McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Drawings part 1

Introduction
My next drawings project is F-4 Phantom II series. Because, when I started this project, it was announced that 1/72 British Phantom would be released from Airfix. And I feel that every existing kits have some incorrect points as for their outline shape. I was worried whether airfix was correct or not at that time. So, I tried to clarify the exact outline of the actual aircraft based on McDonnell's factory drawings and also based on the transition of each subtype, that is, where is changed and where is not changed. The answer (is Airfix correct?) will be mentioned later.

Basic references
The basic material to be used is factory drawings made by McDonnell Douglas from "Aviation Archives". The basic dimensions are from the general arrangements of sheet number 32-00005, and the cross-sectional shape is B/C/D/J model fuselage diagram (side, plane, cross section are drawn in one sheet). In addition, official manuals such as F-4A, F-4B & RF-4B-Structural Repair Instruction Manual are also important. The web site of "Tailhook Topics" by Mr. Tommy Thomason is also highly informative. Of cause, photographs of actual aircraft are important.

Photos
There are thousands of photos of Phantom, but there are only a few photos which can be used for side/top/front view drawings. In the side view of the short nose model, there is only one photo in my archive, that is sharp, right beside and long distance.

This is F-4C from Airliner's Net. When calculated from the view of the tail and wheels, the distance is 150m (160yd) or more, just beside the cockpit, and the error of perspective is small.

Mystery of dimensions
The basic dimensions are described in the McDonnell's general arrangement drawings. However, there are different values in these drawings. The short nose model has two nose tip point station numbers, FS-27.0 and -27.1. The fuel discharge vents at the tail end differ between drawings B, E, and RF; FS671.28, 671.75, and 671.98. The rear end of the fuselage is also two values of 664.0 and 664.4.

The fuselage height can be read as WL75.5 from the A model general arrangement. As for the height of the wing position, the height of LEMAC is WL8.59 in the general arrangement. The inner wing dihedral is 0БЛ, so LEMAC should be on the wing ref. line, but it does not match the wing position of the fuselage side view factory drawing. Also the fuselage cross-section outlines are slightly different from each other in each drawing. What do I do?
F-4C Fuselage side view and cross section drawings
I made effort of trial and error to solve the mystery above. The results are shown below.

The tip of the radome is considered to have a variation due to the production method of FRP. In my drawing, the tip is -27.1.
As for the fuselage height, WL75.50 seems to be correct from the consistency with photos. The canopy top is WL78.04.
For the fuel vent rear end position, I use the middle one with three values. The rear end of the fuselage is probably 644.0 in the initial model. In any case, it is an error in model production.
The FS values of the vertical fin are calculated from the general arrangement drawings. It matches well with photos.
The wing position follows the fuselage side view factory drawing. Then the wing lowest point at the center of the fuselage becomes WL0.0. I guess that the LEMAC is not on the wing reference plane, but the actual height of the wing leading edge that droops slightly.
The fuselage width at the wing connect line after the landing gear well is BL 47.5, which is described in the wing frame drawing in the manual. This width is constant up to the rear end of the wing. Be care that the fuselage cross section bulges out slightly above the wing and the fuselage maximum width is a little wider than BL47.5.
The inner end of the engine intake is BL29.8. This can be read from the RF nose contour drawings. The wall surface of this inner end is vertical and parallel to the machine axis, so it has the same value no matter where it is measured. However, the intake vane is mounted slightly narrowing forward.
The radome is a rotating body except for just before the rear end, and its axis is -6.4БЛ. The rear end of the radome is FS46.68. It is a problem where it is measured since it is diagonal. I guess it is on the reference line (WL 0.0), it matches the photos.
The thrust line of the J79 engine is 5.25БЛ below and 0.25БЛ beside. The height is not described. The total length described in the manual is not along the reference line, but in a parked position (static length), the difference is about only 6mm.
The wing airfoil is NACA 0006.-64 MOD (fuselage center), NACA 0004.0-64 MOD(inner wing outer end :BL160). The thickness ratio at fuselage end (BL47.5) is 5.8% and the maximum thickness in 1/48 is 7.2mm (0.28" at 40% code, excluding wheel bulges). The outer wing tip is NACA 0003.0-64 MOD. Inner wing dihedral is 0.0 БЛ, incidence is +1.0БЛ, no wash out.
In the general arrangement, the vertical fin baseline is at WL 66.50. The distance from the wing MAC to the vertical fin MAC is 244.44". The calculation is troublesome, the result is that the virtual fin at the reference line is FS452.91. The chord at the fin reference line is 207.2". The 25% chord sweepback angle is 58.3БЛ. The leading edge sweepback angle is 65.0БЛ calculated by ATAN using the coordinate value of the front upper end.
The airfoil of the fin is NACA 0004.0-64 (at the reference plane ), NACA 0002.5-64(tip). Although there is a description of MOD in the factory drawing, but of course it is a pure symmetrical airfoil. Since the fin thickness ratio is root 4.0%, tip 2.5%, the actual maximum fin thickness (1/48) is calculated to be 3.9mm (0.15") at the upper end of the fuselage and 0.6mm (0.02") at the upper end of the fin at 40% chord. Ladder hinges are at 80% chord and the rear end of the panel is slightly ahead of it. The upper end of the rudder is WL132.0 and the lower end is 72.0.

In my drawing, it is important how to superimpose the photo and factory drawings. That is the picture below.

The gap between my drawing and photo near the jet nozzle is the result of removing the perspective error. The deviation width can be estimated from the appearance of the left and right stabilators.

This is the cross-sectional contour view. Of course, this figure is based on factory drawings. Each color is match to my side/cross view drawings. The light blue area indicates the shape of the intake lip viewing from the front. Pay attention to the width of the aft fuselage upper part, the height of the shoulders, the fuselage width at the wing connection line, the width of the rear canopy, etc.

F-4C fuselage side view
Next drawings are F-4C fuselage side view. The locations of fuselage FS described in the A/B model manual are shown below the starboard fuselage. The access panels are referred with the C/D model SRI manual. Panel lines are determined by many photos of the actual existing aircraft. Be careful the panel line of C model is different from B and J model.

FS numbers are shown in the attached table. The diagonal station of the intake seems to be based on the horizontal panel line position at the center of the intake side. There are two CFS 167.60, because there are actually two, not a mistake. Among them, the front frame is not only oblique as seen from the side, but is also inclined with an advancing angle in plan view. The roots of the two frames overlap.
There are some existing drawings that show the drooping horizontal panel line on this intake, but it is incorrect. It looks like drooping when viewed from diagonally below, so they probably misunderstood it.
Stabilator is shown as the cross section of the fuselage side. The stabilator incidence angle is 0БЛ in this drawing, but cross section is front down. The reason is that there is the dihedral angle and the fuselage side spreads forward. Be careful that some existing drawings misunderstand this fact.
As for the semicircular panel at the base of the stabilator, the radius on the front side is larger. Some kits' (for example hasegawa) stabilator rotates around a pin on the side of the stabilator, but the actual aircraft is different as you know. The upper end of the semicircle is horizontal when the stabilator incidence is 0БЛ (probably, some existing kits are somewhat suspicious.).

Difference of windscreen
I had thought that the windscreen is the same for all models, but the short nose model and the long nose are different. Well, to be precise, the glass parts are basically the same, but the outlines of the fuselage are different, so the boundary lines are different. See following photos.

This is the short nose model. Note the opaque area (red arrow) at the bottom of the windscreen side glass. And the lower end of the front flat portion is narrow.

Long nose is here. The border between the opaque and transparent areas on the left photo of the short nose becomes the fuselage boundary line of the long nose (blue arrow). The lower end of the flat portion is wide.

This is the short nose. The difference can also be seen by counting the number of screws on the windscreen frame.

This is the long nose. The fuselage top bulges upward.

In addition, there is no opaque part as for the short nose of B/C/J models in the 1960s and the early British model but all transparent glass. The reason for this seems to be that it was initially transparent to the bottom line , and when the long nose model appeared, it was unified to with opaque glass. This is corroborated by the presence of an aircraft with and without opaque parts on the left and right. The window in the early model would have been replaced at the repair.

See the following figure. Apparently, the axes of the nose cones at the tip are the same, and the long nose fuselage is not dented at the front of the windscreen.

I did not notice it until I made drawings. It is a shocking fact on my own. I'm afraid existing kits do not distinguish.
F-4C top view drawings
This drawing is based on the factory drawings and manuals as well. In addition, it is superimposed on the actual aircraft photos, and the consistency with the cross-sectional views and side views is checked to make sure. So I think that the basic outline is accurate. Unlike the existing drawings (or kits), the fuselage and canopy width near the rear cockpit is wide in my drawings, and the aft fuselage side line (from the center of the wing chord to the wing rear end) is straight.

At first, the reference lines and coordinates of the wing in the factory drawings and manuals are described in my drawings as much as possible. Then I carefully determined the location of each panel line by these ref lines and coodinates. Note that panel lines do not necessarily coincide with the ref. lines.

These reference lines are also complicated because there are various coordinate axes. Here, I describe each axis. FS (fuselage station) is a fuselage reference line. BL (buttock line) is orthogonal to FS and horizontal. OWS is orthogonal to FS and along the outer wing reference plane (12.0БЛ dihedral), and the origin is BL160.0. OWCS is orthogonal to the outer wing main spar (41.68% chord) and is along the outer wing reference plane. However, each numerical value is measured in FS orthogonal direction. SS is FS orthogonal along the stabilizer reference plane (23.25 БЛdihedral). Furthermore, XN is the origin of the fuselage center along the inner wing front flap hinge line (details described later). XF is along the outer wing front flap hinge line (same) with the origin BL 160.0. The WL (water line) axis is perpendicular to the ground (should it be called water surface ?).

The basic drawing is made as a so-called "plan view", that is, drawn as viewed from directly above (note that panel and rivet lines are drawn as vertical projection on the wing reference plane). The outer wing and the stabilator flat layout along the reference plane are shown as well.
The fuselage overhangs over the wing. The port side shows the fuselage outer side line, and the starboard side shows the boundary line (red line) with the wing. The canopy indicates the canopy outer line.
The hinge line (XN) of the inner wing front flap is parallel to the front spar (14.5% chord), and XN is 11.25% at BL 160.0.
Although 40.48% of the main spar is not explicit in manuals, it is probable because it is described in the outer plate of the manual 282 pages.
Upper stringers of the outer wing are 12.0, 21.4 28.8, 35.5, 41.6, 47.8, 53.9, 59.9, 70.6% chord. The stringers of inner wing between the front spar and the main spar are 22.75, 29.70, 35.60%. Stabilator spars are 20.0,33.5,45.0. These are described in the F4H-1 manual.
The percentage of chords of the outer wing is described as a percentage for the inner wing, with the outer wing leading edge at -10% and the flap hinge at 3.2%.
The air refueling door on the top fuselage is asymmetrical.
Each panel line of the fuselage is aligned with the side view and the cross section. You can see the stringer line from the engine intake through the outer edge of the ram air turbine door, the upper side of the jet nozzle to the tail edge (compare with the side view).

F-4C bottom view drawings
Wing airfoils are described here. There are outer wing and the stabilator airfoils in the factory drawings. So I traced them. There are coordinates of representative cross sections for the inner wing front flap in the manual. So they were input to Excel sheet to draw figures, then I traced them. They are also consistent with photos of actual aircraft. The fuselage center airfoil is traced from the E model wing airfoil in sheet 53-1349.

The airfoil shape on the lower surface between the front spar and the main spar appears below the fuselage. There is the edge at the center line.
The front spar in the lower part of the fuselage is FS250.60, which is slightly different from the FS of the fuselage frame.
The dividing lines of both ends of each front flap are different at the top and bottom. They are cut in such a way that they do not interfere with each other when rotating around the piano hinges on the lower surface of the wing.
Dividing lines between the trailing edge flap and the ailerons are straight at the lower surface and curved near the hinge at the upper surface. This is also to avoid interference with each other.
The fuselage maximum width (BL53.6) of the engine intake part is not shown as a numerical value but is described in the cross section drawings. I also checked on photos of actual aircraft.

F-4C front view drawings

The aircraft front and rear view are seen along the fuselage reference line. The wing front view drawn between the front and rear view is seen along the wing reference plane (+1БЛ from the fuselage reference line). In the aircraft front view, there is a difference between the angles of the upper and lower wing surface line, but in the wing front view, the angles are the same and symmetrical about the wing reference plane.
The leading edge of the wing is indicated by thin red lines. It becomes discontinuous in the inner and outer wings. The border line of the front flap is one of the key points of this figure, so the position and shape are drawn carefully. Note that it is not a vertical straight line.
The fuselage panel lines are drawn by the cross sectional view as a base. Some panel lines are omitted to avoid the complexity of the drawing. In the case of drawings, there is no perspective, so the width of the rear canopy can be felt quite wide.
The landing gears are drawn based on the photo from the front, matching the height with the side view. The main wheels are quite thick.
The inner and outer pylons, the center and wing drop tanks are traces of the B model armaments factory drawings (53-1217). The scale is adjusted to the fuselage in the figure. Sideview shapes of the outer tank and the USAF type inner pylon are corrected with the actual aircraft photos.
The USAF type outer armed pylon is mounted 7.5БЛ outside. This is considered to be due to interference with the landing gear when the MER equipps bombs. The US Navy, UK (and Luftwaffe, JASDF?) are vertical. I think J and UK also interfere with the gear, but why pylon is vertical? Is this the difference in the thought about operation? The outer fuel tank is vertical through all models.
The sidewinder launcher and the outer fuel tank are down about 1.9БЛ to the fuselage reference line in the factory drawing (that is, 2.9БЛ to the wing reference line). The center tank had a larger angle, and it was 2.9 БЛ to the fuselage reference line in that figure.
The outer wing leading edge is slightly bent as "V" shape around the inner 1/3 point. I express it in my drawings, but it can not be seen is this size. The flap rear end line is straight.

Phantom FG.1 side view and cross section drawings
Let's go to the main dish - British phantom FG.1/FGR.2. The highlight is the fuselage outline widened by the conversion to the R & R Spey engine, and "where" and "how much" is changed. The fuselage cross-section shape is based on the McDonnell's drawing 32-1123, and the cross section planes are the same as the F-4C drawings.

The nose is almost the same as F-4J. The height of the air intake is the same as J79 model, but the "shoulder" of the fuselage is enlarged to upward and sideward. I guess that the widening of the fuselage at the intake section is about 3.4 inches by an analysis of the factory drawings. Various documents say 3 inches. Well, I think it is rounding off.
As for the opening of the intake, the outer tip position is set back by about 75mm = 3 inches (1.5mm = 0.06" in 1/48 scale). The forward angle seen from above is the same. Therefore, the inner end of the opening (the intake vane rear end position) is further retracted. The leading edge position of the vanes does not changed, and as the result, the rear end of the vane is widened. The details such as the pattern of the small holes are also different.
The thrust line of the Spey engine is 5.75БЛ below and 0.55БЛ outside. The rear fuselage near the jet nozzle swells downward and outward. According to the "Tailhook Topics", the actual value of the diameter of the nozzle shroud rear end is 38.5". It is a strong narrowing, but there are also photos that look like this.
The basic structure and shape of the wing are the same as J79 model. In the side view, it appears that the wing chord has become shorter due to the intake widening. Trailing edge flap is the same as J79 model. The aft fuselage is widened to almost the flap inner end. Because the widening is limited here, the amount of widening of the aft fuselage is less than the intake area.

See the overlapping drawings below. The difference between the C model can be clearly understood. As for the fuselage rearward the nozzle, the shape of the upper half does not change, and only the lower unpainted metal part bulges downward. This is also unchanged after FS 555. Slits above the nozzle are the same position as the J79 model in the side view and plan view.

Next, the cross-sectional contour view lining up with C model. It's interesting to capture them and watch in a slide show.

FG.1 fuselage side view drawings
British Phantom was developed based on the US Navy F-4J. Therefore, the details have much in common with the J model.

The ESM fairing (this is the passive radar warning receiver (RWR); according to Aeroguide) and the blade antenna (ILS localiser) were retrofitted to the FG.1 and FGR.2 in the mid 1970's.
Unlike J79 models, the taillight position without the ESM fairing is slightly lower. It is a mystery why it changed. If there is the fairing, the light is moved to the rear end of the fuselage.
As for FG.1 only, the nose gear angle is inclined forward by 3БЛ with the extension of the gear leg, and the wheel center is moved to FS88.82. Main gear cover shape is the same as the US Navy model. The rear end shape is different from that of the USAF model to clear the long linkage rod.
Stabilator slat cross section is traced from LS32-0518 drawings. As for cross section, the slat was simply added to the leading edge of non-slat stabilator.
The blade antenna behind the canopy can be seen in the later few aircraft. The antenna on the nose gear cover is initially thin and diagonal, and later, it become wide. The front view periscope is added on the port side canopy between the front and rear cockpit (in addition, this part is called "doghouse"). This can not be seen in the early aircraft. There seems to be variations in the small square panels on the side of the aft fuselage.
Fasteners at the lower end of the fuselage top panels vary in density depending on the location, and are the densest near the FS300 (the upper part of the wing main spar). It is interesting to understand the structural design features.
The slits above the jet nozzle are different from J79 models. There are four slits in the J79 and five in the Spey. The position is the same for both types.

FG.1 top and bottom view drawings
The port on the top view shows the maximum width of the fuselage, and the starboard shows the boundary between the fuselage and the wing. In addition, the wing gear bulge section is added here. The C model and the Spey model have the same bulging shape, and only recognize the difference in panel lines due to the difference in the fuselage boundaries. So the wing plan view of the base is drawn as C model in this drawings.

Note that the visibility of the rear flap is different on the port and starboard in the top view. Since the fuselage of spay model is wide and overhanged, the flap inner end line can hardly be seen from directly above.
A circular arc indicated by a thin line in the upper surface wing bulge figure indicates the boundary of the bulge. It is not the panel line. Also, the blue thin line in the bulge figure is the wing surface when there is no bulge. These bulge diagram is from factory drawings sheet number 32-0488. The wing cross section is drawn as incident 0БЛ.
There are many variation of the reinforcing plate on the outer wing lower surface . The entire drawing shows the initial state. Examples of retrofit are shown in the supplementary drawing.
The blade antenna behind the front gear well can be seen only in the late few aircraft. The front gear door tri-color lights and catapult hook are only FG.1.

Let's overlap the top view with the C model. It can be seen that the fuselage width near the wing front to main spar is largely different. Some drawings and kits (for example Fujimi 1/72 FG.1) are incorrect. On the other hand, the difference is small near the rear flap. And when it comes near the nozzle, the difference increases again. As for the intake cone, it is reasonable to retreat by the amount of expansion, considering the shock cone generated from the vane leading edge.

Typcal mistake of the nose top view
The fuselage side near the cockpit is rounded and swelled sideward. Therefore, it is correct that the fuselage top view shape near the inner side of the intake duct is an S-shaped curve like the blue line in the lower image. However, there are drawings and kits that interpret this as being straight. If you try to fit this straight form forcibly, the fuselage side becomes flat and the width of the rear seat canopy becomes narrow. In addition, when the entire width of the intake duct portion and the front shape of the opening are matched to the actual aircraft, the leading edge of the duct is largely curved inward. The inner walls of the vanes and ducts was mistook as straight.

Correct top view. You may think that it is a lie, but let's look at the actual aircraft photos. Also note the difference in rear cockpit canopy.

Typical mistake. Some kits (Hasegawa etc.) and drawing (FAPOTW etc.) are like this.

Analysis of canopy shape
The canopy top view shape linearly spreads back from the windscreen, and bends near the front end of the rear cockpit canopy and then narrows rearward. I think that it is the spirit of the outline shape of Phantom. However, as mentioned above, there are misunderstanding in some existing drawings and many kits, except for Monogram (and of course newest Airfix). So I think Monogram is my personal best kit for J79 short nose model. Anyway, let's look at the pictures first.

First of all, the top is FGR.2. The width at the rear seat was compared with my drawings.

USAF C model. The camera is a bit close, and I think the spread is weak due to parspective, but the highlight reveals the bend near the front of the rear cocpit.

B model repainted in Blue Angels. The image is flipped horizontally. Pay attention to the S-curve (mention later) at the fuselage and canopy boundary and the parallel line of the windscreen side window.

Luftwaffe F model. It is taken from a very long distance, so it is close to the shape of the cross section drawings. Note the difference in width of the front and rear canopy frames, the roundness of the cockpit side, and the sense of volume.

USAF E model. Even if canopies are open, the difference of the size in cross section can be seen.

Luftwaffe F. As for the division line with the fuselage, one more curve appeared at the rear of the rear canopy (red arrow). Mmmm.. It's so complicated.

Let's check it against with the drawing. The lower left figure is the sectional view. The front end of the rear canopy is shown in pink. The lower right figure shows a circle that fits perfectly in the canopy inside. It spreads linearly and narrows linearly.

This three-dimensional model image is easy to understand if it is simplified and considered like the lower image. First of all, the basic shape is like two paper cups on the right side. An object on the left is bent so that the top line of the canopy can be curved as side view. If I chamfer the front window and draw lines of frame, it will be a very realistic atmosphere ...?

S-curve of the canopy
Continue talking about the canopy a little more. The boundary line between the fuselage and canopy makes a distinctive S-curve. The front cockpit is convex upward, and the rear is convex downward. Why is this? I have always been concerned about this, and let's think about this on the occasion of drawing making.

The front seat is convex upward, and the rear seat is convex downward (light blue line).

Seeing from this angle, go up, go down, go up, go down and go up again.

The curve convex above the front seat part can be explained if it thinks like a lower image. Assume a situation in which a tapered cylinder is cut vertically in a plane. When cut in the axial direction as in the left, the cutting line becomes straight. On the other hand, when cut diagonally to the axis, the cutting line is a convex curve (right).

As for the rear cockpit, the thin cylinder sinks diagonally into the thick cylinder (lower image). In this case, the roundness of the thin cylinder is excellent, and it becomes a downward convex curve.

Nose of A model
The windscreen of the early F-4A with the small nose radome (some A model has the same radome as the B model) is different in a several points. For example, the front glass is wide down to the bottom, and there is a reinforcing horizontal bar in the middle. Not only that, but also the boundary line of the fuselage is different. As the fuselage in front of the windscreen is thin, the boundary line also goes down. The leading edge position of windscreen is also slightly advanced. The basic shape of the glass may be the same as later models, and this area is very similar to the difference between short nose and long nose.

Fuselage rivet lines
Rivet lines on the center fuselage "shoulder" rearward the intake are staggered and discontinuous. See the image below for why it looks like this.

This picture shows from FS 300 to 350 on the port side. Like this, the frame itself is divided into two parts. But why is it such a design?

The access door in front of the jet nozzle (opened downward by the hinge) has the same rivet lines. This figure is the port side.

Difference of front inner flap
The front inner flap is movable for the F-4B/C/D and RF-4B/C and is fixed after the F-4J and E models. British Phantom is fixed as well. When the droop aileron was introduced at J model, this flap was fixed to ease the increased nose-down moment. B and RF-4B were retrofit with the droop aileron and fixed inner front flap. When this movable type and fixed type are compared, the internal rib arrangement (rivet lines) and the panel lines are different. All of the existing C/D models have movable types. The front inner flap of the Spey model is close to the fixed type with the cut off at the fuselage. E/EJ/J/S/RF-4E have fixed type and they can be confirmed by photos.

The existing C model.

The existing J model. Though it's hard to see, but pays attention to the crank-shaped panel lines and arrangement of fasteners on the wing.

The movable type flap from the manual of A/B model.

The fixed type. The arrangement of the ribs is different.

NEXT (F-4E & RF-4C drawings)

Wings Of Pegasus HOME