Beating or equaling the F-4 Phantom II, but just with one jet engine?

[Archibald]

The 2-seater F-106B seems like the obvious starting point. Another J75 option would be a 2-seater F8U-3 Crusader III.

But I would have loved to see North American design a 50% scaled down A-5 Vigilante with a single J75 engine. Basically a F-107/A-5 hybrid (both NA designs), with the F-107 fuselage and the A-5 wing planform and inlets. Carrier capable out of the box with 4 conformal Sparrows (2 in tandem between the main landing gear doors, and on in each fuselage corner as on the Crusader III).

I should try to sketch that out to illustrate!

Yes, please.

 

[H_K]

The 2-seater F-106B seems like the obvious starting point. Another J75 option would be a 2-seater F8U-3 Crusader III.

But I would have loved to see North American design a 50% scaled down A-5 Vigilante with a single J75 engine. Basically a F-107/A-5 hybrid (both NA designs), with the F-107 fuselage and the A-5 wing planform and inlets. Carrier capable out of the box with 4 conformal Sparrows (2 in tandem between the main landing gear doors, and on in each fuselage corner as on the Crusader III).

I should try to sketch that out to illustrate!

Here's my "Baby Vigilante" idea.

It would be very similar in overall dimensions to other J75 fighters (F-106, Crusader III...) with a scaled down Vigilante wing (75% area) and the classic dorsal hump. In the end not much left from the F-107 except perhaps the tail section.

I'm not convinced that it would be massively better than any of the other J75 fighters, but perhaps more well-rounded and better suited to multirole missions than a fighter with a delta wing or chin intake. Compared to the F-4 it’s noticeable how much longer it is, but it would be much skinnier so the fineness ratio would help reduce drag. This is important since a single J75 has only 75% as much thrust as a pair of J79s so you’d need every aerodynamic advantage you can to compete with the F-4.

First pic shows aircraft views. Second shows a comparison of dimensions and internal layout with the F-4, Crusader III 2-seater and F-106. Third pic is Gemini's AI generated view... surprisingly good!

 

[Desertfox]

What about a Super Demon with a J75? Or is that kinda cheating?

I didnt realize how big the F-106 was!

 

[Pioneer]

Here's my "Baby Vigilante" idea.

It would be very similar in overall dimensions to other J75 fighters (F-106, Crusader III...) with a scaled down Vigilante wing (75% area) and the classic dorsal hump. In the end not much left from the F-107 except perhaps the tail section.

I'm not convinced that it would be massively better than any of the other J75 fighters, but perhaps more well-rounded and better suited to multirole missions than a fighter with a delta wing or chin intake. Compared to the F-4 it’s noticeable how much longer it is, but it would be much skinnier so the fineness ratio would help reduce drag. This is important since a single J75 has only 75% as much thrust as a pair of J79s so you’d need every aerodynamic advantage you can to compete with the F-4.

First pic shows aircraft views. Second shows a comparison of dimensions and internal layout with the F-4, Crusader III 2-seater and F-106. Third pic is Gemini's AI generated view... surprisingly good!

Thats some wonderful work there H_K!

I can't help thinking, with your shrinking and refinement of a single-engine "Baby Vigilante". You're almost going back to the original North American General Purpose Attack Weapon’ (NAGPAW) design, from which the Vigilante itself became an outgrowth.....

[Source of drawing: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2020/03/north-american-general-purpose-attack.html?m=1]

Regards
Pioneer

 

[H_K]

I didnt realize how big the F-106 was!

The F-106 was long indeed... ~65ft from nose to tailcone!

That was the length needed to package all the key components nose-to-tail in the skinniest package possible... 2,700lbs of avionics, 1 or 2 pilots, weapons bay, landing gear, and the big J75 engine. It was a tremendously efficient layout from a drag perspective, and the huge delta wing could carry lots of fuel (1,200+ gallons!) in a lightweight, low drag structure. So the F-106 was pretty optimal for low drag and low weight.

In fact the F-106's avionics weight (~2,700lbs) was more than an F-14 (~2,300lbs)! And much more than an F-4 or F-15 (~1,600-1,700lbs). So I would aim for an airframe with a similar long & skinny fuselage as the F-106, but with lighter weight avionics similar to the F-4. Also conformal missile carriage and more internal fuel instead of the weapons bay. That then allows you to install a heavier conventional wing with less wing fuel, losing the advantages of the big delta wing but gaining a more carrier-capable design. That's basically how you get from the F-106 to the F8U-3 Crusader III. Now replace the Crusader's chin intake with side intakes and the variable incidence wing with high lift devices and you get my Baby Vigilante...

 

[Desertfox]

Now I'm thinking of a Super Skylancer with a J-75...

 

[Scott Kenny]

I didnt realize how big the F-106 was!

The J75 was a huge engine, it's 12ft long without afterburner. IIRC ~20ft long with.

Modern engines have managed to get a lot shorter for the same-or-higher OPR.

Now I'm thinking of a Super Skylancer with a J-75...

IMO that was a really big oof for the Navy, that the F5D Skylancer didn't step up to the J75 (no hyphen in jet engine designations)

 

[Desertfox]

That plane had great potential. A F404 or F100 Skylancer with modern avionics... Would have been hella nice.