McDonnell F-101D/E Tactical Fighter (J-79 engines)

Steve, the MacAir Model Number for the F-101 started off with the XF-88 and is Model 36 with a variety of alpha changes to reflect the different variants. I have not seen a 36xx number specifically for the F-101D/E either on the list I have or what Stargazer put together over in the Designation Systems section of the site:


I have a scanned proposal to the USAF for an F-101B(R) but that is from March 1968 and is a proposal for converting the B models to reconnaissance aircraft. I'll post a link to download that later this evening.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark Nankivil said:
Very interesting! Based on the date, the Phantom II was still all US Navy and not yet on the USAF's "To Buy" list. I wonder if it was McDonnell's way of using some of the items learned on the Phantom for the next generation Voodoo to keep that program alive and building planes.

Thanks for posting the images ConvairXF92 - any chance you can PM me as I would like to obtain a copy of the PDF for the Museum's archives.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Click to expand...
Good point Mark
Either way a win/win for McDonnell, but a typical (for the era) waist and duplication by the different services!

Regards
Pioneer
 
overscan said:
The F-101D is two seat already (see pics posted earlier).
Click to expand...

Look at the image showing the intake ducts, that is a single-seater. All the F-101D/E references I've seen say that the D was single seat, the E was two seat. Who knows.
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Steve, the MacAir Model Number for the F-101 started off with the XF-88 and is Model 36 with a variety of alpha changes to reflect the different variants. I have not seen a 36xx number specifically for the F-101D/E either on the list I have or what Stargazer put together over in the Designation Systems section of the site: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2839.0.html

I have a scanned proposal to the USAF for an F-101B(R) but that is from March 1968 and is a proposal for converting the B models to reconnaissance aircraft. I'll post a link to download that later this evening.
Click to expand...

According to Paul Stevens, who is the author of an F-101 Book with Lou Drendel and was a good friend of my dad's, the following 36 numbers were given to the voodoos (I'm quoting from an e-mail he sent to me earlier this year):

36W was the F-101A and F-101C
36X was the recce birds
36BH was the F-101B/F interceptors
 
SOC said:
overscan said:
The F-101D is two seat already (see pics posted earlier).
Click to expand...

Look at the image showing the intake ducts, that is a single-seater. All the F-101D/E references I've seen say that the D was single seat, the E was two seat. Who knows.
Click to expand...

FYI, SOC is referencing the isometric image in the brochure on the second page where it shows the intake detail. The voodoo there is definitely the single seat variant.
 
convairxf92 said:
According to Paul Stevens, who is the author of an F-101 Book with Lou Drendel and was a good friend of my dad's, the following 36 numbers were given to the voodoos (I'm quoting from an e-mail he sent to me earlier this year):

36W was the F-101A and F-101C
36X was the recce birds
36BH was the F-101B/F interceptors
Click to expand...

Funny, I have Model 36AT for the F-101B...
 
Stargazer2006 said:
convairxf92 said:
According to Paul Stevens, who is the author of an F-101 Book with Lou Drendel and was a good friend of my dad's, the following 36 numbers were given to the voodoos (I'm quoting from an e-mail he sent to me earlier this year):

36W was the F-101A and F-101C
36X was the recce birds
36BH was the F-101B/F interceptors
Click to expand...

Funny, I have Model 36AT for the F-101B...
Click to expand...
Me too!
 
Interesting, the Aerofax Minigraph on the F-101B/F has Model AT36AT. Typo?
 
SOC said:
Interesting, the Aerofax Minigraph on the F-101B/F has Model AT36AT. Typo?
Click to expand...
The AT prefix should be deleted. It's 36AT. MARK?
 
SOC said:
overscan said:
The F-101D is two seat already (see pics posted earlier).
Click to expand...
Look at the image showing the intake ducts, that is a single-seater. All the F-101D/E references I've seen say that the D was single seat, the E was two seat. Who knows.
Click to expand...
Official USAF nomenclature records list both F-101D and E as "Skipped".

Maybe McDonnell presented more than one F-101/J79 proposal under the F-101D and/or E label. This would explain varying information about the characteristics, and also the eventual non-use of the D/E suffix for official designations.
 
AT36AT has to be a typo. I have the following for the XF-88/F-101:

36A - Army Fighter Proposal for long range twin engine fighter (tip mounted engines)
36B - Army Fighter Proposal for long range twin engine fighter (XF2H-1 type layout)
36C - Army Fighter Proposal for long range twin engine fighter (fuselage mounted engines) XF-88
36D - XF-88A (with afterburners)
36E - XF-88 with Allison J33A-23 Engines
36F - Production F-88 with afterburner
36G - all weather fighter version of F-88
36H - photo recon version of F-88
36J - XF-88B turboprop version
36K - F-88 Interceptor
36L - F-88 Fighter-Bomber
36M - Banshee type layout with swept wings/afterburners
36N - 36F with J71 engines
36P - 36F with rocket engine in tail
36Q - 36F with J-71 engines and larger fuselage
36R - 35 degree swept wing

Add that to what Stargazer has listed over in the Designation Systems section.

HTH! Mark
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Very interesting! Based on the date, the Phantom II was still all US Navy and not yet on the USAF's "To Buy" list. I wonder if it was McDonnell's way of using some of the items learned on the Phantom for the next generation Voodoo to keep that program alive and building planes.

Thanks for posting the images ConvairXF92 - any chance you can PM me as I would like to obtain a copy of the PDF for the Museum's archives.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Click to expand...
With the J79 being lighter and more fuel-efficient, it should have pushed the Voodoo into a similar perforce bracket with the Phantom; minus the warload and Sparrow... The duplication in capabilities would have made McNamara's head explode, but it would've been fun to see over Vietnam!
 
Last edited:
Stargeneral410 said:
The Americans should offer this new F-101 variant to Canada and sent 56 of their older B model stock to Taiwan as part of the military aid. This could also help simplifying the engine maintenance in RCAF fighter squadrons who would operate F-104G which also used the same lightweight J79 Engine.
Click to expand...

Now that's a damn fine idea ! But you should open a separate thread in the alternate history section of the forum.
Note that the RCAF very badly wanted Phantoms, twice, and ended screwed, twice: in place of CF-104s in 1958-59 (Pearkes said NOO) and in place of the CF-5 in 1965 (Hellyer said NOOOO again).
Now, had McDonnell proposed that J79-Voodoo as a SURROGATE PHANTOM...
...then Canada could have had (go figure)
- J79 Voodoos in place of CF-104s, 1959 (200 built under licence)
- J79 Voodoos in place of F-101B, 1962 (66 bought, second-hand from ADC)
- J79 Voodoos in place of CF-5, 1966 (240 built under licence)

How much is that ? FIVE HUNDRED aircraft.

Wow. My mind is blown !

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=momI9XSV3kM
 
Archibald said:
Stargeneral410 said:
The Americans should offer this new F-101 variant to Canada and sent 56 of their older B model stock to Taiwan as part of the military aid. This could also help simplifying the engine maintenance in RCAF fighter squadrons who would operate F-104G which also used the same lightweight J79 Engine.
Click to expand...

Now that's a damn fine idea ! But you should open a separate thread in the alternate history section of the forum.
Note that the RCAF very badly wanted Phantoms, twice, and ended screwed, twice: in place of CF-104s in 1958-59 (Pearkes said NOO) and in place of the CF-5 in 1965 (Hellyer said NOOOO again).
Now, had McDonnell proposed that J79-Voodoo as a SURROGATE PHANTOM...
...then Canada could have had (go figure)
- J79 Voodoos in place of CF-104s, 1959 (200 built under licence)
- J79 Voodoos in place of F-101B, 1962 (66 bought, second-hand from ADC)
- J79 Voodoos in place of CF-5, 1966 (240 built under licence)

How much is that ? FIVE HUNDRED aircraft.

Wow. My mind is blown !

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=momI9XSV3kM
Click to expand...
I am a F-104 fan and I don't have plan to create separate thread. I believe it is ok for J79 Voodoos to cooperate with Starfighters and the much cheaper Freedom fighters (the latter could did better job against Soviet MiG-21 in dogfight and even shared the same J85 engine with the domestic CT-114 Tutors trainers) in the cost efficiency loving RCAF, along with the important armaments like Nuclear Genies, Sidewinders and M61 Vulcans (Duel M39 cannons in the case of CF-5), but of course it should completely replace the obsolete subsonic domestic CF-100 Canucks in all roles, who should followed the Sabres into the museums at the same period.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Stargeneral410 said:
The Americans should offer this new F-101 variant to Canada and sent 56 of their older B model stock to Taiwan as part of the military aid. This could also help simplifying the engine maintenance in RCAF fighter squadrons who would operate F-104G which also used the same lightweight J79 Engine.
Click to expand...

Now that's a damn fine idea ! But you should open a separate thread in the alternate history section of the forum.
Note that the RCAF very badly wanted Phantoms, twice, and ended screwed, twice: in place of CF-104s in 1958-59 (Pearkes said NOO) and in place of the CF-5 in 1965 (Hellyer said NOOOO again).
Now, had McDonnell proposed that J79-Voodoo as a SURROGATE PHANTOM...
...then Canada could have had (go figure)
- J79 Voodoos in place of CF-104s, 1959 (200 built under licence)
- J79 Voodoos in place of F-101B, 1962 (66 bought, second-hand from ADC)
- J79 Voodoos in place of CF-5, 1966 (240 built under licence)

How much is that ? FIVE HUNDRED aircraft.

Wow. My mind is blown !

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=momI9XSV3kM
Click to expand...
Love the idea, but you're not getting 500 Voodoos. It was an expensive plane, around 1.8 million USD compared to about a million USD for F-104s. You might get 300-350 total. Maybe less once the additional maintenance and fuel costs are factored in. Still, even sacrificing 150-200 planes would give the RCAF a better fleet.
 
SSgtC said:
Archibald said:
Stargeneral410 said:
The Americans should offer this new F-101 variant to Canada and sent 56 of their older B model stock to Taiwan as part of the military aid. This could also help simplifying the engine maintenance in RCAF fighter squadrons who would operate F-104G which also used the same lightweight J79 Engine.
Click to expand...

Now that's a damn fine idea ! But you should open a separate thread in the alternate history section of the forum.
Note that the RCAF very badly wanted Phantoms, twice, and ended screwed, twice: in place of CF-104s in 1958-59 (Pearkes said NOO) and in place of the CF-5 in 1965 (Hellyer said NOOOO again).
Now, had McDonnell proposed that J79-Voodoo as a SURROGATE PHANTOM...
...then Canada could have had (go figure)
- J79 Voodoos in place of CF-104s, 1959 (200 built under licence)
- J79 Voodoos in place of F-101B, 1962 (66 bought, second-hand from ADC)
- J79 Voodoos in place of CF-5, 1966 (240 built under licence)

How much is that ? FIVE HUNDRED aircraft.

Wow. My mind is blown !

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=momI9XSV3kM
Click to expand...
Love the idea, but you're not getting 500 Voodoos. It was an expensive plane, around 1.8 million USD compared to about a million USD for F-104s. You might get 300-350 total. Maybe less once the additional maintenance and fuel costs are factored in. Still, even sacrificing 150-200 planes would give the RCAF a better fleet.
Click to expand...
Exactly, F-101 was a Heavy Fighter type like F-4 and F-15. It was expensive comparing to its lighter counterpart, this is why Canadians opted to purchase it directly from USA with smaller numbers instead of license building them in their own domestic factory like F-104 and F-5.
 
Stargeneral410 said:
Exactly, F-101 was a Heavy Fighter type like F-4 and F-15. It was expensive comparing to its lighter counterpart, this is why Canadians opted to purchase it directly from USA with smaller numbers instead of license building them in their own domestic factory like F-104 and F-5.
Click to expand...
Well, given that in OTL they only bought a handful, license production doesn't really make sense. But if they're essentially standardizing on the type with an order for 300+ planes, then building the F-101 domestically makes a lot more sense. Still, it doesn't do much for the overall cost of the thing. Hell, it might even make it more expensive when you factor in the cost of setting up a production line for it.
 
I added OTL three aircraft numbers but that wasn't 100% serious, just a very basic calculation. I readily agree the F-101 was a large and expensive beast, well, very much like the Phantom itself.
200 - 300 aircraft at best, would be a nice start.
Note that building it under a licence maybe some "simplifications" could be done to drop the cost, but probably no miracle there.
Orenda proved perfectly able to handle a J79 licence.

The neat thing with the F-101 is the number of roles it adopted:
-escort fighter (original spec)
- strategic reconnaissance (RF-101 in vietnam)
- TACtical nuclear strike (F-101A)
- interceptor (F-101B).
What is really neat is that many of these different missions match the RCAF own Canada / Europe shifting / conflicting missions - in the very difficult decade spanning from 1958 to 1968.

There were good reasons why the RCAF wanted the Phantom in both 1959 and 1966 : it was large, two engines, two crews, multirole, and long range. It would be pretty fun (considering OTL Phantom being denied, plus the CF-101B) to have the J79-Voodoo becoming "Canada's miracle aircraft" by defaut.
 
Last edited:
Were there any plans to modify the wing of the Voodoo?
I get that it's an interceptor, but it was a large aircraft with a tiny wing area of under 35 M2, which is smaller than a Mirage III. This led to a very high wingloading, higher than aircraft such as the F-104 and Su-15, for example.
In fact, I'm struggling (admittedly without looking) to think of a fighter jet/interceptor with a heavier wing loading, off the top of my head.
It just occurred to me that it might have been the kind of thing to tweak to go along with new J79 engines, if one was going to that level of developing the aircraft further, especially into a tactical fighter.
 
Last edited:
kaiserbill said:
Were there any plans to modify the wing of the Voodoo?
I get that it's an interceptor, but it was a large aircraft with a tiny wing area of under 35 M2, which is smaller than a Mirage III. This led to a very high wingloading, higher than aircraft such as the F-104 and Su-15, for example.
In fact, I'm struggling (admittedly without looking) to think of a fighter jet/interceptor with a heavier wing loading, off the top of my head.
It just occurred to me that it might have been the kind of thing to tweak to go along with new J79 engines, if one was going to that level of developing the aircraft further, especially into a tactical fighter.
Click to expand...

I would think that the high wingloading would be a feature not a fault, given the roles the RCAF ended up playing at home and in Europe under NATO: high-altitude supersonic interception and low-level nuclear strike.
 
I was talking more about the stated intention of its further development into a tactical fighter, fitted with J-79 engines, rather than the roles the vanilla version ended up designed for and doing.
 
NMaude said:
Why didn't the RCAF get the F-4?
Click to expand...
Several reasons.

First (1959-60, nuclear strike role) there was the price of F-101As or F-101Cs vs the F-104 (the F-4 was not even in the evaluation as it was still in development).
Canada bought the F-104.

Second (1962 air-defense role) there was the price of new-build F-4s vs new-build F-101Bs vs used F-101Bs.
Canada bought used F-101Bs.

Third (1964 strike/air defense fighter role) there was the price of new-build F-4s (to replace both the F-104s and the F-101s) - the decision was deferred pending further debate.

Fourth (1965 tactical fighter role with air-defense and strike deferred) the F-4 was permanently ruled out due to price and the A-7 was preferred... so the Defense Minister changed the requirements so that the F-5 (which was the cheapest and had the best outlook for export sales) was the only possible winner.
Canada then license-built F-5s (CF-116) to supplement the F-104s and acquired upgraded refurbished F-101Bs to replace their existing F-101Bs (again, price).

The F-101Bs, F-104s, and CF-116s were finally replaced in the 1980s-90s by CF-18s (CF-188).


Note the running theme... price, price, price, price, and price!
 
isayyo2 said:
With the J79 being lighter and more fuel-efficient, it should have pushed the Voodoo into a similar perforce bracket with the Phantom; minus the warload and Sparrow... The duplication in capabilities would have made McNamara's head explode, but it would've been fun to see over Vietnam!
Click to expand...
J57 has better SFC than J79 at Mil power, but worse at Max AB. Definitely lighter, but you have to specify what you mean about more fuel efficient.
 
NMaude said:
Why didn't the RCAF get the F-4?
Click to expand...
IIRC, it was not fitted with the SAGE systems that talked to NORAD and more or less let NORAD fly the plane to the weapons release point, while the F101B was fitted with the SAGE systems. (I may be overstating the capabilities of the system here)
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Ta-da... it appears to be an F-101 with J-79 engines and F-4 type intakes. Note arrestor hook and refuelling probe - is this Navy or Air Force? Maybe an alternative to the F-4?
Click to expand...
TAC used mainly probe&drogue at the time and had their own probe&drogue tanker fleet at the time (KB-50J). Most TAC fighter-bomber Century types had both an IFR probe AND a receptacle for flying-boom (F-105, F-101).
 
Archibald said:
The J-79 powered Voodoos are quite interesting projects.
I know there was this NF-101A testbed (with J-79).
What modifications would be needed to replace J-57s by J-79s ? (the latter beeing much smaller and lighter!)

Any three -view ?

This aircraft could have been a kind of Phantom back-up (even if Mc Donnell and Douglas only merged later)...

Source http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=McDonnell_F-101_Voodoo
And Joe Baugher, as usual... ;)
Click to expand...
Both F-101 and F4H/F-110/F-4 were McAir (McDonnell) products, so what is the relation to the merger with Douglas here?
 
1732398120154.png Question for the thread; what are the GAR-3Y missiles mentioned here? I assume they're some Falcon variant but I can't find much about that specific designation.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Fourth (1965 tactical fighter role with air-defense and strike deferred) the F-4 was permanently ruled out due to price and the A-7 was preferred... so the Defense Minister changed the requirements so that the F-5 (which was the cheapest and had the best outlook for export sales) was the only possible winner.
Canada then license-built F-5s (CF-116) to supplement the F-104s and acquired upgraded refurbished F-101Bs to replace their existing F-101Bs (again, price).
Click to expand...

I forgot to include the little gem that in the 1965 evaluation not only was the A-7 the preferred selection (over the Grumman A-6, the Douglas A-4, and the F-5) the F-5 was the only one actually rated as "unsuitable"!

So you could say that the Defense Minister forced the selection of the only competitor that was "not fit for purpose"!
 
Both F-101 and F4H/F-110/F-4 were McAir (McDonnell) products, so what is the relation to the merger with Douglas here?
Click to expand...
Brain fart. I had a hard time back then (2007 ? frack - feeling like Metuslah !) to dissociate McDonnell and Douglas. Grew up in the 1990's, they had long merged (1967) hence it was hard to see them as separate entities.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Wouldn´t that be the AIM-47A? The GAR-3X being the last of the family before the introduction of standardized designation.

Here a page on the GAR-3 falmily of missiles. .
Click to expand...

In that link I see mention of a "GAR-X"(which became the GAR-9 then the AIM-47 A/B) but not of a "GAR-3X".

The GAR-3 was the AIM-4E and the GAR-3A was the AIM-4F - the AIM-4G was the GAR-4A.

I don't find any other mention of a GAR-3 anything except for this one report:

In page 62 there is this paragraph in Chapter V: Status of Combat Weapons
June 1957 - December 1957 subsection USAF ADC INTERCEPTORS...
General Partridge then proposed substitution of the nuclear GAR-1Y Falcon missile for the MB-1*. The missile impressed him as providing the only practical means for giving the F-102A an atomic capability at an early date and at minimum cost. He further urged the GAR-1Y for the F-101 and the GAR-3Y for the F-106, stating that these nuclear missiles could be in the air defense inventory by mid-1960, providing early approval was given by USAF.
Click to expand...
* referring to the early designation for the AIR-2 Genie.

The first formal attempt at a nuclear-armed Falcon began development in 1956 under the designation XGAR-5 & XGAR-6 - this was cancelled by 1957.

The second attempt at a nuclear-armed Falcon was the XGAR-9 (for the F-108), which was redesignated AIM-47... the warhead work was done in 1957 & 58, but was cancelled in favor of a conventional warhead before the entire missile was cancelled.

The third and only successful nuclear-armed Falcon was based on the XGAR-5/6 work, which was restarted in 1959 as the XGAR-11.
This was followed by the GAR-11 and GAR-11A - which were redesignated as XAIM-26A, AIM-26A (nuclear) and AIM-26B (conventional). The GAR-11 (AIM-26A) entered service in 1961 on F-102s.


So I suspect that GAR-3Y (and GAR-1Y) were early designations for proposed nuclear-armed Falcons before the versions listed above (or contemporary with the XGAR-5/6).
 
Last edited:
elmayerle said:
"zip fuel" has already been addressed.

The J93 uses much of the same technology and configuration as the J79 (stands to reason since both derive from GE's experimental VSXE engine and both had the same expatriate German chief engineer) and, thus, testing done with the J79 could be carried over to the J93.
Click to expand...

So the J93 was basically a J79 on steroids?
 
NMaude said:
So the J93 was basically a J79 on steroids?
Click to expand...
Similar to the J79, but a second set of variable stator vanes at the aft end of the compressor in addition the set at the front end of the compressor. At the low corrected rotor speeds encountered at the high inlet temperatures at M3, the front set moved cambered while the aft set moved more axial to match the airflow capacities front to rear. Addressing the same issue the J58 used the bleed bypass system to overcome. The J93 also had some other features specifically to survive at the high inlet and nacelle temperatures at M3.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom