Are You Going to Believe Me or Your Lying Eyes?

I've tried to make three-view drawings from photographs and failed. Photography experts can tell you why; all I want to do is illustrate the pitfalls.

This is an example of a pretty-good drawing compared to a pretty-good picture, which means it was taken from the side at pretty much a right angle. (Hopefully, the height versus width of the picture, which I took off the interweb as-is, wasn't changed in the process of getting it out of the camera and onto the web.)

What I did was match the tip of the radome and the bottom aft edge of the rudder of the picture with the outline drawing (traced very closely on Illustrator from a McDonnell lines drawing that might not be "exact" in shape but should be very close in terms of the locations of significant features like the position of the wing leading edge versus the tip of the radome and the trailing edge of the rudder).

Note that details on the forward fuselage in the picture shift aft including the location of the wing leading edge. The fuselage appears to be deeper in the photo with the length matched to the drawing but that sort of makes sense to me and can be corrected for to some extent by increasing the length to height ratio of the picture in the middle but keeping it the same at the right side. (Otherwise the vertical fin would not be tall enough.) Note that this slightly affects the angles of non-vertical and non-horizontal lines.

Another problem not illustrated above is that objects closer to the camera appear bigger than they really are with respect to those farther away, the difference being dependent on the camera lens used and the distance from the subject.

These effects are minimized but not eliminated by taking a picture from far, far away using a telephoto lenses.

The good news is that you can rely on the shape and relationship of small areas that are the same distance from the camera. For example, whereas the inlet ramp is way out of position in the full side view as shown above, if you zoom in on just it and resize the picture slightly, the ramp matches the pretty-good drawing very closely. Another trick is to locate something with respect to the centerline of the airplane that is way off to one side of the picture like the tips of the stabilators by drawing a line between them and finding its midpoint. Of course, that means that both the left and right side of the something in question has to be visible.

My conclusion is that you can refine a pretty-good drawing with the judicious use of pictures but you have to start with a pretty-good drawing in the first place or be able to make measurements of the key features of the subject, which is not as easy as it sound, also speaking from experience...

Cockpit Confusion

In response to a request for a picture of the F7U-3 cockpit, I did some research and while I'm still not sure what it looked like, I did come across some interesting stuff. To me, at least.

First, cockpits of airplanes changed over time so a picture may not be representative of the airplane being modeled. What's worse, some cockpit photos are of airplanes in flight test with switches and instruments that have been added for purposes of the test. For example, this is the instrument panel of an early F7U, BuNo 128452, used for spin test.

Clearly the stuff that's up on the glare shield is test equipment. The two prominent T handles on the left side are for spin chute deployment and jettison. The location of any instrument in this picture can't be relied on for an operational cockpit but you can note that the instrument panel was curved, meaning each instrument and switch was roughly equidistant from the pilot.

This is the instrument panel of early production F7U-3s, BuNos 128467-78. Note that the cover marked "glass" protects the lens that projects the gun aiming image on the windscreen.

The "dark" instrument that looks like a radar screen is really the artificial horizon. F7Us, apparently including the -3M (more on that later), did not have visual-assist radars.

This is a photo taken by Don Hinton of the cockpit of F7U-3 BuNo 129554 at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center at Paine Field in Everett, Washington. The cockpit appears to be pretty stock. It appears that the artificial horizon and the directional gyro on the far right of the instrument do protrude out from the panel.

This is a picture of the same cockpit from a slightly different angle, now with a dummy sitting on the ejection seat. Unfortunately, I don't know who the photographer was.

The next picture is really confusing. It is BuNo 129590, which was an F7U-3 as far as I know. It has the F7U-3 gunsight. However, it also has the "zero reader" (it looks like an ILS indicator) and a range indicator immediately above it that I associate with the F7U-3M cockpit. The big ammeter mounted to the bottom of the glare shield doesn't appear to belong in an operational cockpit. I think the thing blocking the gun sight projection lens is a camera to record the image. My guess is that this picture shouldn't be relied on as representative of an operational F7U-3.

(From the National Museum of Naval Aviation)

Speaking of the F7U-3M, it appears to me that its AERO 10E Armament Control System (APQ-51 plus Mk16 MOD 4 Armament Fire Control System) as incorporated in the Sparrow I-armed Cutlass did not include a radar scope for its APQ-51, per se. In lieu of a radar scope, the pilot was given two gauges, one showing the direction of the object that Fire Control System had locked on to and the other, the range to the object in yards as well as a light that indicated a lock on had occurred:

My current guess is that when the Armament Control System locked on something, the pilot could point the airplane at whatever it was using the zero reader (the instrument just to the right of the turn-and-bank indicator), and more precisely aim the radar beam using a different gun sight from the one provided in the F7U-3. Or the pilot used the gun sight to be sure the radar was locked on to something that needed to be shot down and/or aim it at something he wanted to shoot down. I don't know.

The BIS Service Acceptance Trials report noted that the armament system would lock on to the bullet stream when the guns were fired (as indicated by the illumination of the lock-on light and the rapidly increasing range) if it wasn't already locked on to something.

As background, the Sparrow I missile was a beam-rider. It had rearward-oriented antennas that detected where the airplane's radar beam was pointed and "rode the beam" toward the target, so to speak. The shortcoming was the beam got wider the farther it was from the antenna. That meant that it wasn't accurate enough at distances over a couple of miles to get the missile, which was gyrating from side to side and up and down to stay in the beam,  close enough to the target to detect it and detonate the warhead. Aiming at the target through the gunsight might have been necessary to improve the accuracy by refining the lock on. In any event, riding the beam by looking backwards at where it was pointed meant the Sparrow I was only likely to be effective in visual conditions at relatively short ranges.

The Sparrow III, on the other hand, homed in on the radar beam being reflected from the target, which meant that its guidance was getting more and more accurate the closer it got to the target. That made the missile pretty effective as long as the target didn't start maneuvering to evade it.

This is a picture taken in July 1955 of the instrument panel of "YF7U-3M", BuNo 129700, in test at Point Mugu. Note the ammeter on the top of the glare shield and the zero reader to the right of the stick grip with the radar range indicator above the zero reader (the picture of the range to target and zero reader instruments above was cropped from this one). And that there is no visual-assist radar scope. (The instrument behind the stick grip is almost certainly the turn-and-bank indicator.)

(National Archives 80G-669514)

This is a picture of the bench test setup for the "APQ-51 gun sight" for the Point Mugu tests.

(National Archive 80G-669163 cropped)

That's a little confusing because this is a picture taken by Don Hinton of the Cutlass in the National Naval Aviation Museum at Pensacola marked as F7U-3M BuNo 129655. (Why the cautious wording? Because it doesn't have the pylons on the outboard wing panels and 129655 is listed as an F7U-3.) Note that the gun sight is very different from the one pictured above and is also not correct for an F7U-3M as noted by Laurent in his comment on this post. Other instruments are missing or mislocated, e.g. the artificial horizon, so this clearly isn't a stock operational cockpit of an F7U-3, much less an F7U-3M.

It is however, sensationally documented. See http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/nnam/virtualtour/#MUSEUM/COCKPITS/F7U/F7U. I noted, however, the throttle for the right engine is for an F8U Crusader as indicated by the marking, "Cruise Droop" with an arrow, so modeler, beware.

One thing that I think we can rely on is that some F7U-3 cockpits were pretty much black except for the bottom of the control column and the rudder pedals:

And the ejection seat:

S2F Cockpit Overhead Hatches

For a riveting discussion of a small mystery about the S2F Cockpit Overhead Hatches with pictures, see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/s2f-overhead-hatch.html

Tailhook Topics Drafts (http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/) is a blog I use to respond to specific questions. My intention is to incorporate the material in Tailhook Topics posts when appropriate. Someday.

You Can't Tell the Phantoms Without a Score Card

This is a summary of the various U.S. Navy Phantom models and the configuration differences. It is by no means complete and not necessarily accurate although not for lack of good intentions and research. If nothing else, it will provide an indication of how varied the detailed configuration could be for a given letter designation. Also, for the time being, it's a work in progress...

11 December 2012: Added information and photographs on the F-4S provided by Jan Jacobs and Rick Morgan

F4H-1F (F-4A): The first 47 F4H-1s were redesignated F4H-1F (and subsequently F-4A) in May 1961. Although the more or less official reason was that these had the 5/10 degree inlet ramps and were powered by the J79-GE-2 engine (the F suffix indicated a engine change), I'm not sure that there weren't some retrofitted with -8 engines or that flew with the 10/14 degree ramps and/or -8 engines for test purposes. For sure, you can't tell an F-4A by the flat canopy (only the first 18 had it) and small radome. There were F-4As with the flat canopy and the big radome and the raised canopy and the big radome. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/11/f4h-1-large-and-small-radomes.html for a list of my posts on the F-4As, one of which includes a summary of the various configurations of the F-4As by Bureau Number.

F4H-1 (F-4B): The "real" F4H-1 production began with Block 6 (Block numbers were used to designate production configuration*), starting with Bureau Number 148363 .

There were only a handful of notable external changes to the F-4B (as it was redesignated in November 1962) during its service life. These included the low-speed lift improvements, the bulges on the top of the wings over the main landing gear struts, and the ECM stuff added during the course of the Vietnam War.

Although developed for the heavier F-4J, the low-speed lift improvement package that consisted of the drooped ailerons, slotted stabilator, and elimination of the inboard leading edge flap was of benefit to the F-4B as well. It was incorporated on the production line beginning with F-4B Block 26, the first of which was BuNo 152995 that first flew in March 1966.  It was retrofitted to most of the surviving earlier F-4Bs over time.  For more on this, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/09/f-4-flapstabilizer-change.html

The addition of the strengthened main landing gear was reportedly accomplished in conjunction with the lift improvements. However, according to the McDonnell Plane Captains Handbook dated January 1970, it wasn't installed on the production line until BuNo 153912, which was the last but three of the production F4Bs; those delivered before then were modified at the next overhaul. The longer stoke oleo required a fairing over the landing gear mounting point on the upper wing surface.

You're on your own with respect to the ECM configurations, external strengthening doublers, the USMC RF-4B, etc for the time being.

The F-4C/D/E were U.S. Air Force variants. The F-4F was delivered to the German Air Force. The F-4G designation was applied to two different F-4s, a dozen built for the Navy with a data link and automatic carrier landing system (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/07/look-no-hands.html) and subsequently designated as F-4Bs, and a U.S. Air Force version specialized for air defense suppression. F-4H (supposedly too similar to the original F4H) and F-4I ("I" could be confused for "1"?) were not used.

The F-4J was the Navy's next Phantom, which flew for the first time in June 1966. The major changes were the deletion of the infrared tracker under the radome, the bulged wings to accommodate the larger tires introduced with the Air Force F-4C, an additional fuselage fuel cell, and the incorporation of an improved radar and an uprated J79, the -10. As it happened, neither the radar nor the engine were available on schedule, so the first F-4Js were delivered with ballast in the nose and -8 engines. These were known as the lead-nosed Js; most were delivered to the Blue Angels. (As a result of attrition, the Blues eventually flew at least two Js with -10 engines.)

The J79-GE-10 had a notably different afterburner. See http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2011/11/j79-afterburner-nozzles.html. As far as I know, the -10 was not retrofitted to any F-4B.

The F-4K and F-4M were the British Phantoms, powered by the Rolls Royce Spey engine instead of the J79. These had bigger inlets, a wider fuselage, a deeper fuselage under the afterburners, an additional auxiliary air door on the upper aft fuselage, all to accommodate the larger Spey engine. The F-4K also had an extra extendable section on the nose landing gear strut for launch from the smaller British carrier. See http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/spey-powered-phantom-changes.html

For various reasons, not the least of which was attrition during the Vietnam War, the F-4Bs went through a service-life-extension program, becoming F-4Ns. In addition to replacement of the wiring and other product improvements and repairs, the Bee Line brought all the selected F-4Bs up to the latest basic configuration, including the lift improvements and the strengthened main landing gear. The first F-4N flew in June 1972.

Note that early Ns did not get the long ECM-associated fairings on the top of the nacelle inlets as shown above (the one on the J was about half that length for some reason), so it isn't a certain indication of an N. This N is an example of that:

The open door under the forward fuselage under the "2" in "207" deployed the automatic carrier landing system radar reflector, a feature introduced on the Navy F-4G. For more, see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/08/f-4-phantom-acls-radar-reflector.html and http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/07/look-no-hands.html

Like ''I", "O" wasn't used for a modification letter and I don't know what the F-4P or R were to be.

The F-4S resulted from a service life extension program for the F-4J. It also featured the substitution of maneuver slats for the leading edge flaps. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/f-4s-wing.html

As it happened, according to Jan Jabobs, the first 43 F-4S conversions were completed without the maneuver slat modification that involved new outboard wing panels. These Phantoms were delivered to Marine Corps squadrons. Note that it does have the strip formation lights on the vertical fin and fuselage that were one of the external changes for the S configuration.

 Photo by Toshiki Kudo at Kadena, 12 September 1981

  At least one slat-less VMFA-251 F-4S had a suitable designation on the aft fuselage above the Bureau Number.

 Photo by Rick Morgan at Key West, 7 December 1980

The slat-less Ss were subsequently modified to the full S configuration shown here. Note the much shorter ECM antenna fairing on the engine inlet than present on the F-4N, another characteristic of the J/S. (Rick pointed out the cool way the squadron's crusader sword outlined the F-4S formation light on the vertical fin.)

Photo by Rick Morgan at Key West, 3 August 1980

At least a few F-4Ss with the slat modification also had the inboard leading edge flat reactivated. It was subsequently locked back up again.

I haven't addressed the various cockpit changes over time and don't intend to with the exception of the ejection seats. The first F-4s had the McDonnell-furnished ejection seat (an illustration is provided in one of those F-4A blogs referenced above) but it was soon replaced by the introduction of the Martin-Baker seat in almost all the Navy's fighters. (For more detail on the F4H seat change, see http://phantomphacts.blogspot.fr/2013/10/f4h-phantom-ii-ejection-seat-history.html.) The Mk 5 was installed in the Bs and the first Js. According to the June 1968 issue of Naval Aviation News, F-4Js began to be delivered with the Mk 7 in December 1967; the Mk 5s in the Bs and the earlier Js were modified to the Mk 7 configuration or replaced by Mk 7s. See http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/02/transition-to-martin-baker-ejection.html

*That letter that you sometimes see after the Bureau Number on Navy airplanes indicates the production block number, in this case "a" for Block 1. (BuNo 142259 was actually the very first Phantom; note that the designation is not YF4H-1 and "Navy" was still being included along with the designation and bureau number.)

The letter suffix wasn't much use for configuration definition after an airplane had gone through its first overhaul so it was rarely present thereafter.

Having a Problem?

Somehow a string of what amounts to gibberish (to me, anyway) got inserted into the middle of the text of "F-4S Wing". The only browser that couldn't seem to cope with it was Internet Explorer. I've fixed it both here and in a post (http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2012/11/and-now-for-something-completely.html) in my U.S. Navy Aircraft History blog. Since I don't have Explorer, if those of you who do have a hang, please let me know with a comment on http://ththomepage.blogspot.com/

F-4S Wing

The F-4S was an update to the F-4J, providing a service life extension as well as system and aerodynamic performance improvements.

The major external change was the substitution of slats for the leading edge flaps on the outboard inner wing and the outboard wing panel. These resulted in increased maneuverability due to notably higher angle of attack capability (in fact, a new angle of attack indicator was required with a higher upper range).

 

The maneuver-slat modification included a small fence just outboard of the wing fold area. The slat on the folding portion of the wing provided a permanent slot – it didn’t extend further but simply pivoted to increase the size of the slot. The inboard slat extended, moving forward via a parallelogram linkage; note that when retracted, it protruded below the lower surface of the wing.

Both the slats and the wing fence were different from the Air Force F-4E maneuver-slat modification.

The original wing configuration that was tested included reinstatement of the inboard flap extension that had been deleted on the F-4J, a change that was retrofitted to the B/N. See http://www.vmfa251.org/photos1970s/Pictures%20from%20the%201970s/album/slides/F4S_155872_nmna-file.html However, most photos of F-4Ss in service don't show the inboard flap extended when the trailing edge flaps are down, indicating that its activation was subsequently deleted.

To add to the confusion, the first 43 or so F-4Ss out of rework did not have the maneuver slats. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/you-cant-tell-phantoms-without-score.html

F-4 Stabilator

Going from the front to the back of the F-4, answering a question about the size of the stabilator but first some discussion about how it is attached, see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/11/f-4-stabilator.html

(This is a blog that I use to draft posts or respond to specific questions that might not be of general interest...)