Phantom II F-4C and F-4D Differences

Modeling Subjects Aircraft
1

I asked Berny (aka Phormer Phantom Phixer) what the differences were between an F-4C and an F-4D. He gave me a very detailed response that I thought others could benefit from. So with his permission, here it is:

There were a lot of differences, internal and external. The F-4D had the APQ-109A RADAR set resulting in the front cockpit having a different shaped glare shield and a larger combining gun sight and mount. This was not a HUD as come call it, but was actually a combining reflective glass gun sight. Also on the front glare shield were different shaped RWR and ILS scopes. The FCP pedestal panel had added control boxes and switches.

Rear cockpit in the F-4D had a larger and higher instrument panel. On the right console was the addition of the bomb nav control panel. The F-4D used a bomb nav computer for better weapons delivery which the F-4C did not have. If you are building a “Smart D” capable of carrying smart bombs than the RCP will have a square RADAR scope, not the round one. “Smart D’s” had the APQ-109V RADAR set, so the scope was square and could produce an image like a TV. There was a circuit breaker panel added, just beside the WSO’s right leg, down low and forward on the right console.

The F-4D had a different ECM system and the signal processor housed in the Radome Chin Pod was much larger. That is why the F-4D had the hump on the Chin Pod and the F-4C didn’t. The RHAW antenna on the vertical fin was more rounded on the F-4D, not pointed like the F-4C.

The 1/72 and 1/48 scale Revell/Monogram and Hasagawa kits of the F-4C/D have the F-4C cockpits There are no AM cockpits to make an accurate F-4D. The Tamiya 1/32 F-4C/D has parts included to make a C or D model. That includes the correct glare shields, gun sight and mount, RCP instrument panel, vertical fin cap with correct RHAW antenna and proper chin pod. The RCP is for a “Dumb D”. There are AM cockpits for the F-4C and F-4D in 1/32 scale, but nothing for a “Smart D”. Black Box has a cockpit to make a LORAN equiped D model for the Tamiya kit but it has the round scope for a “Dumb D”.

2

there are/were a couple of other external details that helps tell them apart

on the noses,the C chin pod is shaped like the early B IR sensor,the 3 different D noses always looked different than that,the nose with no chin pod (looked not quite like a J), the nose that looked like the “middle production B nose”, then the late D nose called the herpes

on early C’s, you can also find the Naval style pylons,and the D’s came about when the USAF pylon shape was standardized on

if you are building a collection and really want the differences between the C and D to stand out on your shelf,build a very early C with Naval pylons, in SEA camo, operational with serial number only (no codes),and a LORAN late D,

3

No operational F-4 Phantom carried the IR sensor. The F-4A tested it but it never became operational on any version of the F-4. The chin pod was built into the F-4B with hopes of including the IR sensor but never came to be. The F-4C was designed to incorporate changes the USAF needed, such as engine cartridge start capibility, anti lock brakes, INS, and many others. The F-4C was basically a F-4B airframe with improvements the Air Force needed. The chin dome was common on all F-4C aircraft. The USAF operated Navy F-4B Phantoms as a test. They were stationed at McDill AFB, Florida. They were called the F-110. As the Air Force began receiving their F-4C’s they returned their F-110’s back to the Navy and were renamed F-4B’s.

When the Air Force went to MDD to design the F-4D, a lot of changes were added. One was to eliminate the chin dome as it wasn’t needed. As the war in SEA showed, some type of ECM was needed to warn crews of radar lock on, missile launch and danger. The chin pod was replaced back on the radome of the F-4D and was used to house the ALR-46 ECM. The ALR-46 had a larger processor so the hump was added to make room for it. The F-4C used a different type ECM with a smaller processor and fit into the nose dome without any modification.

The Herpes mod was added later with an improvement of the ALR-46. Only a few of the D’s were modified as funding ran out when the defence budget was slashed. By then the F-4D was leaving active USAF service and being replaced by the F-4E and F-16A/B. The Guard and Reserve was even giving them up in favor of newer more capable aircraft.

Having worked on the RF-4C, F-4C, F-4D, F-4E, and F-4G in the USAF, I would have to say the F-4D was the most capable of any Phantom operated by the USAF. It was faster than all versions other that the RF-4B/C, but only by a slight margin. It was the best at ground attack and shot down more enemy aircraft in the SEA war than any other aircraft. The F-4E was the only version of the Phantom to have a gun, but by stretching the fuselage and adding the gun and another fuel cell, it couldn’t compete with the F-4D in air to air. When the leading edge slats were added to the F-4E, that cut its top speed even more. It could turn tighter and maintain speed but still couldn’t match the F-4D.

4

I was merely using the “early F-4B chin pod” for describing the appearance,since there were 4 nose appearances in total for the C/D’s (all with wide wheels and thick wings), and 3 noses for the B’s (only 2 of which ever get mentioned)

I was leaving the thin wing loaner F-4B / F-110 out of it, since most people consider those as “ringers” when building a model,especially when the F-110 pictures are used to “disprove” the Naval pylons on the early F-4C’s,serial numbers and bureau numbers “tell the tale” though

the last time I was told that F-4C’s didn’t have Naval pylons in the early days, I was looking at 17 pics in 5 books while I read “the truth” on a message board

5

Late F-4Cs as well as early F-4Ds did not have the chin pod. I have photos of F-4Cs from the 81st TFW in gull grey/white w/o the chin pods and if you examine the well known photo of 433rd TFS, 8th TFW F-4C 37683 with the FG tail code, it also lacks the chin pod. Early F-4Ds also had the four RHAW antennas behind the nose radome. It was possibly part of the APR-25/26 system, which also had antennas in the chin pod and tail. If you examine photos of F-4Ds from the 67-70 time period, you can spot the four antennas. This system was apparently never made to work satisfactorily, and it was removed. The antennas are in the same location and similar in shape to the four on the F-105F WW aircraft.

Best wishes,

Grant

6

thanks for the FG-683 ref Grant

I must have just went along with Drendel’s caption back in the day,he had it labeled as an early F-4D

I had been looking for an F-4C pic without the chin pod for my variants collection,turns out I’ve had it since '77 and didn’t know it (I had read about them a few times, but didn’t think I’d ever seen a pic of one)

cool thing about that jet,it’s chin podless, with Naval pylons, in camo (1500 people will say none of the 3 items existed in combo

thanks

Rex

7

Thank you, Rex. Glad to help.

Best wishes,

Grant

8

How about these? Early F-4Cs (WW) assigned to PACAF were distributed between the three squadrons of the 347th TFW at Yokota AB, before they were consolidated into the 67th TFS at Kadena. I believe that initially they were flown as straight F-4Cs as the installed equipment took time to be made to work. GG, GL and GR tail codes used. The 1st TS out of Clark flew F-4Cs with the PA tail code, although one was noted with DS. One F-4E, 36th TFS, 51st CW, was flown with F-4 air sampling pods. 67-0306, OS tail code.

555th TFS, 432nd TRW, 66-7766, ‘OY’ F-4D-31-MC, Inner rear part of nose gear door, 'Connie Lingus," in black.

Best wishes,

Grant

9

The F-4C did use the Navy style pylons, inboard and outboard, until they converted to the newer style. If you look close at the Navy style inboard pylon you will see it is actually a “Zero Launch” AIM-7 launcher. In order to carrry anything other than an AIM-7 required a pylon adapter. The adapter allowed TER’s, Sidewinder launchers and other ordinance to be carried. Everything had to be mounted on the adapter. TER’s could not be jettisoned without jettisoning the adapter. The bad thing there is if it is carrying Sidewinders, you would also jettison them.

The USAF style inboard pylons had a MAU-12 bomb rack built into the pylon. It isn’t as streamlined, is much heaver, but it will carry a heaver load. The Sidewinder launchers are mounted to the pylon allowing direct connection of anything to the bomb rack, without an adapter.

Early F-4C and D’s also used the Navy style AIM-9 launchers. Many can be seen loaded on the F-4 in the early war time in SEA. By 1968 most had converted to the newer style USAF launcher. The old Navy style were used for many years by the Guard and Reserve units into the 1980’s.

The RF-4C continued to use the Navy style inboard pylon through out its service. It carried only an ECM pod or travel pod on that station so a bombrack wasn’t needed.

10

My RF-4C in Vietnam was painted in SEA camo, but had a replacement white radome. It also had a white rudder and Gull Gray vertical fin cap. It suffered a near miss from a SAM and the rudder and fin cap was damaged, as well as several holes in the vertical and horz stab. It was left unpained because there wasn’t time to send it to the paint barn. On the first mission after the repair, it was shot down over Haiphong with the loss of both crew members.

11

cool aircraft Berny, the model too

I mentioned the Navy pylons because I was on a hunt for info concerning the LAU-17’s on USAF,I was specifically asking about mounting Sparrows

the resounding noooo’s in many posts went on and on until a guy posted a photocopy of the F-4C TO,clearly shows Sparrow as an accepted load,maybe none were ever carried in Vietnam,but, they could have been if they were wanted

it’s always good to get another confirmation of an idea on this different forum

I’m typing up a “version list” for the group build, with mainstream types,and “ringers” all listed,it will also list all the variations possible in any basic “mark” of Phantom,6 different F-4B’s possible, 3 different N’s,etc. all the version lists I’ve seen on the internet don’t seem to go very far in showing the varieties that we run into

feel free to add to that with any ideas you have when you see it

I’d make it an illustrated guide,but, I’m wondering if using scrap views of existing pics is okay as far as copyright goes,if it’s going to be okay,I can pop up pics of all the different noses, tails, burner cans, stabs, etc,if pics won’t be okay,it’s going to take a little longer,but, I can do it all with the parts from Hasegawa kits,I have at least one of each molded parts sprue

I have to say, to a Naval F-4 fan,it’s interesting to cross over to the Air Force side of things to add some color variety to the shelves

of course as far as the Sarge goes, all she sees is a newly finished model, the details don’t matter to her

Rex

12

Bernie,

I know that the USAF RF-4Cs did not have the Sparrow wells on the bottom of the fuselage, but could they or did they ever carry Sidewinders on the inner pylons?

Thanks,

Darwin, O.F. [aln]

13

The last unit to operate the RF-4C was the 106 RS in Alabama. They so called modified several aircraft to carry the Sidewinder. One source said six were modified, another says eight. One source said they were for show only and couldn’t be fired. I have seen pictures of their aircraft loaded with the AIM-9 but I can’t tell you if they were actually operational. It would require wiring to be run to the pylon, stick modification, relays, and some type of launch generators. There is more to launch an AIM-9 than point and shoot.

14

Thanks for the quick response. I was considering adding Sidewinders to my next RF-4C, but now I will definately leave them off.

Darwin, O.F. [aln]