• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

'Demon' to 'Phantom' - the evolution of McDonnell's F-4 Phantom II

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,992
Reaction score
1,568
pometablava said:
....
..and about Demon to Phantom intermediate stages? ;)
Pometablava...

Joe Baugher's website has a whole paragraph on the subject.

From the website

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_1.html

The design of what was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom began in August of 1953. The McDonnell design team was headed by Herman Barkley. Initially, the goal of the team was to extend the production life of the F3H Demon single-seat carrier-based fighter by boosting its performance and improving its versatility.

Several quite different design concepts emerged, all of them being informally designated by the company as F3H-X since they were all viewed as a natural follow-on to the F3H Demon.

The first of these preliminary designs was the F3H-C or the "Super Demon". The F3H-C was to be powered by a single Wright J67 turbojet and was to be capable of reaching Mach 1.69 at high altitude. The J67 was a license-built version of the British-built Bristol Olympus turbojet engine, and was untried and unproven at the time.

The F3H-E project (also known as Model 98A by the company) was similarly powered, but dispensed with the nose-high attitude of the Demon and stood level on a tricycle undercarriage. It had a 45-degree swept wing of 450 square feet in area. In the event, the J67 engine never did materialize as a realistic powerplant for American aircraft.

The Model 98B (F3H-G) project was to be powered by a pair of Wright J65-W-2 (or W-4) turbojets rated at 7800 lb.s.t. each. The twin-engined configuration was attractive to many in the Navy, because of the increased amount of safety it offered over a single-engined aircraft. The engines were to be fed by a pair of side-mounted air intakes. A low-mounted swept wing and an all-flying straight tailplane were to be used. This wing was slightly larger than that of the F3H-E, with a 530-square foot area. The fuselage was to be designed in conformance with the area rule, in order that minimum transonic drag be achieved.

The F3H-G aircraft was to be equipped with an Aero 11B fire control system and an AN/APQ-150 radar. Armament was to consist of four 20-mm cannon, but provision for a retractable pack carrying 56 two-inch FFAR rockets was also proposed. A heavy load of bombs and fuel tanks could be carried on up to nine external stores stations (four under each wing and one underneath the fuselage). A maximum speed of Mach 1.52 was envisaged.

The J65 was a license-built version of the British-designed Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine, and was already in production at the time. Although at that time the Navy was experiencing a good deal of trouble with the J65 engine installed in its North American FJ-3 Fury single-engined fighter, the McDonnell team fully expected that these problems would be resolved by the time that their F3H-G proposal was ready for production.

The F3H-H was similar in overall configuration to the F3H-G, but was to be powered by a pair of higher-thrust General Electric J79 turbojets. The J79 was at that time a new and untried engine. Assuming that the J79 performed as promised, a maximum speed of Mach 1.97 was envisaged.

The Model 98F was the photographic reconnaissance version of the Model 98C.

Models 98C and D were to be fitted respectively with delta and straight wings, and were to be powered either by a pair of Wright J65s or two J79s.

The Model 98E (F3H-J) was to have been similar to Models 98C and D, but with a larger and thinner delta wing.

Herman Barkley's design team decided that the Model 98B with its twin J65s offered the best potential and they abandoned work on all the other configurations. A full-sized mockup of the Model 98B (F3H-G) was built. The company hedged its bets by designing the right side of the mockup for a J79 engine and the left for a J65.

On September 19, 1953, McDonnell submitted its Model 98B project to the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) in the form of an unsolicited proposal. Since the Navy as yet had no official requirement for such an aircraft, McDonnell tried to cover all bases by developing interchangeable single- and two-seat noses that could be accommodated to widely different roles. Noses were designed that could carry search radars, missile fire-control systems, mapping radars, cameras, or electronic reconnaissance equipment.

Although the Navy was favorably impressed by the Model 98B proposal, the Grumman XF9F-9 Tiger and the Vought XF8U-1 Crusader which had been ordered respectively in April and June of 1953 appeared to satisfy all the Navy's immediate requirements for supersonic fighters. Nevertheless, the Navy encouraged McDonnell to rework its design into a single-seat, twin-engined all-weather attack aircraft to compete against designs being worked on by Grumman and North American.

McDonnell submitted a formal development proposal for the F3H-G/H to the Navy in August of 1954. The Navy responded in October of 1954 by issuing a letter of intent for two prototypes and a static test aircraft. The Navy assigned the designation AH-1 to the project, reflecting its intended ground attack mission. The AH-1 was to have no less then eleven weapons pylons. Armament was to consist of four 20-mm cannon.

On December 14, 1954, the multirole mission of the aircraft was formally abandoned by the Navy, and McDonnell was requested to rework the proposal as an all-weather interceptor. McDonnell was instructed to remove the cannon and all hardpoints except for a centerline pylon for a 600-US gallon fuel tank. In addition, troughs were to be added for four Raytheon Sparrow semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles. A Raytheon-designed APQ-50 radar was added, this installation being essentially that installed in the F3H-2 Demon. A second seat was added to accommodate a radar operator.

On April 15, 1955, in a formal letter from the BuAer to the Commander of Naval Operations, the J79 engine was formally adopted, and all work on the J65-powered version was dropped. -

Missing link between the F-3H Demon and F-4H Phantom is clearly this F3H-G.
There's a well known pic of the mockup, it's quite easy to find it on the web... ;)
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,992
Reaction score
1,568
Et voila! After a quick search on google
http://images.google.fr/images?svnum=10&hl=fr&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=McDonnell+F3H-G&spell=1
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,452
Reaction score
165
Merci beaucoup ;)
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,452
Reaction score
165
Thanks a lot Matej, you make my day!

The J67 powered fighter is a treasure. More than 20 years ago I saw it, for the first time, in a Spanish book about the Phantom. I was a teenager and I had no money to buy the book and I never heard again about this McDD Fighter until you posted the pic. Wow, the information and pics posted here about Demon to Phantom II evolution it is the most comprehensive I have never seen.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,992
Reaction score
1,568
Alas, this -interesting- off topic thesis on the Phantom's origins doesn't answer answer to the original subject of the thread... more info on this J-79 powered Voodoo ? (I think the project would look very similar to the basic Voddoo, except its performances ;D ).
J-79 was much smaller than J-57, saving much weight...
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,327
Reaction score
106
Any chance of getting AH-1 data to go with this, or is the F3H-G exceedingly close to that?
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,659
Reaction score
284
XB-70 Guy said:
The F4H-1 was initially designated AH-1.
Yep, because at that times Navy had some confused ideas about the successor of Demon, first of all fighter (F-3HG), after that a single place attack aircraft (AH-1), in some way a bigger brother of the A-4 and at least an air superiority fighter-bomber (F4H-1).

The original McDonnell Mock-up was indeed still named AH-1.
 

Attachments

CFE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
Great work on the F3H-G/H drawings. The Demon was one of those big "What if's" of naval aviation, had the J40 engine panned out (or if the Demon had been designed to accept the J57 from the start.) The sleek F3H-G/H tried to overcome the Demon's engine issues. Too bad they had to step on its nose and kick it in the butt to produce the Phantom II.

Question about the revised wing design on the F3H-2 series of Demons: what was McDonnell hoping to accomplish by adding wing area? Obviously this reduces wing loading, but it also makes the airplane heavier (and I'd think they'd want to reduce weight given that airplane's history of inadequate thrust.) But it probably improved low-speed handling by having the broader wing, which comes in handy when you're not getting the thrust you originally planned on.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
430
Greetings All -

This seems to be the best thread to post this in - an interior arrangement drawing of the F3H-H/G proposal, courtesy of the Gerald Balzer Collection. You can really see the evolution towards the Phantom II....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
72
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Mark Nankivil said:
Greetings All -

This seems to be the best thread to post this in - an interior arrangement drawing of the F3H-H/G proposal, courtesy of the Gerald Balzer Collection. You can really see the evolution towards the Phantom II....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Very nice. Strictly speaking, that was McDonnell's unsolicited proposal after losing the OS-130 competition.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
188
Nice find with the F3H-GH cutaway Mark!!
This sure emphasis the Phantom II's origins!
A pity they never retained at least two of the four cannon of the F3H-GH though :-\

P.S. Do you have many more drawings of the F3H-GH?


Regards
Pioneer
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,323
Reaction score
3,098
Early F4H from McDonnell F4H-1 Introduction Report, via Ron Downey. http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,469
Reaction score
3,336
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Early F4H from McDonnell F4H-1 Introduction Report, via http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.
Nice find my dear Paul.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,323
Reaction score
3,098
F3H-G Artwork, Mockup Photos & Report @ AviationArchives

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/f-3h-g-report-and-photos.html
 

Attachments

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,323
Reaction score
3,098
Interchangeable noses for different missions - a common concept at the time.
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,469
Reaction score
3,336
Nice find my dear Paul.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,816
Reaction score
255
What I find interesting is the design style used by the company at the time as referenced by these drawings. I'm currently reading, "The F-101 Voodoo: An Illustrated history..," by Easley (Schiffer publishing) and it has drawings of the F-101D with the D-inlet and tail drawings showing the modified tail to alleviate the pitch up problems; NASA recommended they move the tail down to the fuselage (obviously) and put some anhedral in it, similar to early F-4 drawings, and to fill the notch at the trailing edge of the wing and make it a delta-wing. If they had built an F-101 with all of those mods it would have looked very much like a stretched Phantom. Does anyone know if the design team on the Voodoo was the same as on the F-3 and F-4? Or if they were separate teams just sharing information?

Also, thanks for the all of the drawings above, especially the variant drawings. Great information there.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,323
Reaction score
3,098
A lot of the staff would be common, even where the chief engineers might differ.

F3H Chief Engineer was Richard Deagan. Project Engineer seems to have been Arnold S. Torgerson who worked on F-101, F3H Demon and F-4 Phantom at various times.

F-88 Chief Engineer was Kendall Perkins, Project Engineer was Edward "Bud' Flesh (previously from Curtiss), later the Chief Engineer on the F-101.

F3H-G/H Project Engineer was Herman Barkey, later Chief Engineer on the F-4 Phantom II. The team included George Graff (later head of the F-15 Design team) Frank Laacke (another F-15 engineer, who invented the FAST pack) and others.

Dave Lewis was Chief of Aerodynamics at McDonnell from 1946 and had input into all McDonnell designs of the period.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,322
Reaction score
1,344
Sundog said:
What I find interesting is the design style used by the company at the time as referenced by these drawings. I'm currently reading, "The F-101 Voodoo: An Illustrated history..," by Easley (Schiffer publishing) and it has drawings of the F-101D with the D-inlet and tail drawings showing the modified tail to alleviate the pitch up problems; NASA recommended they move the tail down to the fuselage (obviously) and put some anhedral in it, similar to early F-4 drawings, and to fill the notch at the trailing edge of the wing and make it a delta-wing. If they had built an F-101 with all of those mods it would have looked very much like a stretched Phantom. Does anyone know if the design team on the Voodoo was the same as on the F-3 and F-4? Or if they were separate teams just sharing information?

Also, thanks for the all of the drawings above, especially the variant drawings. Great information there.
Have long thought of the F-4 as an evolved F-101 rather than a Demon decendent.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,323
Reaction score
3,098
Technically, the F4H came from the F3H via F3H-G/H. However, they all share some common family features, and F3H postdated the XF-88.
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
592
Reaction score
158
All twaddle about when UK ruled the skies lapses by comparison of McDonnell with Supermarine.

D.Lewis joins a null outfit in 1946, no Corporate back-up; Joe Smith earlier takes over - technical matters only - from genius Mitchell, in a hefty Corporation - Vickers was UK's arsenal. Through marginal designs built only under Korean War munificence (your Banshee, my Attacker; your Voodoo, my Swifts), both firms stagger to the point in 1953-ish where tinfoil is insignificant as the weapon system concept evolves. McDonnell produces Phantom II and rules the world; Supermarine produces Scimitar and dies.

Why? Will UK respondents please not blame the Men from the Ministry, who paid long and valiantly.

(Project Management is pertinent - maybe priorities in GE on J79 cf RR on multiple applications for Avon).
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
299
Reaction score
125
alertken said:
All twaddle about when UK ruled the skies lapses by comparison of McDonnell with Supermarine.

D.Lewis joins a null outfit in 1946, no Corporate back-up; Joe Smith earlier takes over - technical matters only - from genius Mitchell, in a hefty Corporation - Vickers was UK's arsenal. Through marginal designs built only under Korean War munificence (your Banshee, my Attacker; your Voodoo, my Swifts), both firms stagger to the point in 1953-ish where tinfoil is insignificant as the weapon system concept evolves. McDonnell produces Phantom II and rules the world; Supermarine produces Scimitar and dies.

Why? Will UK respondents please not blame the Men from the Ministry, who paid long and valiantly.

(Project Management is pertinent - maybe priorities in GE on J79 cf RR on multiple applications for Avon).
A comparison of any of Vickers's attempts to turn the Scimitar into an all-weather fighter to the F4H is enough to make a man cry. The Scimitar was, in itself, contemporary with the F3H, and reasonably comparable at least on paper. But Vickers couldn't come up with a 'Mark 2' that was worth a damn, much less a Phantom equivalent, and there's no wonder that their grotesque attempts went no further.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,469
Reaction score
3,336
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
F3H-G Artwork, Mockup Photos & Report @ AviationArchives

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/f-3h-g-report-and-photos.html
A collection to them,from Авиация и космонавтика 2018-05.
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,010
Reaction score
800
hesham said:
A collection to them,from Авиация и космонавтика 2018-05.
That's not a 'collection', but THE SAME damn photos taken from Ron Downey's Aviation Archives site
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,469
Reaction score
3,336
flateric said:
That's not a 'collection', but THE SAME damn photos taken from Ron Downey's Aviation Archives site
OK my dear.
 

Jeb

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
283
Reaction score
28
I remember seeing those photos before the Internet as we know it existed. :)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,322
Reaction score
1,344
Jeb said:
I remember seeing those photos before the Internet as we know it existed. :)
I've seen them in an actual book. ;D
 
Top