israeli Phantoms

[ElectroSoldier]

Hey guys.

I was looking at 2017 release 1:48 Italeri F-4E kit on scalemates.

F-4E Phantom II, Italeri 2770 (2017) (scalemates.com)

 

In the instructions it looks like there is a rather uninspiring USAF jet as per usual, however the Israeli markings did spark my interest.

 

The Phantom in Israeli service is not something Ive ever really considered before, How are they different to the standard F-4E if at all?
What kind of weapons load can they be given? I know the Israelis like to load them up with some rather different weapons to the USAF.

 

Any information on them would be appreciated as I know nothing about them at all.

[tempestfan]

Hmmm, just had a look around which tooling it is, their own (Testor's co-financed) or Esci. Cybermodeler claims the former, but positively states it has recessed detail. Which unless they retooled their own kit similar to what they did with some Supermodel kits, means it is the Esci. 

But that was not your question 🙂 I think the Esci kit is still a sound basis for a model. However, the Heyl Ha'Avir F-4s developed considerably over their VERY long life, both with "standard" upgrades as well as with Israeli-specific stuff. I can recommend the two-volume book set by AirDoc/Double Ugly, but that will probably be over the top for your purposes (and Vol. 1 may be hard to get/pricey). As this is a "hard wing" kit, you are somewhat limited to early E's, but this also means that it will be quite close to one of the early deliveries, which the decals depict. IIRC they were mostly used for strike missions, so the purely air to air armament may be not fully appropriate. One pic to hand shows 183 with apparently 6*Mk 82 high speed on the centreline pylon and 3*M117 on each of the inboards, another 172 with again 6*M117 on the wings and what I make out to be another five on the c/l (both Osprey Aces #60).

[CT7567]

In early service, Israeli F-4Es were for modeling purposes the same as their USAF contemporaries other than the unique camouflage scheme.  Initially these were unslatted (in fact I've read that the famous IDF F-4E with the *giant* sharkmouth was a test airframe for slatted wings), and ordnance loads would have been similar to USAF inventory at the time.

 

Slats were introduced more or less contemporaneously in Israeli service as the USAF adoption, with a similar mix of retrofits and new-builds.  The first fleetwide airframe change unique to Israel introduced (after the 1973 war, not sure of precise timeframe) was a fixed in-flight refueling probe, angled to starboard with external plumbing back to the dorsal boom receptacle (Spanish RF-4Cs were the only other Phantoms I'm aware of that used this configuration).

 

Circa late '90s the Israelis developed an indigenous upgrade program known as Kurnass (Sledghammer, the IDF name for the Phantom) 2000.  This was originally planned to include all-new engines but ultimately was limited to primarily electronics, new RWR antennae at various points around the airframe being the only notable difference outside the cockpit.  The later Terminator upgrade program adopted by Turkey built on this with additional improvements.

 

Over time in service the Israeli Phantoms carried a wide array of indigenous weaponry (in addition to the Rhino's already vast range of ordnance options).  Some notable armament unique to Israel include Sharfrir and Python IR AAMs (local alternatives to Sidewinder), Popeye AGMs (later adopted by USAF for use on B-52s!), and in test application Gabriel antiship missiles.

[Des]

For a (short-lived) IDF colour/marking scheme on a standard USAF F-4E of the day such was the rush to boost the Israeli Phantom fleet during the October 1973 War that some aircraft were transferred directly from USAF stocks and operated in USAF SEA camouflage with Israeli national markings , there are photos in several references.

[spruecutter96]

IIRC, some of the Israeli F-4's carried the very obvious optical-sighting fairing in the leading-edge of the port wing (sorry, I can't remember what it was called...). It looks like a tube with a large, glass window at the front. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris. 

[Moggy]

33 minutes ago, spruecutter96 said:

IIRC, some of the Israeli F-4's carried the very obvious optical-sighting fairing in the leading-edge of the port wing (sorry, I can't remember what it was called...). It looks like a tube with a large, glass window at the front. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris. 

TISEO  😉

 

Cheers, Moggy

[alt-92]

3 hours ago, tempestfan said:

I think the Esci kit is still a sound basis for a model.

You may have to check the transition between front & rear fuselage.

The current boxing has the fuse halves as one piece, and it's pretty obvious those used to be separate as the join on mine is slightly off. 
Sanding & some filler will smooth that out.

[CT7567]

1 hour ago, Moggy said:

TISEO  😉

 

Cheers, Moggy

For Target Identification System, Electro-Optical

 

Port inboard leading edge, for those that had it.

[tempestfan]

1 hour ago, alt-92 said:

You may have to check the transition between front & rear fuselage.

The current boxing has the fuse halves as one piece, and it's pretty obvious those used to be separate as the join on mine is slightly off. 
Sanding & some filler will smooth that out.

I ***think*** the fuselage was always one piece on the dedicated "short" and "long" fuselage sprues, but there may be a "seam" between the common (between short and long kits) rear and front section where the master may not have joined perfectly. Not quite the same but similar to the old Revell Catalina where you can see ghosted u/c wells on the Boat versions.

[Finn]

Here is one during the Yom Kipper war, M-117 bombs, AIM-9, ECMpod:

 

 

edit: Here is one of the replacement USAF F-4Es, still in regular camo but Israeli markings:

 

 

Jari

Edited July 27, 2022 by Finn

[ElectroSoldier]

So a "hard wing" or early F-4E has no leading edge slats on the inner portion of the wing?

[Steve McArthur]

19 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:

So a "hard wing" or early F-4E has no leading edge slats on the inner portion of the wing?

The "hard wing" F-4E has leading edge flaps like every earlier variant of the Phantom.  All early Phantoms (B,C,D) had the flaps all the way to the wing root, but the inner section was changed to fixed on with the introduction of the the leading edge slat on the tail (F-4J, F-4E and retrofitted to F-4B&N).  The photo below is from Vietnam shows the flaps deployed for landing.  I don't remember exactly when slats were introduced, but it was in the early '70s. Really, you need to go read a history of the Phantom, it's long and complicated. This will get you started http://www.airvectors.net/avf4.html Google will answer most of your questions.

 

[exdraken]

Generally,  as was said  before, Israeli Phantoms were quite standard E models, of various subtypes, apart from camouflage  with some exeptions.

 

Weapons wise at least in the first 10-15 years of service standard US weapons were used. And mostly as fighter bombers due to their huge bomb load and anyways hardly any use of the Sparrow  missiles back then ( identification if friend or foe, coupled with poor kill ratio, the same was true for Vietnam)

Keep in mind that already in the early 1980ies, F-15s and F-16s ruled the sky in the region! ( Beka Valley, Osirak, etc.. !)

 

 

[ElectroSoldier]

There are a few articles in Janes, Ive got the WAPJ book about it too Ive just never taken the time to read them. Apart from the jets that were based in the UK before the F-111 Ive never really been interested in finding out a whole hell of a lot about them.

 

 

[dov]

Hallo

 

All Israeli F-4 are not a F-4 standard from factory.

All Israeli aircraft changed and change their outfit and internal life swiftly.

If you may rely on any picture, just with date.

One day or one year afterward this a/c look very different,

Beside this, there are some areas which never change.

Some stuff all aircraft have.

The F-4 in Israeli service is like Pandora's box.

Really, I am quite firm on this subject in real and modelling.

There exists lot of books.

No book can cover all differences.

All of them have the refuling probe.

Spefific questions I can answer. Number of a/c required.

 

Happy modelling

[tempestfan]

20 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

So a "hard wing" or early F-4E has no leading edge slats on the inner portion of the wing?

There is a difference between "flaps" and "slats". I am not an aerodynamicist, but IIRC the flaps were for low speed lift improvement (e.g. on t/o and landing), while the slats are to help high speed manoeuvers by keeping the airflow close to the upper wing surface, in particular during tight turns. The slats were a fallout of the F-15 programme and not adopted on it, but introduced first on the F and then on middle to late block E's. 1972/3 or thereabouts. Both the flaps and the slats are on the inner and outer wing section as applicable - but only slats with slats and flaps with flaps, if that makes sense. Slat wing Phantoms have three fairings close to the lower inner wing leading edge each side for the actuators, but they are usually only visible from certain angles and/or relatively close up. Here is a very clear pic of the slats, and of the stabilator slot.

[dov]

The matter slats:

Many wings were modified in later years, and their slats were called maneuvering slats.

They are than fixed ones.

For dogfight.

All wings had lots of modification.

Any discussion must start at the point of delivery.

There were 5 or more different deliveries.

Aircraft were also different in version or sub-version within the E.

Happy modelling

[Moggy]

Slats have existed for far longer than the F-15 program.

Bf 109 had slats; they improve (lower) landing speeds.

 

Another example of slats is the A-4 (an aircraft of the '50:s)

 

 

[Steve McArthur]

32 minutes ago, Moggy said:

Slats have existed for far longer than the F-15 program.

Bf 109 had slats; they improve (lower) landing speeds.

 

Another example of slats is the A-4 (an aircraft of the '50:s)

I think the point was that the idea of adding slats to the F-4 were a fallout of the F-15 design studies at McDonnell-Douglas. Slats had been around since around the end of WWI. The F-15 was designed to out maneuver anything then flying or expected to be fielded in the near future and slats had been evaluated as part of this.  So the MDD engineers looked at the work they did on the F-15 and called the USAF and said, "Hey, this older plane that's still in production, but outmatched in dogfights can be more maneuverable if we add slats". 

[exdraken]

4 hours ago, Steve McArthur said:

So the MDD engineers looked at the work they did on the F-15 and called the USAF and said, "Hey, this older plane that's still in production, but outmatched in dogfights can be more maneuverable if we add slats". 

Nice plausibel story!

But I assume as everything good also has its bad, the slats would eat into top speed, no?

At least a sacred cow earlier in aircraft design!

the F-15's wing is anyway the most simple design possible it seems ....Hinged flaps and rudders, that's it!

[Steve McArthur]

@exdraken I read on another site that the F-15 it didn't need slats because the wing loading is very low for a jet fighter and thrust to weight is high, both of which contribute to maneuverability. Slats actually hurt the Eagle at one of it's design points which was a sustained turn rate at altitude. This is would be caused by the deployed drag. The increased drag makes a sustained maneuvering fight a problem because you are bleeding more energy than the clean wing that gives you the same lift.

 

The Phantom has relatively high wing loading and not so great thrust to weight ratio, it's a brick. Slats don't really add drag unless deployed and you really only need them at high angle of attack. At top speed (low angle of attack) they would be retracted and have negligible drag penalty if integrated into the design from the beginning like the Skyhawk. On the Phantom I have read they did affect top speed since there are fairings associated with them and the outboard sections aren't fully streamlined into the wing, but it must have been considered an acceptable trade off.  I don't think you could maintain a sustained turning fight with them deployed, but maybe they give you a brief boost in maneuverability before you've bleed off your speed and you need to disengage. 

 

On the Skyhawk I would guess they were added to the design to reduce carrier approach speed as maneuverability isn't usually a top priority for attack planes.  Also on carrier approach added drag from deployed slats would not be much of an issue.  You probably want a little extra drag so you can keep the engine RPM up.

[tempestfan]

15 hours ago, Steve McArthur said:

I think the point was that the idea of adding slats to the F-4 were a fallout of the F-15 design studies at McDonnell-Douglas. 

Exactly 🙂 

[Lusitanian]

Hello from Portugal, my friends!  This is my first post here, but I have been following this forum for a long time.  The amazing F-4 Phantom is a lifetime passion for me.  It is often highly confusing with a lot of different versions.

 

Initially F-4E’s were built with the so-called ‘hard wing’ before the maneuvering slats were developed in the early 70s decade.  Those F-4E’s were always found without the ‘TISEO’ fitment of the left wing.  Even when this early aircraft were upgraded with slats they did not see ‘TISEO’ fitted.  When ‘McAir’ introduced the maneuvering slats into the production line in 1972 the ‘TISEO’ was a part of the new specification.

 

So, if you view a photo of an F-4E with ‘TISEO’ it must always also have slats. But if you see an F-4E with slats but lacking ‘TISEO’, it had the slats as an addition during overhaul in the early 70s decade.  

 

A final note: the F-4G ‘Wild Weasel’ Phantoms were all manufactured from 1969 serial numbers F-4E aircraft.  All the ‘G’ had maneuvering slats, but because these were produced in the factory without slats, they did not have ‘TISEO’ outfitted.  

 

Phantoms are always interesting and fun!

[Hook]

TISEO was not added to the G because it was not needed for the Weasel role, being used for long range visual ID of aircraft.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Duncan B]

1 hour ago, Hook said:

TISEO was not added to the G because it was not needed for the Weasel role, being used for long range visual ID of aircraft.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

I think the point being made is that the F-4G didn't have the TISEO because they were originally hard wing F-4Es therefore did not get the optics when the wing was modified (while they were still E's).

 

Duncan B