not that anybody asked for it , but let me offer what ı think . It is probably a mental exercise that forms the basis of this discussion ,which might be about whether it was possible to make a better Phantom or to improve it later ,say like at the F-4E/J period etc etc . ı don't know , am just speculating .
aircraft design is a confusing mess of various disciplines and as one might have to live with the results for decades , utmost care is needed to make sure that what you decide to produce ends up good , which calls for long and careful analysis . But of course you have to start somewhere , from a fixed point so that you can examine the alternatives . ı will speculate , without any evidence but by just a personal belief that the fix in the case of F-16 was the wing . Aspect ratio of 3 , thickness ratio of 4 , area of 300 square feet ; they probably took a wing that was throughly researched and known ( maybe as an academic endeavour ) and built the Falcon around it . ı can visualise a couple of people looking at a chart that said at this speed , the wing produces that much lift and the projected weight means lots of performance is lost so they decide to build a 9G airframe instead of the 7.33 costumary and required . Because the wing can be useful up to a higher AoA than the standarts of the day , they decide to use the underbelly inlet instead of a more costumary side bifurcated or a F-8 like nose inlet solution .( The most common and - ı hasten to add - realistic explanation is Harry Hillaker pruned the nose and the tail area to save weight and drag but ı am r16 ; ı have a reputation to maintain .) The result cuts down the space for the underbelly pylon or threatens more FOD risk and forms a flat underbelly that makes the cockpit bulge , which causes the seat to be angled to nearly twice of usual to cut down the increased drag but in the end the engine can cope with anything so it is left raised for visibility concerns . And so on .
on the other hand the fix for the Phantom of 1958 is without doubt the preceding Voodoo / Demon series . Now , ı have this Casio FX-3600P pocket calculator which ı think first came to know in about '88 and bought one of my own in 1990 , when ı thought ı might hack being an industrial engineer . Having failed , ı use the thing for calculating household bills . If there was a way of moving that calculator back to '58 , ı would be very rich or very dead . Another way of saying that the engineers of that were limited in the way of tools they could use . Basing their new designs on the experience they had was necessary to avoid surprises and Russians were masters of the evolutionary approach .ı think it is possible to say that Su-15 is a descendant of the Mig one . One of the most revolutionary western companies , Lockheed started U-2 from the F-104 .
returning to F-4 the wing might also be compromised for the need to have the fuel volume to feed the J-79s . According to a cutaway ı have the integral tanks in the wings form nearly 34% of the internal fuel load of an F-4E . In the previous models assuming everything was similar apart from the 318 lt # 7 tank put on the Es the ratio would climb up to 35.5. And as USAF versions needed bulges to house thicker wheels the wing was probably not "thick enough" . So , checking wing profiles from the period and discussing why this profile was chosen instead of that might not be exactly fair .
it might already been pointed through PMs but the ( W / S =91 ) value given for the F-105 means Weight divided by Surface area of the wing gives 91 pounds per square feet . 101 pounds per square feet of the Phantom works out to 24280 kg which ı would believe to be an air to air take off weight probably with external tanks . ı remember the air combat weight for a Phantom as 19400 kgs ( with 4 sparrows and half internal fuel ) and that would be about 81 pounds per square feet . The 86 given for B/C variants might be calculated through other assumptions . Boyd et all preferred using 100% internal fuel . Regarding 65 pounds on the 5% windtunnel models , the reason is probably the models are hollow inside and are not fully representative of an aircraft . But ı can't guarantee of being right on that either .ı have seen it in a Bill Gunston book that objects grow in weight much faster than in dimensions .Growing everything exactly same a twice longer plane should have 4 times the wing area but be 8 times heavier . 530 sqfeet wing area on the real plane should be 1.325 on a 5 percent model which then would give 86 pounds of weight for the test article , multiplied by 20 x 20 x 20 , the end result would by be 689 000 pounds .All calculations through my beloved Casio . Well , it seems the windtunnel models were solid instead of hollow . In any case the models could not be fully equal to a full size aircraft .
and rereading my previous post ı think the leading edge devices on the Messerschmitt were patented by Handley Page .
