Advanced Phantom Projects

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I know what a TJ60 is, I was under the impression that it was more powerful still than the J93 and J58, which would probably already provide a significant jump in performance over the original J79.
Click to expand...
Spot the (scaled) after the engine? The TJ60D5A2 designation? That means it was a study using a scaled-down TJ60 to fit a Phantom. It was a Mach 3 engine design, so presumably this was intended to improve high speed performance.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
From a huge list of F-4 models in http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/McDonnell Model Numbers List.pdf a few interesting ones.


[...]
98CN F-4H/ADC Phantom IIG Advanced Interceptor with AN/ASG-18 - wing and tail area inceased 20%, longer fuselage, two primary GAR-9, one alternate GAR-9, J93-MJ 252F engines. b) a 4 GAR-9 variant. (1960)
98CP Phantom IIF, as above with J58 engines (1960)
[...]
Click to expand...
That would be one heck of a fun ride! Not entirely sure how they'd enlarge the engine bays from ~40" to 50" diameter, though...


======
Thought that comes to mind about the high wing VG design: that's completely scrapping the existing wing box and most of the lower fuselage. Not sure how much tooling you'd be able to reuse.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
From a huge list of F-4 models in http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/McDonnell Model Numbers List.pdf a few interesting ones.
Click to expand...
Would this source have happened to mention what the job orders were? Just tracking or did they represent projects that were actually built and tested? Because the parts mentioning the GE-1 engine with the various bypass ratios have job orders, and quite a few more of the F-4 projects don't. Would be incredibly interesting to see the engine core design that evolved into the modern F110 used in a Phantom.
 
Pioneer said:
In relation to the the Boeing Conformal Weapons Carriage / F-4 Phantom II configuration, I stumbled across the following interesting website:

phantomphacts.blogspot.com

Conformal Weapons Carriage and the F-4

In the 1960s and 70s the Douglas Aircraft Company, a part of McDonnell Douglas Corporation, maintained a program of airborne weapons researc...
phantomphacts.blogspot.com phantomphacts.blogspot.com

Notable for me is the great profiling artwork (including the 'Bluff Bomb' concept)!!

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
An interesting comment on this blogpost, quote: "I was Rey Smith’s test pilot on this project 50 years ago at China Lake. The fuel milage [sic] tests for the conformal configurations were fine but the super sonic bomb drops failed because the bombs tumbled and scattered going thru the shock waves making for widely dispersed unpredictable impacts". Commenter also leaves their email, left out for obvious reasons. Does explain why it wasn't adopted, if it supposedly gave such benefits to the Phantom. Doesn't help if the bombs can't drop accurately.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That would be one heck of a fun ride! Not entirely sure how they'd enlarge the engine bays from ~40" to 50" diameter, though...
Click to expand...
I imagine that's the near-mythical Navy J58 before it was turned into a Mach 3 frankenengine for the A-12... still big, though, it was generally substituted for the J79.
 
Kalarz said:
An interesting comment on this blogpost, quote: "I was Rey Smith’s test pilot on this project 50 years ago at China Lake. The fuel milage [sic] tests for the conformal configurations were fine but the super sonic bomb drops failed because the bombs tumbled and scattered going thru the shock waves making for widely dispersed unpredictable impacts". Commenter also leaves their email, left out for obvious reasons. Does explain why it wasn't adopted, if it supposedly gave such benefits to the Phantom. Doesn't help if the bombs can't drop accurately.
Click to expand...
That just means you can't drop while supersonic. So stay under Mach 1 until bomb release, then punch it!
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom