The F-4 Phantom II - any alternatives?
- Thread starter uk 75
- Start date
Spey 202 is 4,000lb including reheat chamber.
I dimly reccal something like it being about 2,400lb without.
Having spent 2 hour digging through my files and the Internet. I'm just plaun tired and annoyed.
I cannot find my photocopy of Gunstons table for jet engines. Which including some figures for the RB.153.
I cannot remember where the Internet dite that a vast table of engine data lurks. Nor the precise search terms that threw it up.
I thought I llinked to it once.....can't remember which post on which topic here.
Last edited:
Is this what you’re looking for? ;-)
Turbofan and Turbojet Engines
Database Handbook
Élodie Roux
Nope found my older post
And..the link is dead
But thanks for yours!!!
And..the link is dead
But thanks for yours!!!
Try the Wayback Machine… the internet’s most important tool ;-). Here’s a working link:And..the link is dead
Just a speculative one...
Two Adour 3,142lb
Produce 10,640lb dry and 16,080lb reheated.
But two weigh 3,142lb as early versions and 3,266lb later on.
But a bit late.....however it might have assisted Dassault had he had that up his sleeve to counter Breguet.......
Two Adour 3,142lb
Produce 10,640lb dry and 16,080lb reheated.
But two weigh 3,142lb as early versions and 3,266lb later on.
But a bit late.....however it might have assisted Dassault had he had that up his sleeve to counter Breguet.......
Last edited:
I'm surprised they never developed an interceptor for USN forces based on Vigilante. Giving it the F-4's radar set, Sparrow, Sidewinder, and a gun matched to its range and big wing might have been something special.
The USAF could have followed through with a 2-seat Crusader or brought Sparrow to the F-106A. The F-106 had lots of perfectly good proposals made for further development. Its a shame SAGE development costs always hamstrung talk of new F-106A. It should have been decoupled with SAGE and the F-106A would have been much more affordable. The F-106A was really under-developed. Would have loved to see it get an F-18 derived radar and AMRAAM is the 90's to let it soldier on another decade or two. Those airframes were built for longevity but could have used some focus on ease of maintenance.
I saw Viggen mentioned a couple of times. I doubt the USAF or USN would have went with anything like Viggen. Plus the Viggen would have been way late to the show. A Viggen in French maritime service would have been interesting.
The USAF could have followed through with a 2-seat Crusader or brought Sparrow to the F-106A. The F-106 had lots of perfectly good proposals made for further development. Its a shame SAGE development costs always hamstrung talk of new F-106A. It should have been decoupled with SAGE and the F-106A would have been much more affordable. The F-106A was really under-developed. Would have loved to see it get an F-18 derived radar and AMRAAM is the 90's to let it soldier on another decade or two. Those airframes were built for longevity but could have used some focus on ease of maintenance.
I saw Viggen mentioned a couple of times. I doubt the USAF or USN would have went with anything like Viggen. Plus the Viggen would have been way late to the show. A Viggen in French maritime service would have been interesting.
Last edited:
Here's a rough draft of my "Etendard V" proposal for an F-4 Phantom alternative. I worked off the Mirage F3 for the most part (9.3t empty) as that seemed like the right starting point, with a 50% enlarged Etendard IV B wing (with BLC) and added 2x RB-153 engines.
Looks nice IMHO... my weight target of 9t empty might be a little optimistic (maybe I've oversized the wing a little) but I'll stick to it for now! In many respects the result could be compared to a ~0.9x scale Crusader III...
Dimensions
Length 16.6m / 54.5ft
Span 11.8m / 38.7ft
Span folded 9.6m / 31.5ft
Weight: 9t empty, 9.5t empty equipped
Fuel: 4t internal
TO Weight clean: 13.5t
Engines: 2x RB.153-61R (6,850lb dry, 11,750lb wet)
Attachments
Last edited:
It would pay to look at EE P.39 a Anglicized Mirage IIIV on page 217 of BSP.2
As this shows the twin RB.153 engines.
Also Folland Fo.147 (1961) on page 269.
Page 274 shows HS.1173 (1964/65) with RB.172-57R.
Page 273 shows P.45 (1964) twin RB.172-49R
Page 188 Earlier RB.142/4 scaled turbofan. Used on Type 581 schemes A,B, and C.
As this shows the twin RB.153 engines.
Also Folland Fo.147 (1961) on page 269.
Page 274 shows HS.1173 (1964/65) with RB.172-57R.
Page 273 shows P.45 (1964) twin RB.172-49R
Page 188 Earlier RB.142/4 scaled turbofan. Used on Type 581 schemes A,B, and C.
All good examples. The Fo.147, P.45 and HS.1173 were all interesting on the smaller end of the size spectrum. Type 581 was rather massive! Hard to find one in the same size range that I have in mind...
I do have a preference for real prototypes vs. paper designs, so maybe the F8U-3 Crusader III would be a closer comparable (completely different engine of course). Here goes!
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,703
- Reaction score
- 1,604
The Br.120D, is that a side by side cockpit arrangement? This profile, the cockpit looks so Sukhoi T6-1/Su-24 from that head-on profile.How about the RB.153-61R (6,850lb dry thrust, 11,750lb AB), which was basically a 2/3rds scale Spey… from the drawings I have, it basically fits into the same size & weight as a non-afterburning Avon or Atar 8.
So… a scaled-up Etendard with twin RB.153s. Now that would be something.
Timeframe might fit the Aeronavale’s DAFNE program (1964), for which the twin Spey proposals seemed just a little too big (Dassault MD800 and Breguet Br 120).
Dassault MD 800
Breguet Br. 120 D
Regards
Pioneer
Similar threads
-
France buys Phantoms in the 60s- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 22
-
-
Alternatives to Pivotal Aircraft- Started by prolific1
- Replies: 4
-
F 4 Phantom fails in the early 60s- 1154s or Lightnings?
- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 63
-
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Brochures- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 0