Advanced Phantom Projects

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I know what a TJ60 is, I was under the impression that it was more powerful still than the J93 and J58, which would probably already provide a significant jump in performance over the original J79.
Click to expand...
Spot the (scaled) after the engine? The TJ60D5A2 designation? That means it was a study using a scaled-down TJ60 to fit a Phantom. It was a Mach 3 engine design, so presumably this was intended to improve high speed performance.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
From a huge list of F-4 models in http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/McDonnell Model Numbers List.pdf a few interesting ones.


[...]
98CN F-4H/ADC Phantom IIG Advanced Interceptor with AN/ASG-18 - wing and tail area inceased 20%, longer fuselage, two primary GAR-9, one alternate GAR-9, J93-MJ 252F engines. b) a 4 GAR-9 variant. (1960)
98CP Phantom IIF, as above with J58 engines (1960)
[...]
Click to expand...
That would be one heck of a fun ride! Not entirely sure how they'd enlarge the engine bays from ~40" to 50" diameter, though...


======
Thought that comes to mind about the high wing VG design: that's completely scrapping the existing wing box and most of the lower fuselage. Not sure how much tooling you'd be able to reuse.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
From a huge list of F-4 models in http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/McDonnell Model Numbers List.pdf a few interesting ones.
Click to expand...
Would this source have happened to mention what the job orders were? Just tracking or did they represent projects that were actually built and tested? Because the parts mentioning the GE-1 engine with the various bypass ratios have job orders, and quite a few more of the F-4 projects don't. Would be incredibly interesting to see the engine core design that evolved into the modern F110 used in a Phantom.
 
Pioneer said:
In relation to the the Boeing Conformal Weapons Carriage / F-4 Phantom II configuration, I stumbled across the following interesting website:

http://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/2017/11/conformal-weapons-carriage-and-f-4.html?m=1
Notable for me is the great profiling artwork (including the 'Bluff Bomb' concept)!!

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
An interesting comment on this blogpost, quote: "I was Rey Smith’s test pilot on this project 50 years ago at China Lake. The fuel milage [sic] tests for the conformal configurations were fine but the super sonic bomb drops failed because the bombs tumbled and scattered going thru the shock waves making for widely dispersed unpredictable impacts". Commenter also leaves their email, left out for obvious reasons. Does explain why it wasn't adopted, if it supposedly gave such benefits to the Phantom. Doesn't help if the bombs can't drop accurately.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That would be one heck of a fun ride! Not entirely sure how they'd enlarge the engine bays from ~40" to 50" diameter, though...
Click to expand...
I imagine that's the near-mythical Navy J58 before it was turned into a Mach 3 frankenengine for the A-12... still big, though, it was generally substituted for the J79.
 
Kalarz said:
An interesting comment on this blogpost, quote: "I was Rey Smith’s test pilot on this project 50 years ago at China Lake. The fuel milage [sic] tests for the conformal configurations were fine but the super sonic bomb drops failed because the bombs tumbled and scattered going thru the shock waves making for widely dispersed unpredictable impacts". Commenter also leaves their email, left out for obvious reasons. Does explain why it wasn't adopted, if it supposedly gave such benefits to the Phantom. Doesn't help if the bombs can't drop accurately.
Click to expand...
That just means you can't drop while supersonic. So stay under Mach 1 until bomb release, then punch it!
 
fightingirish said:
Hello folks, here is an X-ray illustration of the Phantom II+ concept. :cool:
I bet, @Motocar can do a better job cleaning it up... ;)
Source: Air International, December 1985
Click to expand...
Greetings fightingirish, I've already worked on it, albeit in a small format. I'm going to review it and check the image quality. I also have a Grumman "Duck" project that's quite far along; I'll share it soon. Motocar
 
fightingirish said:
Hello folks, here is an X-ray illustration of the Phantom II+ concept. :cool:
I bet, @Motocar can do a better job cleaning it up... ;)
Source: Air International, December 1985
Click to expand...

I was able to review the image, which is in small format and low quality, a real shame although I will still try to improve it but there is not much I can do.
 
Now I share with you the work I had already done on Boeing's Super-Phantom, a proposal presented at LeBourguet in 1987, an interpretation of what I remember from a photograph that appeared in the old and now defunct magazine Interavia of July 87 (Issue that unfortunately I lost from the archive) with the new data I will recreate the canards and other details as well as I will retouch the cuts that you kindly shared here. thank you

Cutaway Boeing Super Phantom
 

Attachments

  • Boeing Super Phantom.jpg
    Boeing Super Phantom.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 208
  • Cutaway IAI Phantom in progress.jpg
    Cutaway IAI Phantom in progress.jpg
    260.4 KB · Views: 220
Cutaway Super Phantom "Canard", new tweak made to recreate the version proposed in the previous diagram with canard, I have started from the well-known schematic cut of Mike Badrocke already modified previously to incorporate the canards, I have left the FAST tanks already seen previously, later I will reinterpret it with the proposed tanks formed under the fuselage, I hope you enjoy it and I wish you all a Merry Christmas, Motocar.
 

Attachments

  • Cutaway Boeing Super Phantom Canard.jpg
    Cutaway Boeing Super Phantom Canard.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 252
fightingirish said:
Hello folks, here is an X-ray illustration of the Phantom II+ concept. :cool:
[...]
Source: Air International, December 1985
Click to expand...
Hello folks, here’s the 40-year-old article, in case anyone is asking for it. Happy new year! :)
 

Attachments

  • 198512_MDD_F-4_Phantom_II_Enhanced_1980s_upgrade_Air_International_December 1985_page_287-292_...pdf
    10.5 MB · Views: 111
Out of curiosity, was there ever a McDonnell/McDonnell Douglas effort to aerodynamically clean up the F-4 Phantom II? After all, aerodynamically, it was a pig and for good reason referred to as the Flying Brick....

I can't help but think, had the F-4 Phantom II been aerodynamically refined, even the incorporation of area ruling, it's already two powerful J79's would have been able to be far more efficient and the Phantom II's overall flight performance as a fighter vastly improved....

Thanks in advance.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
On second viewing of this photo, is it just me, or does that under-fuselage drop tank appear to be extra large?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
IIRC, that tank carried the coolant for the nozzle.
 
Pioneer said:
Out of curiosity, was there ever a McDonnell/McDonnell Douglas effort to aerodynamically clean up the F-4 Phantom II? After all, aerodynamically, it was a pig and for good reason referred to as the Flying Brick....

I can't help but think, had the F-4 Phantom II been aerodynamically refined, even the incorporation of area ruling, it's already two powerful J79's would have been able to be far more efficient and the Phantom II's overall flight performance as a fighter vastly improved....
Click to expand...
IIRC the F-4 was area ruled, but it's very subtle compared to the T-38.
 
Motocar said:
Now I share with you the work I had already done on Boeing's Super-Phantom, a proposal presented at LeBourguet in 1987, an interpretation of what I remember from a photograph that appeared in the old and now defunct magazine Interavia of July 87 (Issue that unfortunately I lost from the archive) with the new data I will recreate the canards and other details as well as I will retouch the cuts that you kindly shared here. thank you

Cutaway Boeing Super Phantom
Click to expand...
All -

Howdy !

Try as I might not to, I feel compelled to share some observations.....

As a former Air National Guard aircraft mechanic with 18yr of experience working on
F-4C and then F-4E aircraft ( Environmental Control Systems, Electrical Systems );
I see what would have been some potentially glaring defects in the underbelly panier's
design....

- The illustration shown looking up-at the fwd underside of the large underbelly panier raises questions; for me. While the method of how the nose landing gear would be allowed to operate has been discussed....

- What has not been discussed is how the Cockpit " Environmental Control System "
( ECS ) and " Equipment Cooling " System would have their Bleed Air Heat exchanger
exhausts accomodated; with the underside panier located as was suggested ??
On all USAF-spec F-4 model's, these bleed air Heat exchangers are located inside
door 6R ( Cabin ECS ) and 6L ( Equipment Cooling System ), whose bays sit above and astride the nose LG bay; and covering door(s).

- * The drawings I have seen are specifically vague ..... as regards how both bleed air-supplied "packs " would/could have their heat exchanger exhausts safely directed or
re-directed; when the panier is in place ? *

- A relatively straight fwd task like Nose LG oleo strut servicing would have become
a much more involved and time consuming task.

- The standard LOX service door 16 area does seem to have been accomodated by the addition of a new dedicated LOX system access door at the fwd bottom of the panier. However, the depth of the panier and need to attach LOX pressure and vent hoses and hook up delicate LOX indicator leads; would make daily LOX converter servicing a tortuous P.I.T.A.

- A little further Aft of door 16 on USAF standard F-4s is door 22. This is a much larger
side hinged door, that hangs down something like 2 feet when it is opened. Inside door 22 are some major items like an aircraft-mounted air compressor, and a landing gear control manifold; to name just a few components. Door 22 provides access to large Fwd bleed air ducting located along the aircraft's centerline keel, and the large diameter bleed air supply duct " Y's " high up-inside door 22.... to provide extremely hot engine bleed air to the Starboard and Port " packs " located inside door 6R and 6L bays.

- I do not see any access door positioned to allow access to an otherwise covered up and buried door 22 and it's equipment called out; in drawings showing the bottom side of the panier ?

- As a former F-4C, F-4E Environmental Control Systems Mechanic with extended experience working on systems components inside equipment bays covered by doors
6R / 6L, door 16, and door 22.... the whole panier design and execution seem highly suspect; and almost certainly would have required frequent removal to allow access for
major systems repairs !! It doesn't look like such panier removals/re-installs would have be anything other than a whole-sale maintenance nightmare.

We heard the belly panier idea bantied about at a time when we were flying F-4Es.
I was happy know that the near hair brained idea was not adopted,regardless of what were touted as it's perceivable benefits.


With regards,
357Mag
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom