Early Phantom IIs

12 September 2011: Added stabilator changes
26 May 2011: Revised Configuration Matrix
23 November 2010: Added cockpit illustrations
10 November 2010: Added information on configuration differences between early and late F4H-1s
12 November 2009: Updated Configuration Matrix

Also see: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/05/early-phantom-iis-redux.html

The F4H (F-4) Phantom II was originally intended to be a single-seat, supersonic attack airplane, the AH, powered by two afterburning Wright J65s. Because of an urgent need for a supersonic, two-seat, Sparrow-missile-armed fleet air defense capability, the fighter class desk at the Bureau of Aeronautics hijacked the program and repurposed it, substituting more powerful General Electric J79s for the Wrights. The second seat was crammed into the avionics bay of the AH.

During the course of development, a larger radar dish was deemed necessary to increase the detection range of incoming bombers, which resulted in a larger nose and raising the cockpit slightly. The engine inlets were also refined, in part due to higher than expected speeds being achieved with early uprating of the J79. As a result of these and other changes, there were detailed configuration differences among the first few dozen Phantoms. The first 47 were redesignated F4H-1F in May 1961, primarily to differentiate between airplanes with the J79-GE-2s and those with the -8s. In the 1962 DoD-directed redesignation exercise, the F4H-1Fs became F-4As and the F4H-1s, F-4Bs. (Click on this and any other image for a larger picture.)

The first F4H (not yet named Phantom II) first flight.

 

The larger radar dish required a larger radome, which resulted in raising the canopy line to restore visibility past the nose for the pilot's view of the carrier approach aids. As much of the original structure was retained as possible, reportedly up to the canopy sills.

As noted in the configuration matrix, not all F4Hs with big noses got the raised canopy. This is BuNo 145313.

The inlet change went through several iterations. The first XF4H, BuNo 142259, had a hooded inlet with a narrow fixed ramp and the external portion of the variable ramp was non-porous.

The next step appears to have been making the variable ramp porous. In some cases, the early porous variable ramp did not have the discharge chute at the bottom; in others, the chute was present at both the top and bottom of the ramp as on Skyburner and the second Sageburner.

The first F4H in early 1959 with a porous variable ramp and only the lower discharge chute; the "hood" on the top of inlet has been removed. Note that there is now a McDonnell ejection seat in the rear cockpit.

143389 (#4) on 4 December 1959 with the original hooded intake and no discharge chutes (note the addition of the infrared detector under the small nose and the different air inlet aft of that compared to NACA inlet in the picture above):

The second Sageburner. Note that this inlet has also been modified to remove the hood and the chutes are clearly scabbed on:

On the production inlet, there was both a lower and an upper discharge chute, but the latter was smaller. The fixed ramp was a much larger portion of the ramp area. The ramp angles were also changed during inlet development. The fixed ramp was originally set at an angle of 5 degrees and subsequently increased to 10 degrees. The variable ramp angle range was also increased.

The early Phantoms used a McDonnell-furnished seat:

Another major change, introduced with F4H #6, was the addition of Boundary Layer Control and inboard leading edge flaps in order to reduce the approach speed. My guess is that the cambered leading edge was also added to the stabilator as part of this redesign. The original stabilator had a symmetrical leading edge:

The cambered leading edge curved up to increase the down force from the stabilator at the same angle.

Interim stabilators had a zig-zag pattern at about 20% chord where the new leading edge was incorporated. Note that production stabilators integrated the camber as part of the basic structure so there is no zig-zag.

This redesign to increase lift and reduce approach speed delayed the carrier qualification trials.

Initially, the F4H had two emergency turbines, one in each wing under the inboard leading edge. When it was decided that the airplane needed inboard leading edge flaps, these were replaced by a single RAT in the upper left side of the fuselage. (For more on this installation, see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/early-f4h-rat.html)

 

The early F4Hs had perforated spoilers like the F3H as shown here on BuNO 143390. The holes were subsequently deleted, likely on the next airplane—which incorporated the inboard leading edge flaps—and probably to improve roll control effectiveness at approach speeds.

 This is the 6th F4H used for the initial at-sea evaluation on a subsequent visit to a carrier in different markings.

Thanks to Larry McCarley, I now have more illustrations of the cockpits of the early Phantoms.

The Airborne Missile Control System display was very different in the early F4Hs. Note that it wouldn't have been installed in the first aircraft.

The early aircraft probably had the area reserved for the pilot's radar indicator and missile controls filled with flight test unique instruments.

Contrary to speculation, some aircraft with the low canopy line did have a McDonnell ejection seat installed in the aft cockpit as shown in the picture of the first F4H above. However, the ejection seat was probably not installed in the aft cockpit of at least some of the early aircraft that didn't have the missile control system installed. It was likely filled instead with research instrumentation equipment. This is the rear seat equivalent of the pilot's early missile control system:

Note that the instrument panel in the aft cockpit was slightly different depending on the bureau number with the major change being the addition of an artificial horizon and airspeed indicator:

Nuclear Banshees

As soon as the atomic bomb got small enough to be carried by tactical jet fighters, the Navy adopted the McDonnell F2H Banshee for it, first the F2H-2 as the -2B and then the -3/4.

The F2H-2B was externally similar to the F2H-2, but had some local strengthening of the wings so that the aircraft could carry a 1650-lb Mk 7 or a 3230 lb Mk 8 nuclear bomb on a big pylon underneath the port stub wing. The flaps on that side had a small cutout for clearance of the store. An in-flight refueling probe installation was subsequently developed that could be installed in place of the upper right 20mm cannon.

The -7 was a very large weapon which required increasing the pressure in the main landing gear strut to provide even minimal ground clearance. This is my guess at the pylon shape and bomb location; note that the shock strut has not yet been extended to provide a modicum of ground clearance. (Read on for a description of this system on the F2H-3/4, which may also have applied to the F2H-2B.)  I've subsequently discovered (see below) that the tail cone had to be rotated clockwise (viewed from the rear) to provide clearance with the J34.

The F2H-2Bs were deployed only a few times, the first as a VC-4 detachment aboard Coral Sea to the Mediterranean beginning in April 1952. Other known detachments are VC-4 Det 7 aboard Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVB-42) and Det 44 aboard Lake Champlain (CVA-39) in 1953. Det 5 aboard Midway from December 1952 to May 1953 may have operated F2H-2Bs as well. There are also pictures of VF-82 F2H-2Bs aboard Champlain on its September 1954/April 1955 deployment and with VF-101 aboard Midway in 1955, shown here.

This is a picture of VC-4 F2H-2Bs aboard Lake Champlain sometime between June and November 1953. Note the flat-bottomed inboard stores pylon which was probably used for the Mk 8.

The F2H-2B was reportedly manufactured alongside the "stock" F2H-2 and -2Ps on the McDonnell production line. 27 were listed in an appendix to the F2H maintenance manual (Also see comment below).

125030/125031
125054
125056
125058/125059
125061/125062
125064
125066/125067
125069/125070
125500
125502
125504/125505
125650/125651
125653/125654
125656/125657
125659/125662

For some reason, the location of both the refueling probe and the bomb mount were switched  on the F2H-3/4, with the bomb now being carried on the right side and the refueling probe installed on the left side of the nose.

 

For pictures of the probe installation, see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/03/f2h-34-inflight-refueling-probe.html 

Whereas the F2H-2B had the cutout only in the left side flaps, the F2H-3/4 had the cutout in both flaps.

This is a preliminary sketch that I made once upon a time.

Thanks to the Gerald Balzer collection via Mark Nankivil, I now have better pictures of the Mk 7 and Mk 8 being carried by the F2H-3/4. (The Mk 7 shown has different fins that shown above and appears to be have a blunter nose.)

Note that all the shock struts are fully extended to provide a modicum of ground clearance although a video of a launch suggests that only the main gear struts were over pressurized to load the store; the nose gear strut was subsequently extended as usual for the catapult launch. This picture also shows the tail cone on the Mk 7 being rotated counterclockwise (looking forward), in order to clear the jet tailpipe; it's not clear on the video, but it appears that this wasn't absolutely necessary.

Thanks to Larry Webster of the Quonset Air Museum, who provided a copy of the F2H-3/4 maintenance manual section on the main landing gear special strut extension, I can now accurately describe this feature. It was accomplished by adding two separate hydraulic fluid tanks. The fluid in both tanks was added to both shock struts to extend them fully for taxi and takeoff. (The nose gear strut extension was a separate system that was used on all F2H-3/4 catapult takeoffs.)

The struts were only partially deflated automatically when the landing gear was retracted "to permit a landing with stores still aboard" (presumably not on a carrier), which was why there were two separate tanks. To remove the remainder of the extra fluid from the struts for normal strut action, the pilot had to actuate a switch on the left console after he had lowered the landing gear.

This strut extension capability was provided by a kit, suggesting that it was only added to aircraft designated for the mission. I have read that the F2H-2B strut extension was provided with "sleeves" added over the exposed piston. These reportedly dropped away after lift off. However, I don't have any documentation on that yet so I can't say that's myth or fact. It may have been an early kludge to provide the capability before the strut extension kit was developed. I also don't know whether just the bomb-side strut was extended on the F2H-2B or both sides. My guess would be both.

The Mk 8 picture was even more welcome. It was mounted on a slightly different pylon and also required the shock strut extension to provide clearance for the tail fin group. Note that this aircraft is equipped with the inflight refueling probe replacing one of the 20mm cannons and the fairing on the belly associated with this modification.

The shape shown below is the BOAR, a Mk 7 with a rocket attached for better separation from the instant sunshine it created.) Note again that the main landing gear shock strut is fully extended to provide what clearance there is but the nose strut has not yet been extended.

Grumman Panther

20 December 2017: The main problem with the Matchbox 1/72 F9F-4/5 vertical fin is too abrupt a transition between the upper aft fuselage and the vertical fin as shown in this Ed Boyd picture of his model.

Smoothing the transition and shaping the bottom of the fin aft of the tailpipe would be relatively easy.

2 December 2017: For a discussion of the small difference between the F9F-2 and -5 wing and wing-to-fuselage fairing, see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/12/grumman.html

 16 September 2011: Updated for new kits.

Another work in progress for which there was a lot of existing material. This one describes the differences between the -2 and -5 Panther, since there are -2s in 1/72 (the Matchbox -5 is not so good) and a -2 and -5 from different kit manufacturers in 1/48. Click Here for my thoughts on the 1/72 scale -2 kits.

There were three notable shape changes between the -2/3 and the -4/5: the fuselage was stretched by eight inches between the inlet fairing and the dive brakes; the vertical fin was revised (a bit differently than shown here); and the wing leading edge just outboard of the engine inlet was bulged forward with a small flow fence added (the fence was added after initial -5 production and retrofitted to -2/3s so it alone is not a distinguishing feature although the -2/3 fence is a slightly different shape). The -5 also had a small suck-in door behind the bigger one that was on the -2.

You have to do some rivet counting to see where the stretch is but it's there. Note also that the fiberglass reinforcement on the aft part of the canopy is wider on the -5, but this appears to have been retrofitted to the -2, so its absence denotes a -2 but its presence does not necessarily denote a -5.

 

The tail change is a bit subtler than shown on the illustration above. It was actually enlarged all around as depicted here and the -5 trailing edge was 2.75 inches farther aft.

Regrettably, the difference in the shape of the bottom of either fin isn't shown but the following illustration will make up for that. Note that there is also a difference in the gap between the -2 and -5 upper and lower rudders: the -5 gap was rectangular; the -2's was more triangular.

This is another view of the bottom of  the -2's fin:

Other -5 differences are the tail bumper (more on that below), larger stores pylons on the wing, and the configuration of a small "reverse flap" on the wing flap of -5 (See Yves Marino's comment below). On some -5s, the lower aft corner of the larger suck-in door is cut off to clear the engine inlet.

The cockpit was slightly different. The forward end of -2/3 side consoles was stepped up whereas the -4/5 consoles were flat.

Another detail that I hadn't noticed until just now (17 February 2014) is that the tail bumper is slightly different.  It looks like it was part of a fairing on the -2s (see http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin3/f9f-2_panther_123652/index.php?Page=3) but not on the -5s (see http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason/f9f-5_125295/index.php?Page=2)

Since I limit myself to 1/72nd scale, I don't know anything about 1/48th kits other than what I read on modeling websites. In this case, Pip Moss has measured the Trumpeter -2 and Monogram -5 fuselages and reports that the Trumpeter F9F-2/3 is 9.375 inches long along the waterline (37' 6") and the Monogram F9F-5 is 9.625 inches long (38' 6"). That means that they are one scale foot different in length (a bit more than the actual 10.75 inches but the difference is approximately 1/32 inch, which is easily attributable to measurement accuracy), and both are a bit short but by less than 1/8 inch. On the other hand, Lewin Jones and others have measured the Hobbycraft (same mold as the Trumpeter kit) -2/3 and Monogram -5 and found them to be the same length, which means the Hobbycraft/Trumpeter fuselage is too long. Use the following illustrations to check for yourself.

One problem with the Hobbycraft/Trumpeter F9F-2/3 is the canopy.  See Michael Benolkin's review Here and Tom Cleaver's Here. Click Here for a description of an aftermarket substitute for the canopy and Here for a source for it.

F8U Crusader Variations

29 January 2017: Updated with a revised UHT (Universal Horizontal Tail) illustration

For the best single reference on F8U-1/2 configuration differences, buy Squadron Signal Publications Walk Around Number 38, F-8 Crusader by Ed Barthelmes. It includes details that I hadn't noticed or knew about, copiously illustrated in color.

For a summary of Crusader armament changes, see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-brief-history-of-f8u-crusader-armament.html

This is another work-in-progress. I got a request for this particular one and since I had done some work on it, I've decided to post it and perfect it later. For a bigger picture, click on it.

 

F8U-1 Notes

The solid nose wheel was introduced with the F8U-2N (F-8D) and retrofitted to earlier production Crusaders as they came through overhaul, so there isn’t anything like a BuNo (other than 147037 and sub) or date certain that can be used. There are also examples of Es and possibly even NEs with the spoked nose wheel, but these are almost certainly shore-based airplanes taking advantage of built-up spares.

Here are pictures of the early spoked nose wheel hub:

The tendency of an F8U to land on the nose wheel, particularly after an in-flight engagement, may be why the Navy went to a solid hub nose wheel. One of the tenets of good design is that you don't make something relatively cheap and easily replaceable so strong that instead of it breaking in an overload situation to relieve the load, something else does that's expensive and/or very hard to replace or repair.

The early main landing gear wheel was also different.

According to my notes, the Sidewinders and refueling probe were added to 143701 (F8U-1 production #66) and subsequent. Note also that the spoilers for better lateral control weren't added until 143771 (#136) and sub.

Also the small inboard flap was incorporated on production #17 and sub, although this and probably the refueling probe/Sidewinder and wing spoiler installs were retrofitted to at least one of the early aircraft for test and evaluation purposes. (e.g. BuNo 1440446 had the inboard flap for the carrier trials on Forrestal in April 1956)

Vought Ejection Seat

A later external modification to the Vought seat involved increasing the depth of the pad on the head rest so it extended down around the shoulder harness attachment:

It was installed as late as early F8U-2s before the change to the Martin-Baker seat and retrofitted to earlier production including the F8U-1Ps.

Tom (Superheat) Weinel did some great work on describing and depicting the differences between the various F8U models and modification. This is one of his illustrations, the radome shape change between the early Crusaders and the F8U-2NE (F-8E).

One unusual feature of the four-Sidewinder installation is that none of the missiles are mounted at the same angle in order to clear its partner on the Y-mount as well as the in-flight refueling probe on upper left side and the ram-air turbine on the lower right. Some kit manufacturer haven't gotten this right. Bill Gilman reports that Academy did with its 1/72 F8U but neglected to provide adequate instructions as to which pylon went where.

The F8U-2NE was to be armed with Bullpup but the requirement for the capability was cancelled before qualification was completed, which is why there aren't any pictures of it on deployed F-8s. (Early -2NEs, perhaps 149XXX, were delivered without the Bullpup fairing; it was retrofitted however, and used to house ECM avionics.) If you want to hang something menacing on the wing pylon, consider a WWII 2,000-lb bomb.

The F8U-1P/RF-8 wing, empennage, and fuselage from the main gear wells aft was basically the same that of as the F8U-1/F-8. The RF-8 was a little over three inches longer than the F-8s with the small radomes but only because of the pitot sticking out over the nose. The fuselage ahead of the wing and below the cockpit was modified to introduce more of an area rule effect and provide flat surfaces for the camera windows. As a result, the inflight refueling probe was now housed entirely within the fuselage and the fairing above the forward part of the wing was deeper and wider. The nose cone changed as well to incorporate the periscope window and the pitot.

 For more on the photo Gator, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/12/photo-gator.html