample space, too, for reconnaissance systems to be carried internally). Such heavy British participation on the electronics side, together with the logical extension to the FV of British sub-contract arrangements already made for the F-4K and M (e.g., outer wings by Shorts, rear fuselage and tail surfaces by BAC) would raise the value of British manufacture to about 60 per cent of the total aircraft cost. The present value of British participation in the F-4K and M is about 52 per cent of total cost.

McDonnell is pushing strongly the high level of British participation if the  Spey-Phantom FV were chosen in preference to the F-lll, with the political attractions of extending work for the British industry, the logistic advantages of local component production and wide spares interchange with the K and M, and the economic attractions of its overall cost This is claimed to be less than 50 per cent of any recent, realistic estimate of the F-lll's cost, which is now approaching £3 million. There would be little conversion training for pilots experienced on the earlier Phantoms lready ordered, and the Spey-Phantom FV could be ready in 1969. It is claimed that the aircraft would meet 90 per cent of the requirements of OR.343, the TSR.2 specification—a claim which, if valid, represents scarcely any greater shortfall of the TSR.2 OR than that required to "fit" the F-111, and probably less than the shortfall which would result from adoption of the Spey-Mirage.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1966/1966%20-%200191.html
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 01:04:22 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1426
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2009, 12:38:22 pm »
Greetings All -

Some drawings from a McAir brochure on the F-4X.  There were also some proposals for a slightly modified wing for the F-4J (called F-4J+).

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2009, 01:02:42 am »
I like the fixed wing design.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2009, 01:49:06 am »
This is an absolute first, AFAIK. During the studies for the VG Phantom, MDD considered a single pivot (AKA oblique or skewed wing) configuration with an aspect ration of 6 wing. The solution was finally rejected on account that to have the same low-speed performance the airframe had to be stretched by 12 feet to accomodate the long span wing in closed position, reaching so 70 feet in overall lenght, too much for a carrier aircraft, MDD thought. The tail section too was reworked as it is apparent from the ortho view.  Images for a SAE MDD paper form 1965 on "Aerodynamic design considerations of variable geometry aircraft".

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1426
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2009, 06:00:27 am »
Wow Skybolt - quite the find!  Thanks for posting!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2131
Re: Advanced Phantom Projects
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2009, 09:28:41 am »
The skewed wing, if you could make it work at the top speed range, was all kinds of awesome for carrier suitability. High sweep for supersonic (although I have never heard anyone suggest that it was a good idea at much above M=1.8), huge span, zero sweep for landing and a tiny spot factor.