Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-4S/414
MadRat    2/4/2006 1:10:32 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/F-4_3-view.jpg The F-4 has had many variants, but none of them seem to have had the benefit of using a turbofan rather than the J79 turbojet. The J79 required alot of extra steel around the unit in order to protect the area surrounding the engine from excessive heat. The J79 is a rather large engine running around 38"W by 208"L; for comparison sake the F404 is 35"W by 154"L. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/images/d4c-36084sm_n.jpg Just under 1,300 pounds of heat shielding went into the F-4 just because of the J79's heat emitting characteristics. The J79 weighs in at between 3,300 and 3,600 pounds; for comparison sake the F414 is between 2,200 and 2,300 pounds in weight. By refitting the F-4 design to use F404-family engines the weight savings could reach 3,500 pounds. T/W ratio would approach 1:1 using the F404-GE-402's, reaching 12,000 lbs dry, 17,700 lbs wet. T/W ratio could easily exceed 1:1 using the F414's, reaching 12,500 lbs dry, 22,000 lbs wet. http://www.geae.com/engines/military/images/engines_f414_400.jpg http://www.geae.com/engines/military/images/engines_f404.jpg How good would it be with F404/F414? If its any indication, the teamwork between McDonnell Douglas and the Israeli Aircraft Industries created a prototype F-4 using Pratt & Whitney PW1120 turbofans (13,532 lbs dry, 20,600 lbs wet; 40"W by 162"L; 2,900 lbs wt) and were amazed by the bonafide supercruise demonstrations. http://www.aviation-picture-hangar.co.uk/fgr2camo.gif The empty weight of a J79 equipped F-4S (an extended service life F-4J) runs around 30,800 pounds, its gross weight exceeds 51,000 pounds, and maximum loading runs 56,000 pounds. If you figure the maximum bomb trucking mission could exceed 8 tons, then it lends itself well to increasing overall manueverability performance using that same loadout. http://www.topfighters.com/images/wallpapers/phantom/03.jpg According to one source online an F-4S was refitted to have some limited lookdown shootdown capabilities with its 32" Westinghouse APQ-120 (or Hughes APQ-99) fire-control radar and AWG-10B digital weapons control system. The Isrealis took the APG-76 (of the A-12 Avenger program) and mounted it to the F-4. According to the wiki the F-18's AN/APG-65 radar does fit in the nose as proven by Germany's mid-1980's ICE (Improved Combat Efficiency) program. The foreign-used F-4's have demonstrated a good ability to adapt to use new missiles; both the Greek and German F-4's were also updated to fire off AIM-120's, too. The Isreali's use the Pythons and the Japanese use their homebrew AAM-3's on them. German F-4's will be lugging around the IRIS-T. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-4x2-s.jpg The F-4 remains in service in several nations around the world, including Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey and South Korea. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/F-4_Phantom_II_in_flying.jpg/300px-F-4_Phantom_II_in_flying.jpg
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
MadRat    second try   2/4/2006 1:12:00 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/F-4_3-view.jpg> The F-4 has had many variants, but none of them seem to have had the benefit of using a turbofan rather than the J79 turbojet. The J79 required alot of extra steel around the unit in order to protect the area surrounding the engine from excessive heat. The J79 is a rather large engine running around 38"W by 208"L; for comparison sake the F414 is 35"W by 154"L. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/images/d4c-36084sm_n.jpg> Just under 1,300 pounds of heat shielding went into the F-4 just because of the J79's heat emitting characteristics. The J79 weighs in at between 3,300 and 3,600 pounds; for comparison sake the F414 is between 2,200 and 2,300 pounds in weight. By refitting the F-4 design to use F404-family engines the weight savings could reach 3,500 pounds. T/W ratio would approach 1:1 using the F404-GE-402's, reaching 12,000 lbs dry, 17,700 lbs wet. T/W ratio could easily exceed 1:1 using the F414's, reaching 12,500 lbs dry, 22,000 lbs wet. http://www.geae.com/engines/military/images/engines_f414_400.jpg> http://www.geae.com/engines/military/images/engines_f404.jpg> How good would it be with F404/F414? If its any indication, the teamwork between McDonnell Douglas and the Israeli Aircraft Industries created a prototype F-4 using Pratt & Whitney PW1120 turbofans (13,532 lbs dry, 20,600 lbs wet; 40"W by 162"L; 2,900 lbs wt) and were amazed by the bonafide supercruise demonstrations. http://www.aviation-picture-hangar.co.uk/fgr2camo.gif> The empty weight of a J79 equipped F-4S (an extended service life F-4J) runs around 30,800 pounds, its gross weight exceeds 51,000 pounds, and maximum loading runs 56,000 pounds. If you figure the maximum bomb trucking mission could exceed 8 tons, then it lends itself well to increasing overall manueverability performance using that same loadout. http://www.topfighters.com/images/wallpapers/phantom/03.jpg> According to one source online an F-4S was refitted to have some limited lookdown shootdown capabilities with its 32" Westinghouse APQ-120 (or Hughes APQ-99) fire-control radar and AWG-10B digital weapons control system. The Isrealis took the APG-76 (of the A-12 Avenger program) and mounted it to the F-4. According to the wiki the F-18's AN/APG-65 radar does fit in the nose as proven by Germany's mid-1980's ICE (Improved Combat Efficiency) program. The foreign-used F-4's have demonstrated a good ability to adapt to use new missiles; both the Greek and German F-4's were also updated to fire off AIM-120's, too. The Isreali's use the Pythons and the Japanese use their homebrew AAM-3's on them. German F-4's will be lugging around the IRIS-T. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-4x2-s.jpg> The F-4 remains in service in several nations around the world, including Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey and South Korea. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/F-4_Phantom_II_in_flying.jpg/300px-F-4_Phantom_II_in_flying.jpg>
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:F-4S/414-HTML   2/4/2006 2:44:34 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/F-4_3-view.jpg"> The F-4 has had many variants, but none of them seem to have had the benefit of using a turbofan rather than the J79 turbojet. The J79 required alot of extra steel around the unit in order to protect the area surrounding the engine from excessive heat. The J79 is a rather large engine running around 38"W by 208"L; for comparison sake the F404 is 35"W by 154"L. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/images/d4c-36084sm_n.jpg"> Just under 1,300 pounds of heat shielding went into the F-4 just because of the J79's heat emitting characteristics. The J79 weighs in at between 3,300 and 3,600 pounds; for comparison sake the F414 is between 2,200 and 2,300 pounds in weight. By refitting the F-4 design to use F404-family engines the weight savings could reach 3,500 pounds. T/W ratio would approach 1:1 using the F404-GE-402's, reaching 12,000 lbs dry, 17,700 lbs wet. T/W ratio could easily exceed 1:1 using the F414's, reaching 12,500 lbs dry, 22,000 lbs wet. http://www.geae.com/engines/military/images/engines_f414_400.jpg"> http://www.geae.com/engines/military/images/engines_f404.jpg"> How good would it be with F404/F414? If its any indication, the teamwork between McDonnell Douglas and the Israeli Aircraft Industries created a prototype F-4 using Pratt & Whitney PW1120 turbofans (13,532 lbs dry, 20,600 lbs wet; 40"W by 162"L; 2,900 lbs wt) and were amazed by the bonafide supercruise demonstrations. http://www.aviation-picture-hangar.co.uk/fgr2camo.gif"> The empty weight of a J79 equipped F-4S (an extended service life F-4J) runs around 30,800 pounds, its gross weight exceeds 51,000 pounds, and maximum loading runs 56,000 pounds. If you figure the maximum bomb trucking mission could exceed 8 tons, then it lends itself well to increasing overall manueverability performance using that same loadout. http://www.topfighters.com/images/wallpapers/phantom/03.jpg"> According to one source online an F-4S was refitted to have some limited lookdown shootdown capabilities with its 32" Westinghouse APQ-120 (or Hughes APQ-99) fire-control radar and AWG-10B digital weapons control system. The Isrealis took the APG-76 (of the A-12 Avenger program) and mounted it to the F-4. According to the wiki the F-18's AN/APG-65 radar does fit in the nose as proven by Germany's mid-1980's ICE (Improved Combat Efficiency) program. The foreign-used F-4's have demonstrated a good ability to adapt to use new missiles; both the Greek and German F-4's were also updated to fire off AIM-120's, too. The Isreali's use the Pythons and the Japanese use their homebrew AAM-3's on them. German F-4's will be lugging around the IRIS-T. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-4x2-s.jpg"> The F-4 remains in service in several nations around the world, including Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey and South Korea. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/F-4_Phantom_II_in_flying.jpg/300px-F-4_Phantom_II_in_flying.jpg">
that should have fixed it
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest    RE:F-4S/414   2/4/2006 3:11:22 AM
Didn't the F-4 K and M versions have Rolls-Royce Spey 202/203 turbofans (rated about 20,500lb)?
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:F-4S/414   2/4/2006 9:24:35 AM
Boeing and IAI offered re-engine programs with the PW1120 in the mid-80's. The conversion would have cost not much less than a brand-new F-16. Not hard to see why there were no takers. The aircraft is too old and the conversion simply too expensive.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:F-4S/414   2/4/2006 10:48:59 AM
Fitz: from what I have heard, the real reason was more that the US forced cancellation - the upgraded F-4 would have been too 'good', i.e. the margin of improvement offered by newer types like F-16s would have been too slim. The conversion would not have been too expensive, and by simply fitting new radar and engines, you end up with a very potent aircraft. It certainly would have been interesting if the RAF (and Luftwaffe) had simply stuck with Phantoms, instead of the Tornado, and put the development effort into improving the Phantoms. The resulting aircraft could have been quite potent, despite being an older design... (They could even have bought into the 'Sale of the Century' F-16 purchase to boost their A2A capabilties!)
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    RE:F-4S/414   2/4/2006 12:30:09 PM
The Israelis did modify most of their F-4E's into Phantom 2000 / Kurnass configuration, but the engine modifications didn't prove cost effective so they chose not to go ahead with those. The radar and other electronic updates were in fact carried out, and these upgraded F-4s are still flying today. Even without the re-engining they are excellent strike aircraft. Lots of Phantom operators have updated the radar. The Japanese F-4EJ Kai has the APG-66, the German F-4F+ ICE and the Greek F-4Es have the APG-65, and the Israeli Kurnass and the Turkish "Phantom 2020 Terminator" the have the Elta M-2032 / APG-76. All of these have other various levels of avionics and pit improvements. The British F-4K/Ms did have Rolls Royce Olympus Spey engines, which had higher thrust than J79s, but those Phantoms were still the slowest and least fuel efficient of all Phantom models. The airframe modifications (mostly bigger intakes) required to accommodate the Speys had very negative effects on performance. As far as F-4S's, the US Navy has been busy converting those to QF-4S configuration and blowing them up. I don't think there are many left at all, if any. I know the Air Force is likewise beginning to run out of F-4E's for QF-4E conversion, and has been considering buying foreign Phantoms for this use. I can't see the US doing anything more with Phantoms beyond drone conversions, but there is obviously still life in the F-4 for some operators.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:F-4S/414   2/4/2006 12:38:21 PM
It is true that fitting the Spey into the F4 had some negatives in aerodynamics, however I can't believe them to be less fuel efficient than the old turbojet. Surely the added thrust allowed for a greater warload at least?
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:F-4S/414   2/4/2006 12:44:41 PM
How is this for an advanced Phantom... http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum/uploads/post-2-1138486816.jpg>
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:F-4S/414   2/4/2006 3:54:50 PM
Nice one DB, I was wondering how long it would be before you raised it... As for the Spey - the added thrust really did very little, since the added drag of the enlarged inlets eliminated any benefits of the extra thrust. In terms of fuel efficiency, I believe the Speys were a little less thirsty, but in real terms this was not a great selling point. The reality is that the RAF would rather have simply received F-4s straight off the shelf, with J-79s, and saved a lot of money. The RN were the only ones who really wanted Speys - in order to deal with the tiny aircraft carriers. I am quite sure the RN would gladly have received J-79 engined Phantoms, if it meant receiving proper carriers...
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    DropBear's F-4S/414 Swingwing   2/4/2006 4:16:28 PM
Wow, talk about turning a Mickey D into a Miki G. :)
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics