If you like the Phantom and the Tomcat.......

Originally posted by waynos
that was why we built the UK-only Tornado F.3, as a sort of 'economy Tomcat'.

Thats not true , as Saudi uses them as well , and Italy Leased some for many years (in fact they still have them now)

Originally posted by CyberianHusky
[ And check out the thrust rating on the Rolls.... 20,154 lbs. That beats 17,000 from the standard Spey.

The J-79 delivered over 17,000lbs thrust and the Spey variant fitted to the RAF Phantom delivered 20,000lb, thats why they thought that the Spey Phantom would be faster when it was concieved, what nobody realised though was that the amount of extra drag the fatter rear fuselage would generate would more than cancel this out, thats why UK Phantoms were slower despite the extra thrust. It wasn't all bad though, it only lost out on pure top speed, the extra 3,000lbs thrust was very useful in other areas.

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by waynos
that was why we built the UK-only Tornado F.3, as a sort of 'economy Tomcat'.

Thats not true , as Saudi uses them as well , and Italy Leased some for many years (in fact they still have them now)

You misunderstood me, the Tornado F.3 was 'UK only' because it was developede by BAe on their own without the other Panavia partners.

Originally posted by Seekerof
I found this old topic of mine and figured it may prove of further interest to you, especially the links/sources cited. You have a post/comment within it, also.
F-4X/RF-4X Phantom II

- Thanks for that Seekerof.

I hope no-one minds if I post the link to the longer bit of info on the VG Phantom?

www.ibiblio.org...






seekerof

[edit on 30-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by waynos
The J-79 delivered over 17,000lbs thrust and the Spey variant fitted to the RAF Phantom delivered 20,000lb, thats why they thought that the Spey Phantom would be faster when it was concieved, what nobody realised though was that the amount of extra drag the fatter rear fuselage would generate would more than cancel this out, thats why UK Phantoms were slower despite the extra thrust. It wasn't all bad though, it only lost out on pure top speed, the extra 3,000lbs thrust was very useful in other areas.

Howdie,

I can comment on this one, the problem wasn't the rear fuselage, nor was it the weight or shape of the engines that effected the proformance, because there was very little in the way of structural changes, all bar the main problem that affected the speed of the fighter.

It was the Intakes. The sprey, simply required more air flow than the orginal intakes could offer, the first type flown with the new engine configuration suffered badly from compressor stalls/surges. This wasn't fully expected from all accounts that I have found so far.

- Phil

Found some thing about this issue on the RAF website, it talks about issues with the blades on the sprey engines, this is a side affect of repeated compressor surges and stalls. The one thing that I can't understand that I thought this problem had been dealt with in the preproduction prototype... Any one any info on it?

www.raf.mod.uk...
Fouth paragraph down.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by gooseuk]

Phil, every source I have read attributes the loss of performance to the drag created byhe redesigned rear fuselage, the spey is a lot wider than the J-79 and the cross sectionof the aircraft between the wing and the tail was necessarily greater, it also resulted in an apparent 'droop' to the nozzles compared to the J-79. I obviously don't know about this first hand though.

Regarding the intakes on the Spey Phantom, they are a lot larger than on any J-79 Phantom and although this increased the airflow into the engine it also increased the cross section at this point, resulting in more drag. Anyway thats the situation as I have read it but if we're interested in knowing more maybe we could try to dig up some definitive sources?

edit ; just started a bit of digging and discovered that the first Spey Phantom wasn't even designed for the RAF or RN, it was the proposed F-110B for the USAF! I didn't see that one coming!



[edit on 30-11-2005 by waynos]

I have to say I agree with Waynos here, everything I have ever read attributes the spey Phantom's lower top speed to the fat rear fuselage.

(Although one might have thought that there would be some compensation regarding 'area rule' etc with the spey's bigger beefed up intakes).

BTW
Any more on that F110b Waynos?
I had a quick look but have only seen a side reference in something about the F107.

I have to say I love those old projects that never went anywhere. Those and the failed competitors in the early stages of a project.
Interesting what might have beens.

It appears to have been proposed as a joint McDonnell/Rolls-Royce tender to the TFX competition, in the words of Bill Gunston (RAF aircraft today- Phantom, 1984) "The Spey Phantom looked like yesterdays aircraft in 1962 when pitted against the whizz bang F-111 that had dazzled everybody, once it was clear that this was going nowhere Rolls Royce turned its attention back towards the UK and undermining the P.1154 in the hope that their Spey Phantom idea could be revived over here"

Originally posted by CyberianHusky
Some info about that.

Your siganture indicates thay one would hope you, in fact, SHOULD live in Siberia. 8^)

Originally posted by deltaboy

This is one of my faves had the U.S. Navy got an F-22 equivalent for the naval aviation.

To Deltaboy:The BEST image of an F-14 Tomcat is at sunset.

About this 'Swing wing F-22 thing' Good , its interesting but would be more if it had 2 seats maybe and more 'sweped back' tails like the F-35 JSF instead of the 'overgrown diamond ones' like on the YF-22 prototype.

The F/A-22 Raptor does look better than the YF-22 Lightning 2. If this image above came to production, It should be called the Tomcat 2 but that would then be breaking the copyright law since the Tomcat is Grumman not Lockheed.

Did you know, The Tomcats in 'Top Gun' are F-14As becouse there is a weapons selector swich on the joystick if anyone notices it.

www.bluejacket.com...

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Browno]

Originally posted by Browno
The Tomcats in 'Top Gun' are F-14As becouse there is a weapons selector swich on the joystick if anyone notices it.

- Surely all the Tomcat variants used the 'HOTAS' system (Hands on throttle and stick)?

Therefore wouldn't they all have switches on the throttle contol and the stick?

I dread to see the Tomcat go, It is too good. Suppose they should go ahead with this Super Tomcat 21. Or make a two engined F-35 for the NATF programme and i dont mean the F/A-22 Raptor, It would be well smaller than the F/A-22, about the size of the old Gloster Javelin maybe.

The Navy prefer two engines for thier fighters anyway. If this Tomcat 21 was going to proceed, It should have angled surfaces and thrust vectoring exhausts. I describe this as 'ATF it up'.

I know i keep saying this often but they should well go ahead with
this F-15N Sea Eagle or a 'Seagle' i mentioned in the other thread.

Would well be a good move but its all down to money and politics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 1-12-2005 by Browno]

Waynos, Why wasnt the F-4E used by the US Navy/Britain?

Im asking this becouse the US Navy F-4s were dogfighting the North Vietnamese Mig 21s and they needed guns for close quaters, I suppose they just stuck SUU23 Vulcan Gun pods underneath them but they were not permanent like the USAFs/NATO F-4E Phantoms which already have the Vulcans installed.

I suppose the UK and the USN didn't follow the thinking of the USAF, the UK had been using gunless fighters for a decade already (Sea Vixen and late mark Javelins) so the Phantom we ordered simply followed established practice, as for the USN I don't know? They were there fighting too so who knows? Maybe it has to do with the fact that these production versions (F-4D/J/K/M) were all signed off before the F-4E was developed as the F-4K was already entering service with the RN when the first F-4E flew.

For the UK at least the cost of replacing the noses of every Phantom ordered would have been prohibitive, also, in accomodating the gun the F-4E had to use a smaller radar and scanner (look at the nose diameters). Maybe this brought a penalty in interception performance that neither service was prepared to accept, after all I think, and this may be the main reason, the F-4 was used more in the A2G role by the USAF but was an air defence fighter in the RAF/RN and USN (although RAF Phantoms temporarily replaced the Canberra in the bomber role from 1970 until the Jaguar came into service allowing the RAF Phantoms to switch to air defence after 1976.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

It really is a shame that the USN and USAF can't seem to develope air craft together without problems. Granted, the F-35 will help bridge this gap, but the Navy still isn't a fan of this aircraft. It is a shame too, because I agree with the USN preference of 2 engine aircraft over single engine.

IMHO that should be a ground rule for all carrier-borne a/c.
Its just stupid to have a single engine a/c on carriers

The USN did use single engine fighters before, The old F-8 Crusaders,
A-7 Corsairs and Skyhawks

And before that, F-9 Panthers/Cougars, F-11 Tigers.

The F-35 would be bringing all this back, When did the twin engine regulation come in and why?

Originally posted by Browno


The F-35 would be bringing all this back, When did the twin engine regulation come in and why?

Don't think its a regulation browno , but a twin engined plane is thought to be safer , if one engine fails then the other provides enough power to continue to fly and land , especially useful over the ocean.