Screenshot 2023-09-23 at 12.40.04 PM.png

I came across this 1966 McDonnell advertisement in Aviation Week. The Phantom variant labeled "TSF" at the bottom intrigues me. I have not been able to determine what Phantom variant this is or was meant to be. The time frame suggests to me that this is what become the F-4E given its elongated nose? I thought it might have been the British Phantom variant that had its recon equipment all internal but that doesn't seem right to me.
 
Tactical Strike Fighter?

“as early as October 1963, the Air Force’s TAC had suggested an F-4E version, with a built-in gun, to fly as a tactical strike fighter.”

Though the Ad already has an "F-4E" near identical to the F-4D, odd...
 
Tactical Strike Fighter?

“as early as October 1963, the Air Force’s TAC had suggested an F-4E version, with a built-in gun, to fly as a tactical strike fighter.”

Though the Ad already has an "F-4E" near identical to the F-4D, odd...

Looks right to me. Could just be that they didn't have a picture of the actual F-4E yet, since it was still a work in progress in '66.

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230926-203616.png
    Screenshot_20230926-203616.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 38
I came across this 1966 McDonnell advertisement in Aviation Week. The Phantom variant labeled "TSF" at the bottom intrigues me. I have not been able to determine what Phantom variant this is or was meant to be. The time frame suggests to me that this is what become the F-4E given its elongated nose? I thought it might have been the British Phantom variant that had its recon equipment all internal but that doesn't seem right to me.
Look like a RF-4E.
 
English interview with Iranian Air Force Col. Fred Izadseta on flying the F-4 Phantom and planning the H-3 operation.
It has been a tough few months for the Iranian Air Force community. Many of the veterans of the Iran-Iraq war have recently passed away. I ask that you please listen to this interview so the stories of these brave men are not forgotten.
 
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 .
You're a long way off the design ideas of the F-16. Cockpit seat was raised for visibility, like the old P-51Ds. Seat back was angled to allow the pilot to take more Gs (not sure how well that one worked in practice).



I am researching the many models of the F-4 Phantom II (both made and proposed) and trying to document and make drawings of many of them. I have a problem that I can't find any information on a feature that was proposed, and must not have been implemented.
On the Israeli Kurnass 2000 it had first been proposed that they would have canards on the intakes, but later that was changed to fixed strakes rather than full canards. But for the life of me I can't find a picture or drawing showing the strakes. This feature was also to be included on the Terminator 2020 upgrade, but there again I find no picture showing strakes on the upper intake. Does anyone have any information on this? I would appreciate the help. I am amazed at what this group comes up with.
I'm also interested, and didn't see any answers in this thread. Figured I'd ask again.



Taking off with the wings folded has been done a fair few times, even more than the events detailed in the links. Given that folding wing outer panels are now seeing application beyond carrier aviation, I wonder when the first commercial aircraft will add to the list?
Only a matter of time.


The phantom was the last sexy fighter the usaf ever built.
No, the Phantom isn't sexy. Not like the curves of the F105 or F16. The Phantom is chunky, like the F22 and F35.
 
Sorry, no. The YF-4E flew with:

SFCS Survivable Flight Control System (initial fly-by-wire).
PACT Precision Aircraft Control Technology (control-configured vehicle).

The STOL/MTD effort resulted in the NF-15B STMD almost 20 years later.
What plane donated the canards?

I mean, the F-15 SMTD stole the stabilators off an F-18 for its canards, so where did the YF-4E's canards come from?
 
What plane donated the canards? I mean, the F-15 SMTD stole the stabilators off an F-18 for its canards, so where did the YF-4E's canards come from?
The YF-4E Canards were built for the PACT project from scratch. (As were those for the F-16 AFTI.)

When the West Germans did their own F-104G/CCV program, they used another F-104G stabilator as the canard, on top of the forward fuselage, aft of the cockpit.

Edit: F-104G data.
 
Last edited:
they used another F-104G stabilator as the canard, on top of the forwards fuselage, aft of the cockpit.
And it looked utterly ridiculous.
 
Sorry, no. The YF-4E flew with:

SFCS Survivable Flight Control System (initial fly-by-wire).
PACT Precision Aircraft Control Technology (control-configured vehicle).

The STOL/MTD effort resulted in the NF-15B STMD almost 20 years later.

I was being facetious, hence the smiley face with the tongue sticking out.
 
I was being facetious, hence the smiley face with the tongue sticking out.
And I was posting at Oh-dark-thirty, hence the Humor Detection Fail. Sorry! :eek:

Although - there are probably more than a few newer ESL speakers/writers on the board that may not have gleaned the detail.
 
Taking a slightly 'through the distorted looking glass' perspective and allowing for the interest in ex military aircraft, just how viable are aircraft like the F4 sans military gear for civil use?

Yes, I get they would costa del fortune but, is it viable?
 
Taking a slightly 'through the distorted looking glass' perspective and allowing for the interest in ex military aircraft, just how viable are aircraft like the F4 sans military gear for civil use?

Yes, I get they would costa del fortune but, is it viable?
if you are willing to bleed money everything is viable
 
Sorry, what I mean is, could the prosperous people of today/tomorrow manage this?

Looking at the development of aviation services through the decades which have led to successive generations of military aircraft being supported, where does the train end?

Apart from anything else, I have been reorganising me book collection and realising just how much my dear ol' mum gave away to the charity shops because "But you said you had read those"!
 
Sorry, what I mean is, could the prosperous people of today/tomorrow manage this?

Looking at the development of aviation services through the decades which have led to successive generations of military aircraft being supported, where does the train end?

Apart from anything else, I have been reorganising me book collection and realising just how much my dear ol' mum gave away to the charity shops because "But you said you had read those"!
they probably could afford it, there are guys flying MiG-23s and other warbirds... I think a guy owned an F-104 at one point. Did a quick google and there is a civilian owned MiG-29 and F-16 so I don't see any reason someone couldn't own an F-4
 
You also need a decent pilot.

There is a civilian-owned FA.2 Sea Harrier that has flown in airshows since 2007... but were placed for sale in 2020 (it was owned by the pilot). He also bought a 2-seat trainer Harrier in 2014, and it was placed for sale as well.

That pilot, Art Nalls, was just a bit qualified... he graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1976, commissioning into the USMC. He then was trained to fly AV-8As, something he excelled in.

On April 29, 1983, during a training flight near Richmond, Virginia, Nalls's Harrier suffered a complete loss of engine power. Since the engine failure occurred at sufficient altitude, he opted to glide the Harrier to a civilian airport and perform a deadstick landing, stopping just 50 feet (15 meters) short of the runway's end. Nalls was awarded the Air Medal for this first-of-a-kind Harrier landing.

He graduated from the USAF Test Pilot School, and was assigned to the Harrier development program.

Nalls performed the initial shipboard certification and flight tests for the AV-8B on both Giuseppe Garibaldi and Principe de Asturias, including the first ski-jump takeoffs in the AV-8B.

While leading flight test efforts for several single-engine airstart projects, he accumulated over six hours of flight time in single-engine jet aircraft without the engine running. Nalls retired from the Marine Corps in 1998 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and 22 years of service.
 
I am researching the many models of the F-4 Phantom II (both made and proposed) and trying to document and make drawings of many of them. I have a problem that I can't find any information on a feature that was proposed, and must not have been implemented.
On the Israeli Kurnass 2000 it had first been proposed that they would have canards on the intakes, but later that was changed to fixed strakes rather than full canards. But for the life of me I can't find a picture or drawing showing the strakes. This feature was also to be included on the Terminator 2020 upgrade, but there again I find no picture showing strakes on the upper intake. Does anyone have any information on this? I would appreciate the help. I am amazed at what this group comes up with.
Ksimmelink-

If you are still looking in 2024, are you talking about the strakes shown on the artwork for the F4X Mach III Phantom ? Please refer to link listed above.


With regards,
357Mag


There is artwork for the notional craft, shown in a quote box on pg 3 of the post repl
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom