Read the forum code of contact
By: - 27th November 2010 at 06:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
safety, twin engine reliability, bigger payload, more diverse mission profile?
how about F-8 vs MiG-21BIS?
By: - 27th November 2010 at 09:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.......
how about F-8 vs MiG-21BIS?
If something is to compare it has to be from the same time-scale with the related weaponary or main combat time at least, in that case 1965-1972. ;)
By: - 27th November 2010 at 12:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What did the F-4 have over the F-104 that made it a better ac. After all they both had the J-79 engine(s). One had a gun, stubby thin wings and a T tail, while the other had no gun, bent wings and a tail that looked like it was falling off. Other than the second seat and maybe some updated electronics, why was one a much better plane then the other.dave
Better for what?
By: - 27th November 2010 at 13:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Range.
By: - 27th November 2010 at 13:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Range.
OK...under what conditions?
By: - 27th November 2010 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
safety, twin engine reliability, bigger payload, more diverse mission profile?how about F-8 vs MiG-21BIS?
I think the problem when comparing aircraft like this is failing to see them in their wider context. In a WarPac vs NATO conflict they would be unlikely to see any 1v1 combat, they would be acting as part of huge national and international air defense systems.
Some of the Soviet equipment was, one on one, less technically capable than it's NATO counterparts. But failing to see it was part of the wider Soviet war machine and you miss the point straight from the off.
Sorry if that sounded like a rant, it's a subject close to my heart ;):D
By: - 27th November 2010 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the problem when comparing aircraft like this is failing to see them in their wider context. In a WarPac vs NATO conflict they would be unlikely to see any 1v1 combat, they would be acting as part of huge national and international air defense systems.Some of the Soviet equipment was, one on one, less technically capable than it's NATO counterparts. But failing to see it was part of the wider Soviet war machine and you miss the point straight from the off.
Sorry if that sounded like a rant, it's a subject close to my heart ;):D
you my friend, are right. Although what brought that question up was when looking at the F-8 wins/losses over Vietnam. 3 victories over the MiG-21, while out of the 11 or so losses of F-8.. I think 2 of them were to MiG-21s (majority to MiG-17). In this context of a non-European theater, the other related s ystems may play a lesser role since the other side simply does not have much of it?
By: - 30th November 2010 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What did the F-4 have over the F-104 that made it a better ac. After all they both had the J-79 engine(s). One had a gun, stubby thin wings and a T tail, while the other had no gun, bent wings and a tail that looked like it was falling off. Other than the second seat and maybe some updated electronics, why was one a much better plane then the other.dave
The F-104G was the better "nuclear" fighter bomber.
As fighter the F-104A probably was a comparable day fighter if the pilot was well skilled. The F-4B/C ruled through avionics and twin seat cockpit, but lost due to its size.
A fictional "F-104E" with latest J79 engines and not optimized for air2ground could have been a strong contender for any F-4 version.
By: - 30th November 2010 at 15:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-104G was the better "nuclear" fighter bomber.
As fighter the F-104A probably was a comparable day fighter if the pilot was well skilled. The F-4B/C ruled through avionics and twin seat cockpit, but lost due to its size.A fictional "F-104E" with latest J79 engines and not optimized for air2ground could have been a strong contender for any F-4 version.
Like the F-104S? ;)
By: - 30th December 2010 at 13:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
dave
Reminder: Down the decades, the JASDF F-X choices were F-86 > F-104 > F-4 > F-15 > ?
By: - 30th December 2010 at 15:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wich one was the better dogfighter? I assume it must have been the Phantom.. (I'm only considering gun equiped F-4Es etc here).
By: - 30th December 2010 at 16:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wich one was the better dogfighter? I assume it must have been the Phantom.. (I'm only considering gun equiped F-4Es etc here).
At low to medium heights and subsonic speeds the slatted F-4s had the edge. In real combat the use of the Vulcan was the exception, when the AAMs were the rule.
By: - 30th December 2010 at 16:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the F-104 pilot remember to stay above 40000 and Mach 1 he can eat any F-4 for lunch.
By: - 30th December 2010 at 16:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What did the F-4 have over the F-104 that made it a better ac. After all they both had the J-79 engine(s). One had a gun, stubby thin wings and a T tail, while the other had no gun, bent wings and a tail that looked like it was falling off. Other than the second seat and maybe some updated electronics, why was one a much better plane then the other.dave
F-4 early models were a bit of a handful to fly.
F-104 too, but at higher speed it is a delight.
F-104 pilot just have to remember to stay above M1 and 40000 ft and don't get into a low speed low altitude turn fight. stay vertical and drill F-4's brains out.
By: - 30th December 2010 at 18:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-4 early models were a bit of a handful to fly.
F-104 too, but at higher speed it is a delight.F-104 pilot just have to remember to stay above M1 and 40000 ft and don't get into a low speed low altitude turn fight. stay vertical and drill F-4's brains out.
Correct. But the ones doing the A2G will decide where the related A2A will take place really. ;)
By: - 30th December 2010 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What did the F-4 have over the F-104 that made it a better ac. After all they both had the J-79 engine(s). One had a gun, stubby thin wings and a T tail, while the other had no gun, bent wings and a tail that looked like it was falling off. Other than the second seat and maybe some updated electronics, why was one a much better plane then the other.dave
F-4 vs F-104S (only BVR-capable version of the Starfighter)
F-104S: 1 x J79; maximum 2 AIM-7 Sparrow (later Aspide 1A, an Italian development of the AIM-7E) & 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder (normally 2/2 or 1/1).
F-4: 2 x J79; 4 AIM-7 Sparrow & 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder (with external fuel tanks and/or other weapons if desired)
The F-4 can carry more A-A missiles than the F-104S, at a much greater range, and with additional weapons.
By: - 30th December 2010 at 19:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am finding it difficult to find pictures of a full weapons load out on a F-104, loads of ones with a full compliment of full tanks, but not a weapons load out, can anyone post any? Full A-A load out or perhaps any early US ones that may of had rockets?
Thanks in advance
By: - 30th December 2010 at 20:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wich one was the better dogfighter? I assume it must have been the Phantom.. (I'm only considering gun equiped F-4Es etc here).
Probably the F-4, but the F-104 could escape and didn't need to take the fight if conditions were not favorable. Well flown F-104 using good tactics can beat most other aircraft.
In a classic dogfight, the second crew member in the Phantom can be invaluable. But the F-104 has the advantage of smaller size.
By: - 30th December 2010 at 20:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the F-104 pilot remember to stay above 40000 and Mach 1 he can eat any F-4 for lunch.
Can you explain what you mean?
By: - 30th December 2010 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Correct. But the ones doing the A2G will decide where the related A2A will take place really. ;)
I think we forgot the lessons of Vietnam/Korea/WWII too soon.
speed kills. if some guy comes from way above coming at your ordance truck like a missile you would toss your bomb and run wouldn;t you?
If you are lucky you might escape this pass but your mission is shot.
at this point after you caught your breath you can either run away, or try to climb out of the thick air and turn and fight , he is coming at your on the second pass.
sooner or later this will be turn bad for you.
if he is smart he will not fight a horizontal fight and never let his speed dip below M0.9
Posts: 40
By: davek128 - 27th November 2010 at 04:18
What did the F-4 have over the F-104 that made it a better ac. After all they both had the J-79 engine(s). One had a gun, stubby thin wings and a T tail, while the other had no gun, bent wings and a tail that looked like it was falling off. Other than the second seat and maybe some updated electronics, why was one a much better plane then the other.
dave